The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-3511 Gi T .r O F E N C I N I T A 3 UOK WNGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 920E4 ?� r-ERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AS ORKS °AF:CE_ NO. . z5a- ZEE-1i00 JOB SITE FIDDREBS: 3 ?6 14EFTUIIE AVE. r;FFLICr:J•iT NAF:E AUERBACH %ARTHUR is KRISTAN L.) N• OILING ,LiiRcSS: LE o-5 kIARANTH ST. =AN L4EGO STATE: CA SIP: COWTRrtCTOR : EOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. LICENSE NO.: ccai.•F:c FERMIT NO.: 3631PE FLAN NO.: 3511 -G PHONE riO.: 61y- 753 -009c ?c1c9- PHONE NO.: 310- E31 -029S LICENSE T't FE: A I!•J-f.: -- UMFANi iJAi•1�. LON001 -J COS. FOLIC • -c *Yciv POLICY EXP. DATE: 10/01/55 ,D45V cam: CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PH AE 1J0: 617,-=44-"1E4 PEF.i117 -= Dt;TE: Ic.v5: i r ur,Tt: cc, 85 FERNIT ISSUED Bti: Il•!b E TOr: : UDu BAUrIBACH =E'RMIT FEES & DEPOSITS _. r— .i•i1T TEE CVV.VV .._. .I9Of LC f :: 1._t'u.71�. al.'V.UV *Security Deposit is Damage Deposit assigned to Permit 3511TE. ------ ------------- - - - - -- DESCFIFTION OF WORK --- ---- --- - -- -- Luii� ?= •',!CTI::;d OF SHOTCRETE" SEkWALL 7.L.".r+ .. =ER I i.:r - ,;Fr;L•1NG NOTES hIAIf•JTEtdi�iJCE REf IC : ~+L:'HGLL" CIT'i HAR FROT =L:T TO ASSES511ENTS !NCLUDED. LE AT-ILCH�L. _- �LAtNS REi:U1RE5. F IS NOTICE Section 421 14217 of the Go.ernn,en1 Code requires a DiWkert Idennficatlon Number oe i5suio before a'Permit to Excavate' vMl be vaad_ For yo r DrgAlen I.D. Numner CaM Dnd,,,W ,,d Service Alert TOLL FREE 1 -800- 422 -4133 Two I'd4 p days before you dig a BASE OF COASTAL BLUFF ON FUSLIC ATTACHED. COVEENNA�NpTl SS l IEF.E. E. ' ENCROACHMENT N CROACCHME' N T r 6aTi+TEk JAL Ii Ap PRA pANGE mpfYjpE@F,[ rj. TE -------- BY41"aLLING ' S EiuNATUF.E (619) 633- z-�9 � r. 4'-�V LEAF#OttR�- IN r. = LLL; E;,mHINE - THE COPIFLETED PERNIT AND DO HEREb'r LEn IFY L—MiER FERJUR -. THAT rLL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. I under d and accept that the Damage Deposit is a warranty deposit that will be ke fo a period not to exceed four years from September 1 of the year fol in com�ion. �IGi•iATUR� , 6o6 -r<e rr'y i-RIN i ,r�r!E 1- 2 -!3 -9y DATE SIGNED TELEr ONE 14UI-IBER DFC 141 "��l I,� 1 T .= O F E N C I N I T A S E!•iGINEERING SERVICES. DEPARTPIE14T 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA :?F-' 024 rEMFORAr'v ENCROACHMEINT PERMIT FERMIT NO.: 3511TE Sam==''= �'=___________________________________________ __ ________ ____- •_- _--- --- -__ PARCEL NG. : c50- 352 -0300 =256- 282 - 10,11,14 PLAN Nom: 3511 -6 J06 SITE r.GD•RESa: 31c -402 NEPTUNE AVE. APFLIUAHT i•iAHE nUERBACH /FRICKIIANiPIERCE /EVLETH !IAI�Ili :,L::F.ESS: 12'/95 AJlARANTH ST. PHONE NO.. 61?- 484 -021c "IT:. 3r;N DIEGO STATE: CA GIP: 9EiE9- CONiRr iCir. SLIL EN51NEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.: 310 - 831 -0298 LICENSE NO.: ccBJSc LICENSE TYPE. A INSURrJdt:E Or1FA14 r Hr&IE: LOND014 COS. POL1C'; NO. :5-r clv POLIC'r EAF. DATE: 10/01/95 EMG1,dF : CIVIL ENtGINEERING C014SULTANTS PHOI E NO • 617- 94Y -4iE4 FEF' _ -::UE Di;TE: :c;vcr =4 = -: -5 PERMIT ISSUED 6r: 1Mµ' . :-;E -- _ T L: L'L :7HL'! -!Sri L!"! ' ----------- --------- - - - - -- Ei:0 -II7 FEES d DEPOSITS ---------------------- -- - - -- , Inspector shall charge time to 3764TE. .00 Damage Deposit assigned to 3764TE now .00 assigned to 3511TE. - _- .00 (Inspection: $700.00. Damage: $5,000) --- --- ------------ - - - - -- :EECRIFTION OF WORE. ------- --- --------------- - - - - -- -U6LIC BEACH. DOEUMEI S ,'MELUeEt. -_. :.Frd•iT ;,� BEriC,H _._:!TRACTOR LIABILITY LETTER,WORK SCHEDULE.6EACH 41.., ;d _ 5 r. -ici PLFiNa STANDARD L SPECIAL�.CT1ONpDI�TIONS. LEETTER Dr-.T.� -._; =•* F.E: NIIc v"i0 ATTACHED. Fif�i��iYi�r�:J'I'�f�I��AiVi WORK- ARRANGE FOR INSPECTION ----------- - -- - -- DATE -- - - - - -- IiEff"GAILEINGIGNATURE -- 12 -19 - 9 y -IS -9. ----------------- ---- -- ---- Co T IS AT LEAST i8 HOURS 73au4vLGak— ci;r +riildci. 7 H __ uMFLE TED -- PERI•IIT- AWD-D0 H&;r •.: LL THE :IJFORI lATIOW IS TRUE. I u er tand and accept that the Damage Deposit is a warranty deposit that will be opt for a period not to exceed four years from September 1 of the year f 1low'nq cozoletion. TUF.E DATE SIGNED �1� I e Tr, .V \�J�ti� 41 f y_C.Z /2 TELEPHONE NUMBER i T '{ O F E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTME14T 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 42024 PEF.NA14ENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 388 7PE PARCEL NO. . abo -3,52 -0300 PLAPI NO.. 3511 -G SOB -SITE ADDRESS. 312 NEPTUNE AVE. r;FFLICANT NAHE EVLETH :CHARLES D. & ANN L.) HAILING ADDRESS: 12 ?85 AMARANTH ST. PHONE NO.: 614- 484-0212 SIT'.: 3AN DiEvO - STATE: CA ZIP: 9212S- CONTRroCTOR . SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.: 310- 831 -0248 LICENSE NO.. caStDbE LICENSE T'i FE_: A INSUFAHC:E COHPAN t' Nk IE: LONDON COS. NO. i;54�cly POLICY EXP. DATE: 10i01i95 EN61NEEF. CIVIL EiJG11iEEr -1HG CONSULTANTS PH NE t! .: bl - 444 —ti!cY FERNIT ISSUE DATE: FER! ^1T _hF. D*4TE: 5: ca: ?5 PERMIT ISSUED BY: 1NSFEi.7O"c TODD r U! IBACH ------------------ - - - - - -- = -nMIi FEES �. DEPOSITS ---------------------- - - - - -- . I . _:.H. -T =E_ 2vG.OG c. :;v�FEi::T1OP1 i:l- °�ItIT: 800.00 ;�•CIJ ^.i 7 *Security Deposit is Damage Deposit assigned to Permit 3511TE. ---------- --------- - - - - -- EiE_zCRIFTION OF WO °' ------------------------------- CONEJS :UCTIDW Or "SHOTCRETE" SEAWALL y BASE DF COASTAL BLUFF 01.4 PUBLIC 6EACH FMS- NuF ? -- Ti. uFADING NOTES ATTACHED. -.' -HOLD C�l FL (�j (Ic TC� kit l7`C,Ap#E�Vr r��Opy- (`IA1riTENd JJCE a RENUT ,L: CITY HARMLESS FIR L I t Ufif� - �Cj7e.c? -0 :�BcEEc:, '_:.7 a INCLUDED. LETTER DA ED OSAR�� FOR 1'hIJf&i I U N r�r, REOUIF.ED. FINAL INS ECTION APPROpMD. LL..LLIIU IMPORTANT NOTICE - -- - _._ -- E,ATE -- ----- INS 633IC Secio 4215/42/7 of the Governm Carl regl.0 12.19 -4U AT \ LEAST HOURS T•8 Ii lI edbifolerlWenhrintoENumber be ,wed before a 'Parton to Ez avara _ - wtl� v it U For ro r DyAlen I.O. Number Call Undergrourw Servroa Abn I N ADVANCE' 4' TOLL FREE 1- 800-422 -4133 -: ), - --- -- T..o worwnq darn before you 69 FritiE --r~nEFULLt EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER FEN ILT: OF PERJUR- rHt,T ;1LL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. I and and and accept that the Damage Deposit is a warranty deposit that will be pt or a pe iod not to exceed four years from September 1 of the year fo owi c etion. SIbNrrTURE LATE SIGNEE o J3 -rke rr /N r y) lfr 0.2 1 FRINT NkIE TELEF ONE NUMBER CIF.CLE OHE. I. OWNER r t,—JT 3. OTHER TTV I` V I CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING PERMIT APPLICATION JOB SITE ADDRESS 354 Neptune Ave. STREET ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Canter, Stanley NAMEC /O Bob Trettin, Principal The Trettin Co. MAnINGADDREssl2785 Amaranth St. San Diego., CA 92129 CITY, STATE. ZIP (619) 484 -0212 TELEPHONE NO. CIVIL ENGINEER INFORMATION Civil Engineering Consultants N619 Vulcan Ave. South, Suite 206 ADDRESS• Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) ,944 -4124 CrrY, STATE. ZIP TELEPHONE NO. RCE C22096 Charles John Randle REGISTRATION NO. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 256- 282 -17 3828 PE Plan No. 3511 -G CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Soil Engineering Construction Inc. NAME 1881 Gaffey St. North, Suite A ADDRESS San Pedro, CA 90731 (310) 831 -0298 269082 A TEIENO. STATE LICENSE NO. & TYPE SOILS ENGINEER INFORMATION Civil Engineering Consultants NAME 619 Vulcan Ave. South, Suite 206 ADDRESS Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 944 -4124 CrTY, STATE, Z(P TELEPHONE NO. RCE 022096 Charles John Randle REGISTRATION NO DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE Construction of "shotcrete" seawall at base of coastal bluff on public each per - Grading Notes attacneG. covenant re: Deac:ii encroachment /Covenant re: maintenance district /Covenant re: hold harmless attac e As-built plans requirecL. Warranty retention or damage deposit required. (' SIGNATURE PRL:JT NAME O - - - - - -- V FINANCE NO: APPLICATION NO: 3 8 28PE DATE SIGNED TELEPHONE NO. PROCESSED BY: JSG fO TYPE OF APPLICATION DEPOSITS AND FEES ❑ CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION FEE: 200.00 TRANSFERRED ❑ TEMPORARY. ENCROACHMENTCNSPECTIONTT=X== DEPOSIT: 146.05 TRANSFERRED ® PERMANENT ENCROACHMENMkDDITIONAL INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 653.95 OWED ❑ SEWER CONSTRUCTION SECURITY DEPOSIT: See Permit No.3764TE ❑ GRADING ❑ IMPROVEMENT FINAL MAP n^❑ .'�c ❑ PARCEL MAP 9 n ❑ STREET VACATION RETURN EXCESS DEPOSITS TO: a OWNER 354 Neptune Ave ❑ CONTRACTOR Encinitas, CA 92024 ❑ ENGINEER ❑ OTHER COMMENTS Additional deposit for inspection required to bring balance to $800.00. Covenants need to be properly executed. Inspector needs separate set of r' ters. DEC 141994 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT.0 PUBLIC WORKS I T{ O F E IJ C I N I T A S EI'IUINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FERI•IIT NO.: 38E2?PE RAF.CEL NO. : E5a- ESE -iY00 PLAN NO.. 3511 -6 JOE SITE ADC'RESS: 370 NEPTUNE AVE. APFLIC,,NT NAHE FIERCE kFOBERT T.i 1.4;I1_I116 ADDRES E: 1c i F5 ril•44RANTH ST. PHONE NO.: al's -404 -0212 CITi: oAN DIEGO STATE: CA ZIP: 92129 - CONTRAL;TOR . SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.. 310- ESI-v296 LICENSE NO.: cbSJBE: LICENSE TYPE: A INSURr +NCE COMFAIJ r Idr t`IE: LONDON COS. ruL: r rlO. �Y4aly POLICY EXP. DATE: 10i0ll�S Elr EEF CIVIL ENGINEERING C014SULTANTS FHGJE Nil: a19- 944 -Y1c4 FERI'I ?I ISSUE !=;O=:'Y FEnr,IT c.-,F. DATE .., Ea. -_ FERMIT ISSUED B'r: II'Jar� - -Oh: �OL•D bAUI'15�CH =E. HIT FEE *Security Deposit is Damage =ERHIT FEES & DEFOSITS CVV.VV �GG.00 Deposit assigned to Permit 3511TE. ,,-Ea 'i:F1FTION OF WORK ------------------------- - - ---- Ciiid=T -.Lj - "0iv OF "SHOTCn— SEAWALL m SE.:CH F. MUF =_ -G' J. GFADING NOTES A AAINTErir,HCE - RENO:'AL /HOLD CIT'r' HARML, F,r.OTEZT ASSESSNENTS INCLUDED. LETT F11MAPOFMANT RTANT N OTICEM °f llunrbN iIJI 7 i k" 4 vem:i ro F +u' r Y, �: . wa� �-4t 33 F 11'tr�l. EE 1-800 -4 14 *q data hdore Ya db _.. BASE OF COASTAL BLUFF ON PUBLIC THE " uF LFl lJJ1i L S1 UN, ANY W1aO k- NSr�IR? ETQ ��JP 9Y CAGING -------- (6Y%F6 31__" 51 TUFF -9u AT IFAST��HOIRSRS _ 4 IN ADVANCE T I Hr; "E - :,FEFUL E. HINE'. THE C01- IFLETED PERMIT AND 00 HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER FEN• iLi ; OF PcRJLiRr THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. I understand and accept that the Damage Deposit is a warranty deposit that will be k or f a period not to exceed four years from September 1 of the year fol owi g com p1 tion. SJGIJAT!-.E DATE SIGNED e Tr - -n FAINT rJ ,::_ TELEPHO JE I( DUMBER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT O I S. VULCAN AVE.. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 JAN 1 319-3 PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT S J PERMIT NO.; 383OPE PARCEL NO. .56- .8::-1300 JOB .3�t TE ADDRESS: 378 NEPTUNE AVE. ApprICANT NAME ROSE iikISTA K.) FLAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 231233 CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP CONTRACTOR . LICENSE NO.: INSURANCE CO POLICY Nip. ENGINEER PERMIT ISSuE SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. lo8i�82 !MANY NAME: LONDON COS. ::844610 Cli7IL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS DATE: l/112/95 PLAN NO.: 3511-0 PHONE NO.: 619- 942-5436 92023- PHONE NO.: 310%031 -0298 LICENSE TYPE: A POLICY EXP. DATE: 10/01/95 PERMIT E3P. DATE: 8/::6/95 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR: TQDD BAUF[B:;Cci 1. PER." II T FEE i. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: KlT' DEPOSIT* *Security Deposit is Damage PHO NO. 615 - 944 -4124 : a PERMIT PEES h DEPOSITS --- r --- --- ------------ -- - - -- , 0.00 U .UU 0i. ss�4 ssigpfd to Permit 3511TE. rN WORT= -------------- ----- -- -- -- - - - - -- CvNSTPT 'TTOti OF "iHOTi — SE - L @ BASE OF COASTAL BLUFF ON PUBLIC BE.7—:H PER 11UP 9a-0'v. DIN -' OTES ATTACHED. COVENANTS RE: ENCROACHMENT MAINTENW -NCE 4c RRAFI.-v, 'ITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE /WAIVER. OF PROTEST TO ASS - -Si 2. T ELUDED. LETTER DATED 09 -20-94 RE: MUP 93-070 ATTACHE aS -EL"LT P 15 REQUIRED. FINAL INSPECTION APPROVALS REQUIRED. - - -- IN°.I,ECTION ------ --- - -- - --- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION I HAVE Fu-L-` EHaMlr7ED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO i-LEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENA-1,1i OF PERJURY. THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. I understand and accept that the Damage Deposit is a warranty deposit that will be kept for a period not to exceed four years from September 1 of the year following completion. SIc;t7ATu`:cE. DATE SIGNED PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE :JNE: 1.(OWNERJ ,.. AGENT 3. OTHER I T O F E N C I I.1 I T A S ENGII.IEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 FEF.NANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PARCEL 1.10. -�'C- C7C -IUVV JOB .-ITE rirjDF•ES_�: "OE NEPTUNE AVE. AFFLICeit -iT NAME FRICKi WN tROBERT or SHARON) MAILING "DDRESS: 1s ?55 ;&IAF.ANTH ST. CIT';; Smi -, D--E,---O STATE: CA FERHIT NO.. 30 =EFE PLA14 NO.. 3511 -6 PHONE NO.: 619 -436 -3834 ZIP: 9c1E9- C0?'x'1:1+- 1'.IOF SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. LICENSE NO.: cccOEE IIJSL'ii:rd;.E ::Ol•IPiIF: NAHE: LONDON COS. FVLI ?'j'_. Lam'. •'C1L' ENGINEER 7-IViL EN61NEERING CONSULTANTS F;EFH. ISSUc ur, I E; ic: V517 24 PHO14E NO.. 310 - 831 -0298 LICENSE T'I PE: A POLIC'r EXF. DATE. i0701i =5 PERMIT ISSUED 6'i: PHY IJO. 6141 "44 -412• •u - - - - - -- ---- ------- - - - - -- zERHIT FEES & DEFOSITS -------------------- - 200.00 _ c 900.00 r. "U *Security Deposit is Damage Deposit ssigned to Permit 3511TE. --- ---------------- - - - - -- LESCRIFTIOJ OF WOFF: ----------- - - - - -- SEAW:4LL :U'r NOTES CITY HAR LE E L'. rt —aUiL rLnl :J kEOUIRED. F IMPORTANT NOTICE Section 4216/4217 of the Government Code requires a DlgAlen Identif canon Number be issued before a 'Permit to Excavate' wig oe valid_ For your DigAlerf I.D. Number G" Underground Servwe Alen TOLL FREE 1 -800- 422 -4133 Two wor" days betore you dig y 9,DR14s 10,STARUN,GFANY WQRK- PEN T LESS run 6 Jr r j� .,i.cpk, TER DATED 0� UP =3-070 NAL INSFEnnC71MUlgtF633Vr gg=� UIRED. lt ITE --- -t -L-EAUrb5rH(JR3i1dAT'JRE ,Z_ 141 -4� IN ADVANCE r. Qu,� H -J ej -4(o T-• 6 a 4A to E:ir:i•iII:__ THE CONFLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY (;ERTIF'y UNDER L T JUF r F r ,LL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. I unde Land and accept that the Damage Deposit is a warranty deposit that will be k t for a period not to exceed four years from September 1 of the year fol owi gnco ion. e-V- aIv?•Ii+TJFE _RL)(; -re TT f N _� Ld i r+iri•IE r;k- 13 -C?s- DATE SIS14ED TELEPHONE NUMBER C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 ' alp: �l��Y ' � • !�la� v PERMIT NO.: 3833PE PARCEL NO. : 256 -282 -1200 PLAN NO.: 3511-6 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 386 NEPTUNE AVE. APPLICANT NAME HAN (ANDREW) MAILING ADDRESS: 12785 AMRANTH ST. PHONE NO.: 619- 484 -0212 CITY: SAN DIEGO STATE: CA ZIP: 92129 - CONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC.. PHONE NO.: 714 - 751 -9561 LICENSE NO.: 268082 LICENSE TYPE: A INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: LONDON COS. POLICY NO. : CB44610 POLICY EXP. DATE: 10 /01/95 ENGINEER : CIVIL ENGINEERING CCNSULTANTS PHQW NO.: 619- 944-4124 PER*iIT ISSUE DATE: 4/07/95 PERMIT EXP. DATE: PERMIT ISSUED INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH (�(J BY: PERMIT ftES & DEPOSITS 1. PERMIT FEE 200.00. 'w 54HE 4S 3;1/ 7_6 2. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 800.00 3, SECURITY DEPOSITS : .00 ----------------- -- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------- ---------- - - - - -- CONSTRUCTION OF "SHOTC.RETE" SEAWALL @ BASE OF COASTAL BLUFF ON PUBLIC BEACH PER MUP 93 -070. GRADING NOTES ATTACHED. COVENANTS RE: ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE & REMOVAL /HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BUFF FAILURE/WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS INCLUDED. LETTER -DAT 03 -30 -95 RE: MUP 93 -070 ATTACHED. AS -BUILT PLANS REQUIRED. FINAL IN PECTION APPROVALS REQUIRED. - - -- INSPECTION ----------------- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION 12 -19-9y % jacz FINAL INSPECTION 4 _/ a -4b T13 Q.0 u•--b a li- I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMIP:ED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. PRfeT NAME 7L DATE SIGNED TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. cOTHER i _ a ,f Te- 4cl %d k) r 1 C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTFIEIJT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA ?2024 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 3511TE -- --------------- ------ - - - - - - - - --- ----------------- - ------------- - --------- - - - - -- 7J4 t s-Z -i"-,W) (010DO "-� - 256- 2B2 -13 (added 01 -12 -95 PARCEL NO. 256 -35-2- 0300:256- 282- 10,11,14 PLAN NO.: 3511 -G JOB SITE ADDRESS: 312 -402 NEPTUNE AVE. APPLICANT NAME AUERBACH /FRICKMAN/PIERCE /EVLETH /ROSE i MAILIN-3 ADDRESS: 1E7S5 AMARANTH ST. PHO14E NO.: 61�- 454-0212 CITY; SAN DIEGO STATE: CA -ZIP: 92IE9- 7 CONTRACTOR i LICENSE NO.; INSURANCE CI POLICY NO. ENGINEER SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. 269C-E2 IMPANY NAME: LONDON COS. C544610 CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PHONE NO.: ?bi 69- 62;6 LICENSE TYPE: A POLICY EXP. DATE: 10/01/95 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 12 /OB/94 =ERMIT EXP. DATE: �RMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH 1. PPERMIT FEE �. I!\'SPECTION DEPOSIT: 3. SECURITY DEPOSIT PH IE NO: 619 944 -41F-4 PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- Inspector shall charge time to 3764TE. .00 Damage Deposit assigned to 3764TE now .00 assigned to 3511TE. .00 (Inspection: $700.00. Damage: $5,000) DEECRIPTIOW OF WORT; ------------------------- - -- - -- ACCESS TO J05517E ACROSS PUBLIC BEACH. DOCUMENTS INCLUDED: COVENANT RE; GRANT OF BEACH ACCESS /CONTRACT OR LIABILITY LETTER /WORK SCHEDULEiBEACH ACCESS, EGUIPNENT & BARRIER PLANSiSTANDARD :. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. LETTER DATED C!9 -20 -94 RE: ML'P 93 -070 ATTACHED. FINAL INSPECTION APPROVALS . REQUIRED. - --- 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. I r tand and accept that the Damage Deposit is a warranty deposit that will be ept for period not to exceed four years from September 1 of the year f low n4 coa6letion. =%2N14 1 umt` Ia 'RerviK k-u-M v� RosF PRI14T 14AME -. :ENT 3. 12-13-P9, 1- va DATE SIGNED (6:q) y8Y -oz/2- TELEPHONE N"J! -!-=ER _ r 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.: 3511TE ------------ - - - - -- - - -- '-- --- - - - - -- ---------- -- - - - - -- ?�j(s�ZBry-Ib (AV0E0 256 - 282 -13 (added 01 -12 -95 PARCEL NO. : 256- 352 - 0300 ;256 - 282 -10, 1,14 FLAN NO.: 3511 -6 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 312 -402 NEPTUNE AVE. APPLICANT NAME AL 'ERBACH /FRICKMAN/PIERCEfEVLETH /ROSE HArj MAILING ADDRESS: 12785 AMARANTH ST. PHONE NO.: 619 -484 -0212 CITY: SAN DIEGO STATE: CA ZIP: 92129- OVA) 151- q;;&l CONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. PHONE NO.: 21 21 LICENSE NO.: 268082 LICENSE TYPE: A INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: LONDON COS. POLICY NO. CB44610 POLICY EXP. DATE: 10/01/95 ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS F �E NO 619 ^44 -41E4 PERMIT ISSUE LATE. 12/08/94 PERMIT EXP. DATE: _ -.._C l!}'�RMIT IS D BY: INSFECTOR: TODD SAUMBACH I, 1. PERMIT -EE 2. INEFECTiOiv DEFCSI': PERMIT FEES & DEFOSTTS ---------------------------- Inspector shall charge time to 3764TE. .00 Damage Deposit assigned to 3764TE now .00 assigned to 3511TE. .00 (Inspection: $700.00. Damage: $5,000) DESCRIFTION OF WORK ------------------------- - - - - -- A=CEEE TO JOBSITE PCRO -ES PUBLIC BEACH. DOCUMENTS INCLUDED: COVE ?JANT RE: GRANT OF BEACH ACCESS;CCNTRACTOR LIABILITY LETTER /WORK SCHEDULE /BEACH !iCLCD :, EQUIPMENT & BAFRiER PLANS ;STANDARD & SPECIAL CONDITIONS. LETTER DATED 09 -20 -94 RE: MUP 93 -070 ATTACHED. FINAL INSPECTION APPROVALS REt7.UIREE. - - -- INSPECT.ION -- -------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - --- INI :AL INSFECTI0H FINAL IN SFECTION I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COI• ?PLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE 114FORMATION IS TRUE. I u r tand and accept that the Damage Deposit is a warranty deposit that will be/'keptjfor a period not to exceed four years from September 1 of the year TURE 6a R ,(Cffim kt0.ts�a vim: Roses PRINT NAME u� ,FNT J DATE SIGNED C6(q) yey -oz/Z TELEPHONE iJUMEER City of Encinitas March 30, 1995 rew Han c o o rettin, Principal The Trettin Co. 12785 Amaranth St. San Diego, CA 92129 Re: Major Use Permit 93 -070 {Addition} Beach Encroachment Permit 3511TE (Addition) Permanent Encroachment Application 3833PE A.P.N. 256- 282 -12 Engineering permit issuance requirements Mr. Trettin: The Engineering Services Department has been processing your client's engineering permit application to construct a "shotcrete" seawall at the base of the coastal bluff. The following items remain to be completed, all in accordance with the conditions of the major use permit: 1. Properly execute and return the following covenants for recording and pay applicable recording fees: a. Covenant Re: Grant of Beach Access Encroachment Permit... b. Encroachment Maintenance & Removal Covenant C. Covenant Re: Hold City Harmless for Bluff Failure d. Covenant Re: Waiver of Protest to Assessments 2. Re -sign and date the Standard and Special Conditions for Beach Encroachment Permit 3511TE. This item may be completed at permit issuance. 3. Provide (4) copies of the "Shotcrete Seawall" plan, as approved per M.U.P. 93 -070. 4. Contact Diane Langager, Assistant Planner, and obtain approval that all the Community Development Department's conditions have been satisified. One condition is execution and recordation, including payment of fees, of the Covenant Re: Major Use Permit. 5. Pay an application fee of $200.00 6. Pay an inspection deposit of $800.00. TEL 619- 633 -2600 / FAX 619- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 619- 633 -2700 ;�M recycled paper M.U.P. 93 -070 Engineering Permit Issuance Requirements - Page 2/3 7. Provide a copy of the validated California Coastal Commission permit. 8. Provide an updated Certificate of 'Insurance for the construction contractor, Soil Engineering Construction, complying with the minimum requirements as detailed in the accompanying handout. The certificate currenty filed with the Department does not include 386 Neptune Avenue. 9. Have the contractor provide a revised contractor liability letter, per Beach Encroachment Permit Policy CS -P008, that includes 386 Neptune Avenue in its scope. See the attached example. 10. Submit a letter from the property owner authorizing you to sign permits on his behalf. 11. Submit a letter from the property owner authorizing entry of the Engineering Inspector on to his property at any time to inspect the work. 14. Agree in writing that the damage deposit of $5,000.00 currenty assigned to Beach Encroachment Application 3764TE and various permits associated with M.U.P. 93 -051 is now assigned to all permanent encroachment permits to be issued for M.U.P. 93 -070. The damage deposit is a warranty deposit that will be kept for a period not to exceed four years from September 1 of the year following completion of the work. This item may be completed at permit issuance. Once these items have been completed, you or the property owner, must sign for the engineering permits and attachments. All engineering permits must be obtained 48 hours in advance of the pre - construction conference, if applicable, or start of construction, whichever is required. The scheduling of the work shall be subject to the approval of the assigned Engineering Inspector. Persons who should attend the pre- construction meeting are called out within Paragraph 9 of the Grading Plan General Notes for MUP 93 -070. Diane Langager, Assistant Planner, and Tom Buckner, Lifeguard Supervisor, shall also be notified to attend. A cost recovery system has been implemented to recover costs incurred as a result of the project. Additional deposits may be required periodically as the project progresses. M.U.P. 93 -070 Engineering Permit Issuance Requirements - Page 3/3 As -built plans of the project prepared by the Engineer of Work and approved by the City, will be required prior to final inspection. Approval from the Community Development Department, Community Services Department and, possibly, Fire Prevention Bureau will also be required prior to final inspection. Final inspection must be completed by August 26, 1995. All documents to which reference has been made in this letter are available for review and pick -up at the Engineering Counter. This letter is written for your information only and in no way changes any property owners obligation under the major use permit. Should you have any questions please contact me at (619) 633 -2780 or, in person, at the engineering counter inside the Civic Center. Sincerely, 6vt_� Jeffrey S. Garami Engineering Technician cc Diane Langager, Assistant Planner Todd Baumbach, Engineering Inspector City of Encinitas September 20, 1994 Bob Trettin, Principal The Trettin Co. 12785 Amaranth St. San Diego, CA 92129 Re: Major Use Permit 93 -070 Beach Encroachment Application 3764TE #2 Permanent Encroachment Applications 3827PE, 3729PE- 3832PE A.P.N. 256- 282- (10,11,13,14), 256 - 352 -03 Engineering permit issuance requirements Mr. Trettin: The Engineering Services Department has been processing your clients' engineering permit applications to construct a "shotcrete" seawall at the base of the coastal bluff. The following items remain to be completed, all in accordance with the conditions of the major use permit: 1. Properly execute and return the following covenants for recording and pay applicable recording fees: a. Covenant Re: Grant of Beach Access Encroachment Permit... b. Encroachment Maintenance & Removal Covenant C. Covenant Re: Hold City Harmless for Bluff Failure d. Covenant Re: Waiver of Protest to Assessments 2 3 The Department will need a copy of the latest grant deed to each parcel in order to write these covenants. A site plan for each parcel, also to be used as a barrier plan, showing signage, delineation, pedestrian control and origin of access, shall be provided. It will be recorded as Exhibit "B" in the first named covenant and, therefore, needs to be no larger than 11 "X17". An example is enclosed for your reference. Read, sign and date the Standard and Special Conditions for Beach Encroachment Permit 3764TE. This item may be completed at permit issuance. Provide (4) copies of the "Shotcrete Seawall" plan, as approved per M.U.P. 93 -070. 4. Contact Diane Langager, Assistant Planner, and obtain approval that all the Community Development Department's conditions have been satisified. TEL 619 -633 -2600 / FAX 619- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue. Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 619- 633 -2700 .9 recycled paper M.U.P. 93 -070 Engineering Permit Issuance Requirements - Page 2/3 5. Pay an additional deposit of $700.00 for the Beach Encroachment Application. 6. Pay inspection deposits of $653.96 for Permanent Encroachment Application 3831PE ( "Auerbach "), $653.95 each for Permanent Encroachment Applications 3832PE ( "Frickman "), 3830PE ( "Rose "), 3829PE ( "Pierce "), and 3827PE ( "Evleth "). e. Provide a copy of the validated California Coastal Commission permit. 9. Provide an updated Certificate of Insurance for the construction contractor, Soil Engineering Construction, complying with the minimum requirements as detailed in the accompanying handout. 10. Have the contractor provide a revised contractor liability letter, per Beach Encroachment Permit Policy CS -P008, limiting the scope only to those properties governed by M.U.P. 93 -070. 11. Have the contractor provide a detailed work schedule superimposed upon a tidal calendar. The schedule must include construction methods, equipment to be used and times of the day when operations will occur. Submittal of insufficient information will cause all applications to be delayed. 12. Submit a letter from each property owner authorizing you to sign permits on their behalf. 13. Submit a letter from each property owner authorizing entry of the Engineering Inspector on to their property at any time to inspect the work. 14. Agree in writing that the damage deposit of $5,000.00 currenty assigned to Beach Encroachment Application 3764TE and various permits associated with M.U.P. 93 -051 is now assigned to all permanent encroachment permits to be issued for M.U.P. 93 -070. The damage deposit is a warranty deposit that will be kept for a period not to exceed four years from September 1 of the year following completion of the work. This item may be completed at permit issuance. Once these items have been completed, you or each property owner, must sign for the (6) engineering permits and attachments. All engineering permits must be obtained 48 hours in advance of the pre- construction conference. Persons who should attend the pre- construction meeting are called out within Paragraph 9 of the Grading Plan General Notes for MUP 93 -111. Diane Langager, Assistant Planner, and Tom Buckner, M.U.P. 93 -070 Engineering Permit Issuance Requirements - Page 3/3 Lifeguard Supervisor, shall also be notified to attend. A cost recovery system has been implemented to recover costs incurred as a result of the project. Additional deposits may be required periodically as the project progresses. As -built plans of the project prepared by the Engineer of Work and approved by the City, will be required prior to final inspection. Approval from the Community Development Department, Community Services Department and, possibly, Fire Prevention Bureau will also be required prior to final inspection. Final inspection must be completed by August 26, 1995. All documents to which reference has been made in this letter are available for review and pick -up at the Engineering Counter. This letter is written for your information only and in no way changes any property owner's obligation under the major use permit. Should you have any questions please contact me at (619) 633 -2780 or, in person, at the engineering counter inside the Civi Center. Sincerel , Jeffrey S. Garami Engineering Technician cc Diane Langager, Assistant Planner Civil Engineering Consultants Soil Engineering Construction Property Owners CITY OF ENCINITAS INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer, Engineering Department FROM: biPwF LPtob I (Leis) (o -53-Z7H OaHHL)14Mr LQeVMOPMP-M Department DATE: l��c + IBY + 16PH SUBJECT: Conditions of Approval ZS(o- 28z -ID II 04 �(y-35y�D3 (APN) 312 130 (39io k %1 oz N�P�'uuE PYcauc (Street) i?A C.X" P J/ uEn-6 (Owner) Please be advised that the CoHHuNtiY L VE4-bPtAf-07 ENC�aw>,c� SNIT KSuAueE Department conditions of Approval for ee-'-t''' ef a Fina u _ for Project No. HOP as required by Resolution No. 1� " 93`Z have been satisfied. THIS MEMORANDUM MUST t �Tt Ea6wr="uYG SFRV%Cfs BE PROCESSED BY THE fit, AND RETURNED TO THE PUBLIe WGRKS F�F�lJ` 714�vioF`�Itl� Signature M11808 Charles D. Evleth 312 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 September 18, 1994 City of Encinitas Encinitas, CA 92024 To Whom It May Concern: We hereby grant permission for city engineering inspectors to enter our property for the purpose of inspecting lower sea wall construction. We also authorize Bob Trettin to sign permits, etc. on our behalf. Yours Very Truly, Charles D. Evleth X. a4tteL- Ann L. Evleth September 19, 1994 City of Encinitas Encinitas, California To Whom It May Concern: My name is Reverend Robert T. Pierce. I am the owner of the property located at 370 Neptune in Encinitas, California. I am writing regarding the pending permits needed to construct the sea wall for my home. As it is not possible for me to be available to obtain the necessary permits for this work to begin, I am authorizing Mr. Bob Trettin to handle this matter for me. Sincerely yours, Rev. Robert T. Pierce C.A W. ESPARU COMAI N62160 .'� Notary PWYaCallomia LOS ANGELES C.OLINTV MY cpmm. e><pres MAA 29.1996 0/i 'Q l9, /9 94 pp 8� e mE Al�� -79i ht V. RL�eeT T. �E,�C�� P�Ovd� 7D ME OtJ Ty(E l r OL eSA1SFACTD2c/ �'1/ihE>JCE WME.Ie Ajlq�& Is ugsc,2,tSE?, 70 730 -774t-7 &�2 O) J TD TlrE 1tJS7TXum6�;LrJ- O*Y76- � U September 19, 1994 City of Encinitas Encinitas, California To Whom It May Concern: My name is Reverend Robert T. Pierce. I am the owner of the property at 370 Neptune, in Enicinitas, California. In association with the construction of a sea wall to protect my proerty, I do hereby grant unconditional permission to the City Engineer to enter my property whenever necessary in order to supervise and inspect the construction work needed to complete this project. Sincerely yours, Reverend Robert T. Pierce amyC. A. W. ESPARZA COW 1962180 Notary PublaCaftm i LOS ANGELES COUNTY caewn. exp4ft MAR 29.19% OAJ 19 /q L.7;o� Vc2w2d, 0'J TI-ic i 5 or �S'A �SFAC7b?� G✓� k -M �tFAZSDP-) WHafe a%me kS 6�4asfe -T �QMU�40MM:C September 19, 1994 To Whom It May Concern: This letter will authorize City of Encinitas construction inspectors to enter the exterior of my property for the purpose of monitoringpection of seawall construction. This le er is perm' s re n E Arth Auerbach 39 Neptune cinitas, CA authorizes to Av PnD6 nue 920 . Bob Trettin to sign for all V. -'� FUTUI: XMUC,MTITAS (QUr0�MC)2024 X197n -0092 RO ef7_t F2cc.Lu+.4-A-.� , - ��rVCW riys -S, Cif 23 - Ij. Whoa. Li lM �oNC P.cw_ wl l *r.C't' 616 Z F-tici /(/pis (oNS -624 -4i'oAJ iN5 ec f-s 4,D e.,'( r2 T'�e p erzio2 O'E n, s�te�`roN �`� sea w411 eo N s�2uc;o,u . I `r�; s e�e�z a(so r�� otzrzes rM�2. (3010 ?,2e (l; s.9 A.) I V. - l5oucefl ,"ATE 4F CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gor , CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION® SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 -93 -85 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 -1725 Page 1 of 7 (619) 521 -8036 On November 15. 1994 , the California Coastal Commission granted to Arthur Auerbach. et al this permit for the development described below, subject to the attached Standard and Special Conditions. Description: Construction of a 9 ft. high shotcrete seawall, with tiebacks, on public property fronting six non - contiguous lots containing existing residential structures. Site: Public Property fronting 312, 370, 378, 396 and 402 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. APN 256 - 352 -03, 256- 282 -10, 11, 13, 14 Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director and / IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID( -BLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by all ter nd conditions thereof. 12 -�-4y 8fY L Date Signature of Permi tee u U LS V u � 'tom t� U DEC 07 1994 ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS DING PLAN City of Encinitas A. GENERAL pol3846 GENERAL NOTES FOR PERMIT NO. 93 -070 MUP WORK TO BE DONE All work shall be done in accordance with these plans, the standard specifications for public works construction, the design construction standards of the City of Encinitas and the San Diego area regional standard drawings. Any changes or revisions therefrom shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any request for inspection. 2. The soils report titled "Preliminary Geotechnical Report" on Coastal- Erosion and Bluff Stability prepared for Homeowners within 300 -400 Block of Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California prepared by Earth Systems Design Group dated June 26, 1992,and "Preliminary Evaluation of Coastal Bluff Geology" dated August 4, 1992, prepared by Group Delta Consultants, Inc. shall be considered as a part of this grading plan. All grading shall be done in accordance with the recommendations and specifications contained in said report. 3. Approval of this plan does not constitute approval of sizes, location and type of drainage facilities, nor of improvements within street right -of -ways. Separate approvals and permits for these shall be required in conjunction with improvement plans. 4. Written permission shall be obtained for any off - site grading. 5. Contractor shall take any necessary precautions required to protect adjacent properties during grading operations. Anything damaged or destroyed shall be replaced or repaired to condition existing prior to grading. 6. The developer shall be responsible that any monument or bench mark which is disturbed or destroyed shall be re- established and replaced by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor. 7. The contractor shall design, construct and maintain all safety devices, including shoring, and shall be responsible for conforming to all local, state and federal safety and health standards, laws and regulations. 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas. California 92024 -3633 1 TEL 619 - 633 -2600 FAX 619 - 633 -2627 TDD 619 -633 -2 -00 VU recycled paper 8. Grading and equipment operating within one -half (1/2) mile of a structure for human occupancy shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. nor on Saturdays, Sundays and City recognized holidays unless in conformance with a work schedule approved by the Director of Engineering Services and Superintendent of Parks and Beaches. 9. No grading operations shall commence until a pregrading meeting has been held onsite with the following people present: City Inspector, Civil Engineer, Soils Engineer, Grading Contractor and Permittee. The pregrade meeting shall be scheduled with the City at least 48 hours in advance by calling (619) 633 -2770. 10. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this project the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. 11. Upon final completion of the work under the grading permit but prior to final grading approval and /or final release of security, an as- graded certification shall be provided stating: "The grading under Permit No. 93 -070 MUP has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached as- graded plan ". This statement shall be followed by the date and signature of the Civil Engineer who certifies such grading operation. pol3846 2 B. NOTIFICATIONS 1. The existence and location of underground utility pipes and structures shown on these plans were obtained by a search of available records. To the best of our knowledge there are no existing utilities except as shown on these plans, however: The contractor is required to take due precautionary measures to protect any existing utilities or structures located at the work site. It is the contractor's responsibility to contact the following owners of said utilities or structures prior to any excavation, for verification and location of utilities and notification of commencement of work: a. Sewers - Encinitas Sanitary District b. Gas & Electric - San Diego Gas & Electric Co. C. Water - San Dieguito Water District d. Telephone - Pacific Bell e. Cable TV - Dimension Cable Services, Daniels Cablevision. These companies may be notified by calling 1- 800 -422 -4133. 2. Contractor shall notify the City Engineer's office 48 hours prior to beginning any work on this project. Phone: (619) 633 -2770. 3. The contractor shall give 24 hours notice on calls for inspection. Phone: (619) 633 -2770. All work performed without benefit of inspection will be subject to rejection and removal. C. GRADING 1. All grading shall be observed and tested by a qualified soils engineer or under his /her direction. He /She shall observe and test the excavation placement and compaction of fills and backfills and compaction of trenches. He /She shall submit soils reports as required and will determine pol3846 3 the suitability of any fill material. Upon completion of grading operations he /she shall state that observations and tests were made by him /her or under his /her supervision and that in his /her opinion, all embankments and excavations were constructed in accordance with the approved grading plans and that all embankments and excavations are acceptable for their intended use. 2. The contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. He /she shall control surface water and avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site and shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. 3. All areas to be filled shall be prepared to be filled and fill shall be placed in accordance with standard specifications. All vegetable matter and objectionable material shall be removed by the contractor from the surface upon which the fill is to be placed. Loose fill and alluvial soils shall be removed to suitable firm natural ground. The exposed soils shall be scarified to a depth of 6" and then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to place, spread, water and compact the fill in strict accordance with specifications. 4. Cut and fill slopes shall be cut and trimmed to finish grade to produce smooth surfaces and uniform cross sections. The slopes of excavations and embankments shall be shaped, planted and trimmed as directed by the engineer of work and left in a neat and orderly condition. All stones, roots and other waste matter exposed or excavation or embankment slopes which are liable to become loosened shall be removed and disposed of. The toe and top of all slopes shall be rounded in accordance with the Grading ordinance. 5. All trees, brush, grass, and other objectionable material shall be collected, piled or otherwise disposed of off the site by the contractor so as to leave the areas that have been cleared with a neat and finished appearance free from unsightly debris. Approval of location of debris fill shall be secured from the soils engineer and City Engineer prior to the disposal of any such material. pol3846 4 D. EROSION CONTROL 1. In case emergency work is required, contact Bob Trettin at (619) 484 -0212 or Roger Zimmerman at (619) 944 -4124. 2. Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. All necessary materials shall be stockpiled on site at convenient locations to facilitate rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3. Devices shown on plans shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Engineering Inspector. 4. The contractor shall restore all erosion control devices to working order to the satisfaction of the City Engineer after each run -off producing rainfall. 5. The contractor shall install additional erosion control measures as may be required by the City Engineer due to an incompleted grading operation or unforeseen circumstances which may arise. 6. The contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas when impounded waters create a hazardous condition. 7. All erosion control measures provided per the approved grading plan shall be incorporated hereon. 8. Graded areas around the project perimeter must drain away from the face of slope at the conclusion of each work day. 9. All removable protective devices shown shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5 day rain probability forecast exceeds 40 %. Silt and other debris shall be removed after each rainfall. 10. Should germination of hydroseeded slopes fail to provide effective coverage of graded slopes (90% coverage) prior to November 15, the slopes shall be stabilized with punched straw installed in accordance with Section 35.023 of the Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook of the State of California Department of Conservation. pol3846 5 GRADING PLAN CERTIFICATION FOR PERMIT NO. 9S -O-42 MUp T SOILS ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE i I, C1iaRLe� �/an1DLG, a registered civil engineer in the State of California, principally doing business in the field of applied soil mechanics, hereby certify that a sampling and study of the soil conditions prevalent within this site was made by me or under my direction between the dates )u xs 7-2 . (93 2 and s&,j, 21,(A9 d-. One complete copy of the soils report compiled from this study, with my recommendations, has been submitted to the office of the City Engineer. Furthermore, I have reviewed these grading plans and certify that the recommendations included in the soils report for this proj have been incorporated in the grading plans and spe )6ification SIGNED: RCE NO. : Z Z�7� EXP. DATE: 4- OWNERS CERTIFICATE I (WE) HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A REGISTERED SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN AR WILL BE RETAINED TO SUPERVISE OVER ALL GRADING ACTIVITY AND /ADV $E ON THE 0 PACTION AND STABILITY OF THE SITE. Signature Date DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, AND THAT THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF ENCINITAS IS CONFINED TO A REVIEW ONLY AND DOES NOT RELIEVE ME, AS ENGINEER OF WORK, OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN. (NAME, ADDRESS & -�J; ; �,r C zG' TELEPHONE' NO. OF - G EER OF WORK) BY: /��C_ Signature Date RCE NO.: '- 7DC--, Ib pol3846 7 EXP. DATE ---D - - az �' City Of Encinitas COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT STANDARD AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS BEACH ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 3511TE 1. Permittee shall provide a Certificate of Public Liability Insurance with the City of Encinitas listed 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 $5,000.00, prior to entering upon City Property, to ensure all terms and conditions of the Permit are fully met. 3. Permittee shall deposit to the City the sum of $700.00 for the use of City Property. This deposit will be used to pay for the cost of inspecting the City Property. 4. Permittee shall provide a detailed plan, which must be approved by the City prior to the Permittee 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. Work Schedule received December 01, 1994 & amended December 13, 1994. Equipment List received December 01, 1994. Beach Access Plan received December 08, 1993 & October 19 1994. 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 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 December 07, 1994. 6. Permittee shall present a Beach Barrier Plan to protect the public from equipment movement, construction activity and construction site. Document received December 08, 1993 & October 19, 1994. The Engineering Inspector may request changes to the Plan on as- needed basis. bp4117 TEL 619- 633 -2600 i FAX 619 -633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 619- 633 -2700 4 recycled paper 3511TE Conditions - Page 2/4 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. Permittee shall be responsible for regular monitoring, maintenance and cleaning of this facility. 10. Permittee shall obtain special permission from the City Council for access and use of the Public Beach on city- recognized Holidays, Sundays, and, between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., Mondays through Saturdays, per Chapter 9.32 of the Municipal Code. 11. Advanced notifications shall be provided to the Office of the Lifeguard Supervisor (619) 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 on the Public Beach shall be approved by the Engineering Inspector and Lifeguard Supervisor immediately prior to such access. Only vehicles with "approved" stickers will enter the Public Beach. 13. Permittee 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. Permittee shall not block at any time access to the Public Beach for emergency personnel or vehicles. 15. The operation of Contractor vehicles while on the Public Beach shall be conducted ;.n a reasonable, safe and prudent manner. bp4117 3511TE Conditions - Page 3/4 16. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site to which access is authorized by this Permit, the permittee shall submit to and receive approval from the Traffic Engineering Division for the proposed haul route. The permittee shall comply with all conditions and requirements the Traffic Engineering Division may impose with regards to the hauling operation. 17. Prior to placement of any concrete product at the base of the coastal bluff, the permittee 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 Publc 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. Permittee shall restore or replace on a daily basis any signage regulating handicap person's access, or any other signage, disrupted, damaged or destroyed by permittee's operations. Permittee shall repaint and restripe pavement markings as needed. 21. The proposed winter season berm and drainage system of Moonlight Beach State Park, when constructed, shall be maintained in good working order on a continuous basis, and any breach to the berm due to the operations of the permittee 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. Permittee 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, Permittee 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. bp4117 3511TE Conditions - Page 4/4 24. Prior to final inspection approval of this permit by the Superintendent of Parks and Beaches, permittee shall regrade the Public Beach to the contours existing prior to issuance of this permit with the exception of the seawall itself. Permittee 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, permittee 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. Permittee 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 ". 27. violations of any Standard or Special Condition will result in notification of the Sheriff's 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 has read, understands and agrees to comply with all Beach Encroachment Permit Standard and Special Conditions: /,L- (J- y� (Signature of Permittee) (Date) 2` Q I K e T'T< <Y 01G, 1 7- (Name of Permittee Printed) (Position /Title) bp4117 Ad4h:11. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE NTMY54' PRODUCFR THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION RHH of Northern California ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE _')ne Market HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Jpear Street Tower, Ste. 2100 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE San Francisco, CA 94105 C - - COMPANV A London Companies INSURED Soil Engineering Construction 927 Arguello Street Redwood City, CA 94063 COMPANY B General Ins. Co of America COMPANY C C.E. Heath Comp & Liab Ins. Co. COMPANY D REVISION UUVEKAUES THIS 15 TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. L0 I TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION 1 POLICY NUMBER DATE (MWDDNY) DATE (MWDDPTY) MMITS GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE 52,000,000 _ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PRODUCTS.COMPpP AGO S 2,000,000 A y. CI-AIMS MADE OCCUR CB44610 10/1/94 10/1/95 PERSONAL 6 ADV INJURY S 1,000,000 OWNER'S d CONT PROT EACH OCCURRENCE S 1,000,000 X Per PTO j ect - FIRE DAMAGE (My we Poe) $ 50,000 Aggregate MED EXP (Airy ore peraonl $ 5,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED 1,000,000 X ANY AUTO SINGLE LIMIT S B ALL OWNED AUTOS BA8327503D 10/1/94 10/1/95 BOOILY INJURY $ SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per (Per J paW nm _ X HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY S ' X NON -OWNED AUTOS (Per aca ) - - -- _ - -- PROPERTY DAMAGE S GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY- EA ACCIDENT $ ANY AUTO OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT S AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE S I — UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE E f OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM S WORKERS COMPENSATION AND X STATUTORYTS C EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY C0500833 10/1/94 10/1/95 -- LIMI -- -- EACH AccloENr = 1, 000 '000 THE PROPRIETOR/ INCL DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT S 1,000,000 PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ARE: EXCL DISEASE - EACH EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION OCATN]NSVENICLES5PECIAL ITEMS Major use permit number 93 -111 and 93 -070 for Project at 312 ,354,370,378,396,402,470,478 / 480,492,498,502 /504,510/518, & 522/526 Neptune Ave., Encinitas, CA (SEE ATTACHED ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION City of Encinitas SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE 15 South Vulcan Ave. EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL XWW&WiS MAIL . ncinitas, CA 92024 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, Attn: Engineering Services 3lttxi5tS ➢stf7sdcMxxaTeFarxg3�yy{yxylxiy bi: �tSit�N�i d4XHML17X7b36XrlVt{ 7fi1; 7CX8ii11C -0OH6X7f367(�s7FyW(iG}EK ACORD 25•S (3/93) " T 0 ACORD CORPORATION 1993 POLICY NUMBER: --7,44 6, J COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS (FORM B) . This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART. SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: City of Encinitas (If no entry appears above. information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of your work" for that insured by or for you. Re: Major use permit number 93 -111 and 93 -070 for Project at 312,354,370,378, 396, 402,470, 478 /480,492,498,502 /504,510/518, & 522/526 Neptune Ave., Encinitas, CA CG 20 10 11 85 Copyright. Insurance Services Office. Inc.. 1984 p SOIL 'encin'e'e41nc October 4, 1994 ' (D U DEC 07 1994 TO: Director, Community Services Department ENGINEERING SERVICES City Of Encinitas CITY OF ENCINITAS FROM: Roger M. Zimmerman, Regional Manager Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. SUBJECT: Contractor Responsibility This correspondence is provided to acknowledge that Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., will be liable for any costs to correct damages to the beach or adjacent areas resulting from permit work undertaken by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., for: 93 -070 MUP Frickman project 402 Neptune Avenue Auerbach project 396 Neptune Avenue Rose project 378 Neptune Avenue Pierce project 370 Neptune Avenue Evleth project 312 Neptune Avenue In addition, Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., recognizes that construction debris washing onto the beaches (during the period of time that Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., is constructing these projects) within one mile north or south of the work site shall be the responsibility of Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., and shall be removed at no expense to the City of Encinitas. Construction debris is defined as any lumber, piling, poles, 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 re -bar, concrete and bricks. t er M. im erman, Regional Manager Date -' eri g Construction, Inc. 1881 N. Gaffey Street, Suite • San Pedro. CA 90731 • 13 1 01 831-0298 • FAX 13 101 83 1 -OS78 General Engineering Contractor License A- 268082 CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of 0—A-1 Fa2&11A County of ZeS A/J5FLe77 On /a /5��4� before me, �F C. Zr ;e„uaa,�/ f/Ly lgt&fL DATE NAME. TIME OF OFFICER - E.G.. -JANE . NOTARY PU&JC personally appeared �°v4r✓z.7Jwt,KE¢+u49� NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) impersonally known to me - OR - ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persontg) whose namejxa) is /aY�e subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he /sKe /tXty executed the same in his /fps /freir authorized capacity(, and that by his /1m4.r /tPrir signaturetg� on the instrument the personN, or the entity upon behalf of which the 0 person( acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. SIGNAT E OP NOTA Y OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER ❑ INDIVIDUAL ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE($) ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED ❑ GENERAL ❑ ATTORNEY -IN -FACT ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN /CONSERVATOR OTHER: -i °NAL !rt -t/iy b/Z SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSONS) OR ENTITY(IES) Salt C/�ir^�CELe L CO V$T zTIeNr 1"C DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT eD/JTL211C/ -O /Z /QF51"OO �J SlB/c -n7' TG C71TY of ENClnirXS C93_07041QU) TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT (�)/ V NUMBER OF PAGES ,862 r-' //�(/ DATE OF DOCUMENT 0 SIGNER(Sf OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ®1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION - 8236 Remmei Ave.. P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park, CA 91309 -7184 SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC MAJOR USE PERMIT 93-070 Auerbach Group Job No: 93-020..,25 BEACH ENCROACHMENT APPLICATION 3764TE #2 WORK SCIIIEDULE ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF FWANITAS Mimi& SH 2.1. NOVEMBER 2 28 29 30 DECEMBER 2 3 Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height Time freight 0432 5.1 0513 5.7 0513 6.3 0010 1.2 0056 1.3 0142 1.3 1058 1.7 1155 0.8 1245 -0.1 0634 6.9 0718 7.4 0759 7.7 1635 4.0 1749 4.1 1850 4.4 1331 .0.9 1417 -1 . S 1503 -1.9 2232 1.1 2322 1.1 1945 4.6 2036 4.7 2125 4.7 Shin I Shift 2 Shift 3 Shift 4 shin 5 Start 0755 Start 0845 Start 0931 Start 1017 Start 1103 Stop 1555 Stop 0445 Stop 1731 Stop 1817 Stop 1903 TASK T ASK TASK TASK TASK I LAYOUT SLOPE ADJUSTMENT SLOPE ADJUSTMENT EXCAVATEIFORM 40 %is" i• POUR 40' Slate V EXCAVATFfFORM 40 Sity i- 4 5 6 7 9 Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height 0314 1.8 0404 1.8 01101 4.5 0059 4.5 0202 4.6 0305 4.9 0929 7.5 1016 7.0 0400 2.3 0606 2.3 0729 2.5 0906 2.3 1637 -1.7 1729 -1.30 1106 6.3 1200 5.5 1306 4.7 1428 4.0 2306 4.6 leis -0.8 1908 -0.2 2003 0.4 2101 0.9 Shift 6 Shift 7 Shift 8 Shift 9 Shift 10 Start 1325 Start 1415 Start 1508 Start 1603 Star( 1701 Stop 2125 Stop 22110 Stop 2211K1 Stop 22N Stop 2200 TASK TASK TASK T ASK TASK STRIP STAGE I FORNtS POUR 40' Stage 2• SET FORMS 40- Stage 2" POUR 40' Slog, 2" POUR 40' Slate 1• SET FORMS 401 Slur 2• 1 INSTAL], TtFRACKS INSTALLTiRBACKS INSTALL TIEBACKS 12 13 14 15 16 Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Height Time Bright Time Height 17 0452 5.3 0534 5.6 0610 5.9 0019 1.9 01155 2.0 0129 2.0 1144 1.3 1234 0.7 13114 0.2 0643 6.1 0714 6.3 0744 6.4 1717 3.6 1933 3.7 1924 3.8 1349 -0.1 1422 -0.4 1453 .0.6 2252 1.6 2339 1.8 2005 19 2041 4.0 2114 4.0 Shift 11 Shift 12 Shin 13 Shift 14 Shin 15 Start 0834 Start 0914 Start 0949 Start 1022 Start 1053 Stop 1634 Stop 1714 Stop 1749 Stop 1822 Stop 1853 T ASK 'TASK 'TASK ']'ASK K TASK EXCAVATE/FORM 40 Star V EX(7AVATFJFOPM40 Singe I• SET FORMS & SET FORMS & STRIP FORMS POUR 40' Stir V POUR 40' Stage V POUR 40' Stage 2• POUR 40' Slag, 2• 17rib" STRIP STAGE 2 FORMS STRIP STAGE 2 FORMS Is 19 20 21 22 23 ;"*:a.'. Time Height Time fivignt rime Height Time Height rime I fright 24 0230 2.1 0302 2.1 0336 2.2 0415 2.3 0007 4.2 0050 4.3 0844 6.4 0914 6.3 09416 6.1 1020 5.9 0502 2.4 0603 2.5 1553 -0.7 1624 -0.6 1656 -0-5 1729 -0.3 1058 5.4 1146 4.8 2219 4.0 2252 4.1 2328 4.1 1805 0.1 1846 0.4 Shift 14 Shin 15 Shift 16 Shift 17 Shift Is Start 1224 Start 12.56 Start 1329 Start 1405 Start 1446 Stop 2024 Stop 2056 'CASK Stop 2129 Stop 2211H1 Slnp 22IM1 TASK TASK FASK TASK EXCAVATE/FORM 40 Stag, I• POUR 40' POUR 40' Slate 2" STRIP STAGE I FORMS STRIP STAGE 2 FORMS Stage 11 SET FORMS 40 Stsr2- TEST TIEBACKS TEST TIEBACKS DEMOBILIZE / NOTE: Work Schedule delays due to weather end/or other conditions - am possible and should be eapected during construction of the seawalls. • Stage I- To Elevation 0' MSL Stage 2- To Elevation +IO'MSL SUMMARY METHODS of CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LIST Construction of the seawall will be poured in-place and reinforcement will 1. CAT 225 Excavater (or equivalent) consist of epoxy coated 05 bars. During excavation of the beach sand 2. CAT 977 Track Loader (or equivalent) deposits, to expose the underlying bedrock materials, dCWatering pumps, 3. Concrete Delivery Trucks will be utilized. In order to set concrete forms, an area about 10 foot wide 4. Concrete Pump Trucks I will excavated to the top of bedrock adjacent to and along the proposed .. 5. Backhoc alignment of the seawall. Once the footing is excavated, forms will be 6. Skiploader (Case 590 or equiv.) placed along the excavation. Thew forms (stage 1) will be constructed 7. CAT 950 wheel Loader (Case 580 or equiv.) of concrete and will resemble K-Rail barriers. Stage I form; will he rock (or equivalent) R. 18 & 22 Ton Rough Terrain Cranes bolted to the bedrock. it is anticipated that the top of the form will be at 9. Hydraulic Power Packs approximately O'MSL Stage 2 forms will also be prefabricted and will 10. Air Compressors consist of 10' x 10'pAnels of wood construction. It is anticipated that I I. Generators those stage 2 forms will he placed/bolted to an in." installed during the 12. Wilden Dewatcring Pumps Previous pour below. Tiebacks will be installed by a separate work crew 13. Light Plants using a water jet drill rip, Or similar, at locations Shown on the plans. 14. Flatbed'rrucks & Trailers 15. Water Jet Drill 1 16. Standard Pickups SEAWALL ENCINITAS BLUFFS BARRIER / STAGING PLAN ON THE BEACH DURING CONSTRUCTION HOURS: ACTUAL AREA OF WORK ESTIMATED AT 25'x 200'+/-. ONE HUNDRED FEET (100') NORTH AND SOUTH OF CONSTRUCTION AREA WILL BE CORDONED OFF BY DELINEATORS AND CONSTRUCTION SIGNS PLACED ON STANDARD WORK BARRICADES: "CAUTION WORK AHEAD ", ETC. A WATCHMAN WEARING A FLUORESCENT VEST WILL POLICE THE DELINEATED AREA DURING CONSTRUCTION TO ASSURE THAT ALL PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ON THE BEACH IS ROUTED AROUND THE WORK. EQUIPMENT STORAGEAT MOONLIGHT BEACH. WHILE EQUIPMENT AT MOONLIGHT BEACH WILL BE KEPT AT A MINIMUM, ALL EQUIPMENT WILL HAVE SAFETY COLOR FENCE PLACED AROUND THE ENTIRE CIRCUMFERENCE AND AFFIXED SIGNAGE: 'DANGER KEEPOFF'(OR SIMILAR). T A T NORTH EL PORTAL: I NOT A PART OF PE , 316 41" ! ) THE BULK OFE QUIPME ILL BE AT NORTH EL PORTAL WITH SAFETY FEN D AROUND THE OF EQUIPMENT AND TO THE EFFECT OF: "KEEP OUT - CONSTRUC ENGV, lE OF`'L� NIT S o L V1 CITY EN � SOIL Enaninin6 conscRucclon. 16. AV MOORWrE 1i�f�E� k N ` offry� I .sr W H N _ _ T72S kSROF3GlE L O yQf LP In-c• PA DO AV R �7 TT3S c N Sa O" z tO t4'of qyy, UFF �{ l,x� 5\ YL Kw v SEA BLE .aa4.1L JIr :; � � -�T f •\ \� �' IC 80.1 RaNO •� aDCi� `. DP 1, o u' 1 / 1 CAM of VERDE p '400 x00 T SP.WPO , Fs yMt E tc*coaL..ROUL j WLA ~ _ O �a r15ED r�nuvEAN W ) I ::� •_� a S \PPS A ( : 40 GL,tU� ` y SLwr,O, O. t'"M DEL GELO Po `1L N ,UpItEP >- a ST ` C'I S = � ; y i '...�. �.. •'.z .. � ilk P' ; n � P �44GDALENA PHOE6E 0 5�5 nJ O E E[R£ PAR[ A RITTANY P - UCACHA o • JA ,L LEfJx1N < � �> m J O - - /1 u 0 .o PEes =:+sf� eLA .N FMC /N/TAS BEACH \ ,1CS \ Ni0 ST E2EESf COUNTY PARK ❑l N ST IIA UNb f \ NO ONh OUAIL ♦♦ ° / - — — - - - — - --3E131DF Qf 4 S s - IOTAN/CAL COUNTY PARK T O A N� �GARDENS 'SWAII p I I W,pRCK- n t i ci? FLORIth S+ 2 ? = Ilx K + z BUSH ST , 1 Lnu FlOS- .LOIIrA S 2W T I IL to a I <° ¢ r ORA W �I B Cl,ylr TEASE Rr T g i 1 EN o uocYUC.n '' ST $rs f� t STA IE BEACH :� SC : :4t Z•s"- ,i�i7m o S r Qf z T G HEEL AV' ° 5 £ I CONTT HS: F STS Ri a�600■ ' Al A; i ° E T ul V SAN f Cc ST o ¢° v 60 al ° .3W. OR U Y HEA OERQI � I z P ti °< R - <i 4 s >^ S1 I T Ai SAN ELBA °� RD Q u < DS Y RE ¢ T ¢ q , $T I z ° x HOSP ¢ W Q TREASURE k'u SCR /PPS Z 0 . 41EW IN r* ¢ C ME" V I U D i SAN C/N A5 K Q i < O /EGV/TO wl1 I[J, O SEAWALL ENCINITAS BLUFFS BEACH ACCESS / STAGING PLAN W TfI EL PORTAL ST.: (NOT A PART OF PERMIT NO TE! ) (NOT A PART OF P 0. 3460TE!) EQUIPMENT WILL SITE AND STAGED FOR EGRESS TO THE BEACH AT MO BEA MAY BE A SERVICE CRANE AT THIS SI WER MATERIALS TO THE B CTLY BELOW. A UCTION TRAILER WILL BE LOCATED AT THIS SITE. AT MOONLIGHT BEACH WHILE EQUIPMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE STAGED OR STORED AT MOONLIGHT BEACH, THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT EQUIPMENT WILL BE TEMPORARILY STAGED AT 3RD OR B STREETS WHILE WAITING TO ACCESS THE BEACH. IF EQUIPMENT IS LEFT ON CITY STREETS, IT WILL BE SECURED AS MENTIONED IN THE BARRIER / STAGING PLAN. EQUIPMENT WILL ACCESS THE BEACH AT THE NORTHERN -MOST POINT OF MOONLIGHT BEACH AS DESIGNATED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND /OR CITY OF ENCINITAS (SEE APPROX LOCATION ON MAP ATTACHED). !1u DEC 08 1993 ENCITY OF E C NT ASES SOIL Fnanee3mc cons iuccion. RIO NOTE 1. CONSTRUCTION EQL7%tENT STAGING NVH.L BE OFFSH'E LOCATED AT 40 ENCr IIAS BOULEVARD. 2. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WH.L NOT BE STORED ON PUBLIC BEACHES, UNLESS CONTRACTORS REQUEST IS APPROVED BY THE LDEGL'ARD SUPERVISOR 3. CONSTRUCTION AREAS v;u L BE CORDONED OFF, AND AREAS 100' NORTH AND SOLTH WILL BE MARKED 'ATM DELINEATORS AND SIGNAGE CAUTIONING AS TO CONSTRUCTION A4'0RK AHEAD. 4. (NARKED CONSTRL'CITCI.N AREAS WnL BE SUPERVISED BY A FLAGMAN. S A ML4MIUNI OF JE HOURS NOTICE SHALL BE :MADE TO THE OFFICE OF THE PARK AND BEACH SUPERINTENDENT (633 -2746) PRIOR TO THE ACCESSING OF M. OONLIGHT BEACH. LNFOXIMATm TO INCLUDE DATE(S), TIMRU EQUWME_NT TYPE(S) AND DURATION OF WORK A SINGLE NOTIFICATION SHALL NOT INCLUDE MORE THAN FIVE (S) DAYS OF WORK AT ANY TLNIE. 6. THE CONT'R4CICB1 RILL SUPPLY PERSONNEL TO LIMIT AND/OR CONTAIN FOOT ANTNOR VE=CULCU AR TRAFM DURING BEACH ACCESS OF CONSTRUCTION NLITERIAiS ANDIOR IIE1VY EQUH`MENT. JI I: I___ - - - 4 -- 0 I J J I U Z '✓^ TUNE AV P9 NEPTUNE CNp[ L ED �KaI RC,r RESIDENCE 3 LL 318 NEPTUNE AVENUE ,. AUERBACH RESIDENCE LO o o .!. U Y � KEY I Typical Work Area Typical Barricaded Area r NEPTUNE AVENUE f- Lh C LZ LL: PACIFIC OCEAN - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - FIR S Auerbach Group M.U.P. 93 -070 SITE PLAN Scale I" = 86' Access through Moon Light Beach I ;i OCT 19 1994 LVLETN PESIDENCL z 0 J PIERCE RESIDENCE Z '✓^ TUNE AV P9 NEPTUNE CNp[ �KaI RC,r RESIDENCE 3 318 NEPTUNE AVENUE ,. AUERBACH RESIDENCE LO o o .!. U Y � (tR•: W Y V O E' l ri Rc � V ADDRESSES y? a Ln LVLETN PESIDENCL ?12 NEPTUNE ApLNY. J PIERCE RESIDENCE TUNE AV P9 NEPTUNE CNp[ [) RC,r RESIDENCE 318 NEPTUNE AVENUE ,. AUERBACH RESIDENCE 3% HCPTUIE AVENE .!. (tR•: :U2`NEPTUNE AVENUE ri u� J v a Ln �= aZ z w s10 Q�at ti eQN. � c u 7 A BENCHMARK THE BENCHHAPr USED rm THIS PLAT IS SAN DIEGO CWNTY VERTICAL CIINTPDL HC)HU,ENT "a DC 141. LOCATED DI THE EAST SIDE U HVT. IDI. ISO' SOUTH W THE CENTERLINE DE pf EL PTq STP[EI IN THE CITY Q ENCINITAS, CA EL. 63113 -SL OF 1 of 1 CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 920243633 (61) 633 -2770 FINAL INSPECTION APPROVALS COASTAL BLUFF PROTECTION PROJECTS BEACH ENCROACHMENT PERMITS GRADING PERMITS PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Ia0XV5IIIlC`A Please note: This form must be completed and returned to your Engineering Inspector BEFORE YOU REQUEST A FINAL INSPECTION. Project address(es) Project description APPROVALS OF THE FOLLOWING ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO REQUESTING A FINAL () COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 633 -2714 (PLANNER, OLD ENCINITAS) BY DATE () COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 633 -2714 (PLANNER, LEUCADIA) BY DATE () COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 633 -2746 (PARK AND BEACH SUPERINTENDENT) BY DATE () ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 633 -2821 (FIRE MARSHAL) BY DATE INSPECT.FRM SATE OF CAUFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Co. .r 1 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO. CA 921081725 (619) 5218036 Application No.: 6 -93 -85 Applicant: Auerbach et al Staff: LJM -SD Staff Report: 5/18194 Hearing Date: 6/7- 10/94• REVISED FINDINGS 'r Agent: Bob Trettin Description: Construction of a 9 ft. high shotcrete seawall, with tiebacks, on public property fronting six non - contiguous lots containing existing residential structures. Site: Public property fronting 312, 354, 370, 378, 396, & 402 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. APN 256 - 261 -10, 256- 352 -03, 256- 282 -10, 11, 13, 14, 17 Summary of Commission Action: On March 17, 1994, the Commission approved the proposed development, as verbally revised by staff, with a number of special conditions. Date of Commission Action: March 17, 1994 Commissioners on Prevailing Side: Calcagno, Doo, Fleming, Glickfeld, Rick, Diefenderfer and Chairman Gwyn Substantive File Documents: Certified County of San Diego Local Coastal Program (LCP); City of Encinitas Draft Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance; City of Encinitas Resolution No. PC- 93 -21; Preliminary Geotechnical Report dated June 26, 1992 (Earth Systems Design Group); Slope Stability Analysis dated October 14, 1992 (Earth Systems Design Group); Discussion of Bluff Protective Devices for Auerbach, et al dated September 17, 1993 (Civil Engineering Consultants); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (September 1991) State of the Coast Report. San Diego Region (CCSTWS), 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 (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 (1990) "Beach Response to the Presence of a Seawall," Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Assoc i ation, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 11 - 28; Personal Communication between Leslie Ewing and Gayle Cosulich, Zeiser - Kling Consultants, Inc. (January 12, 1994); Group Deli Consultants, Inc. (November 3, 1993) "Shoreline Erosion Evaluation Encinitas Coastline, San Diego County, California" 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 2 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. F2935, F3891, F5473 PRELIMINARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution: Aporoval with Conditions. The Commission hereby grants a permit for the proposed development, subject to the conditions below, on the grounds that the development will in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal of 1976, will not prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. Standard Conditions. See attached page. III. Special Conditions. The permit is subject to the following conditions: be Act to 1. Revised Final Plans. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit for the review and written approval of the Executive Director, revised final plans for the shore /bluff protection approved herein for the site. Said plans shall first be approved by the City of Encinitas and include the following: a. Said plans shall be in substantial conformance with the plans submitted with this application dated 3/31/93 by Soil Engineering Construction Inc. However, the plans shall be revised to provide some form of anchoring, bolting or strengthening sufficient to stabilize the fractured lower bluff material and minimize the risk of future block failure to an acceptable level. An acceptable design criteria for such a system would be to insure a static Factor of Safety against block failure that is equal to or greater than 1.5, or to provide other comparable assurances. All plans must be reviewed and approved by the City. If conventional bolting or anchoring system is proposed, design A 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 3 specifications should be provided for testing grout and testing and stressing the anchors, including field inspections of all critical tests by either the design engineer or other licensed engineer familiar with the design. If an unconventional system is proposed, it may be necessary to provide for a third party review by an engineer with expertise in stabilizing block failures. b. Said plans shall indicate that the proposed seawall shall conform as closely as possible to the contours of the bluff, and shall be designed to incorporate surface treatments that resemble the color and surface of adjacent natural bluff areas (e.g., air —blown concrete). Detailed information shall also be provided on the construction method and technology to be utilized for texturing and coloring the wall. Plans shall be of sufficient detail to provide assurance that the herein approved wall will closely match the adjacent natural bluff. Said color shall also be verified through submittal of a color board, subject to review and written approval of the Executive Director. c. Said plans shall indicate that disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized. Beach sand excavated shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be used for back —fill or construction material. 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 no less than $1,643.00 and no more than $17,393.00 (402 Neptune Avenue); $1,635.00 and no more than $17,270.00 (396 Neptune Avenue); $1,643.00 and no more than $17,393.00 (378 Neptune Avenue); $1,643.00 and no more than $17,393.00 (370 Neptune Avenue); $1,665.00 and no more than $17,870.00 (354 Neptune Avenue); and, $1,620.00 and no more than $16,920.00 (312 Neptune Avenue) 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) shall be that described in the memo titled "Mitigation for Impacts of Seawalls on Sand Supply" dated March 15, 1994, prepared for coastal development permit #6- 93 -85. The California Coastal Commission shall be named as trustee of this account, with all interest earned 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 le 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 memorandum of agreement (MOA) between SANDAG, or a Commission— approved alternate entity, and the Commission, setting forth terms and conditions it assure that the in —lieu fee will be expended in the manner intended by the 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings / Page 4 Commission. In the event SANDAG does not enter into a MOA with the Commission within 1 year from deposition of the initial fee, the Commission can appoint an alternative entity to administer the fund. 3. Future Bluff /Shoreline Protective Devices. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, each applicant shall record CDP #6 -93 -85 and the adopted findings. The document shall be recorded and run with the land and bind all successors and assigns. Additionally, by acceptance of this coastal development permit, each applicant shall accept the responsibility to provide to any successors -in- interest to the subject property, a copy of the adopted findings for CDP #6- 93 -85. 4. 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. Said program shall assure the system approved herein is maintained for efficient operation at all times. 5. Community Wide /Regional Solution to Shoreline Erosion. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, each permittee(s) shall execute and record a deed restriction, which shall provide that the permittee(s), or successor -in- interest, shall agree to participate in the implementation of any comprehensive program contained in the City's certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) addressing a community- wide /regional solution to the shoreline erosion problems in Encinitas. The permittee(s), or successor -in- interest, also agree to participate in any assessment district or other means to implement the LCP's solution to the shoreline erosion problems. The responsibility of participation in the community - wide /regional solution shall run with the land binding on the property owner's successors and assigns and the above parameters shall be documented in a recorded restriction against the deed of the subject property. This restriction shall be recorded, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, free of prior liens or encumbrances, other than tax liens, which the Executive Director believes may affect the interest being conveyed. Evidence of recordation of this restriction shall be submitted to and acknowledged in writing by the Executive Director prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit. 6. Assumption of Risk. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, each applicant [and landowner) shall execute and record a deed restriction to run with the land, 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 retreat and erosion and the (b) applicant hereby waives any future claims of liability 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 5 against the Commission or its successors in interest for damage from such hazards. 7. Open Space Deed Restriction. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, each applicant shall record a restriction against the subject property, free of prior liens and encumbrances, except for tax liens, and binding on the permitee's successors in interest any any subsequent purchasers of any portion of the real property. The restriction shall prohibit any alteration of landforms, removal of vegetation or the erection of structures of any type, except as herein permitted, in the area generally described as the area from the top of the bluff to the western property line as referenced on the site plans dated 3/31/93 by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. The recording document shall include legal descriptions of both the applicant's entire parcel(s) and the restricted area, and shall be in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director. Evidence of recordation of such restriction shall be subject to review and written approval of the Executive Director. 8. Irrigation System /Runoff Control. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit for review and written approval of the Executive Director, a plan and evidence which indicates that any existing permanent irrigation system located within the geologic setback area (40 feet from the bluff edge) has been removed or capped. In addition, said plan shall also indicate that all runoff from impervious surfaces on the site is directed away from the bluff edge towards the street. 9. Future Development. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, each applicant shall execute and record a document, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, stating the the subject permit is only for the development described in Coastal Development Permit No. 6 -93 -85 (the construction of a seawall fronting six non - contiguous properties); and that any future additions to the residential structures, maintenance of the herein approved seawall, construction of additional seawalls, or other development as defined in Public Resources Code Section 30106, will require an amendment to permit No. 6 -93 -85 or will require an additional coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission or from its successor agency. The document shall be recorded as a covenant running with the land binding all successors and assigns in interest to the subject property and be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances. 10. Maintenance Activities /Future Alterations. The applicants shall be responsible for maintenance of the permitted protective devices. Any change in the design of the project or future additions /reinforcement of the seawall will require a coastal development permit. If after inspection, it is apparent that repair and maintenance is necessary, the applicant shall contact the Commission office to determine whether permits are necessary. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal of 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. 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 6 11. Construction Access /Staging Areas /Project Timing. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit plans showing the locations, which will be used as staging and storage areas for materials and equipment during the construction phase of this project. The staging /storage plan shall be subject to review and written approval of the Executive Director. Use of sandy beach and public parking areas, including on- street parking, except for the North El Portal street end, for the interim storage of equipment and materials shall not be permitted. The plan shall also indicate that no work may occur on sandy beach during weekends or holidays in the summer months (Memorial Day to Labor Day) of any year and that equipment used on the beach shall be removed from the beach at the end of each work day. 12. Public Rights. By acceptance of this permit, the applicant acknowledges, on behalf of him /herself and his /her successors in interest, that issuance of the permit shall not constitute a waiver of any public rights which may exist on the property. The applicant shall also acknowledge that issuance of the permit and construction of the permitted development shall not be used or construed to interfere with any public prescriptive or public trust rights that may exist on the property. 13. Seawall Design. Within 60 says following completion of the project, the applicant 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. 14. Condition Compliance. The applicants shall have the option of complying with Special Condition Nos. 2, 3 and 5 through 9 either prior to issuance of the coastal development permit as detailed in each condition above, or through compliance with the following: a. The applicant shall submit a notarized agreement, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, agreeing to comply with each condition of approval (2, 3, and 5 through 9) within 180 days of Commission action on this permit. All other conditions of approval shall be satisfied in the manner specified in each condition. In addition, through formation of a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GRAD) currently being pursued by residents and the City, or other similar means, should alternative methods /programs be developed, which have been reviewed by the Executive Director and accepted as alternatives to compliance with one or more of the conditions of the coastal development permit, the applicants may process an amendment to revise and /or eliminate said conditions, subject to Commission approval. Findings and Declarations. The Commission finds and declares as follows: 1. Detailed Project Description. This proposal involves the construction of a 9 ft. high, shotcrete seawall with tiebacks at the base of a 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 7 coastal bluff fronting six non - contiguous properties containing residential units. The subject seawall, which is proposed to be constructed in four segments, will be approximately 24 inches thick and will follow the natural contour of the bluff. The face of the proposed seawall has been designed for both coloring, texturing and sculpting to allow for a more natural appearance. As currently proposed, the seawall will have a foundation keyed into the natural sandstone materials. No riprap or toe -stone is proposed at this time. Each of the wall segments will be "keyed" on the ends to accommodate additional walls in the future. In addition, the top of the wall will be keyed so that an additional wall could be added above the proposed wall should conditions warrant such in the future. The end of each wall segment has been designed with a slight radius to reflect lateral wave splash away from adjacent unprotected bluffs. The subject development is proposed to be located at the base of an approximately 80 to 97 ft. high coastal bluff on the west side of Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas. The proposed seawall is to be constructed fronting six non - contiguous lots spanning 13 properties and a public street from just south of South El Portal Street north. The beach and bluffs in this area are public property, currently in ownership of the City of Encinitas. The City has approved the project and declined to be a co- applicant in this request, instead opting to issue encroachment permits to the applicants for the herein proposed shoreline protection. No improvements currently exist on the bluffs fronting the subject site. The existing residences on the top of the bluff are currently sited from 25 ft. to 33 ft. from the bluff edge. Three of the residential sites in this application have previously been subject to review by the Commission. In 1975, the Commission approved an application for construction of an additional residential unit above an existing carport, landward of an existing residential unit (ref. CDP #F2935 /Evleth) at 312 Neptune Avenue. In 1976, construction of a new 3,000 sq. ft. two -story single- family residence at 378 Neptune Avenue was approved by the Commission (ref CDP #F3891 /Bardacos). In 1977, the Commission approved construction of a 3,149 sq. ft., two -story single- family residence at 402 Neptune Avenue (ref. CDP #F5473 /Bardacos). 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. Additionally, Section 30253 of the Act states, in part: New development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 8 (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 six non — contiguous lots spanning 13 properties and a public street end, that run from just south of South El Portal Street to the north. The six lots are owned by private individuals, while the coastal bluff and beach fronting these properties is in public ownership. Because of the natural process of continual bluff retreat, coastal bluffs in this area are considered a hazard area. As the proposed development involves construction of a seawall to protect a large number of properties, the project is the first of its kind for the Encinitas coastline; instead of proposing a variety of seawall designs on an individual lot by lot basis, the subject permit application is proposing a seawall with a singular design for a large number of properties. Absent an LCP for the City of Encinitas, this application gives the Commission an opportunity to look at the issue of blufftop development and erosion along this section of the coastline on a "comprehensive" basis (the results of which can and should be included in any LCP submittal by the City). In addition to being the first of its kind for Encinitas, the proposed development is unique in several other ways as well. In this case, the seawall is being proposed as a preventative measure, rather than as a response to bluff failure on the site. In addition, the subject seawall is proposed to be constructed entirely on public property in order to protect private upland development. It is also in an area that is relatively devoid of bluff and shoreline structures, likely due to the public ownership. In this particular case however, the public property owner (the City of Encinitas) has granted permission for the applicants to construct the proposed shore protection. 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 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 the narrowing and eventual disappearance of the beach in front of 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 development raises consistency concerns with a number of Coastal Act policies, including Sections 30210, 30211, 30212, 30235, 30240, 30251, and 30253. 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 9 If the Commission is to review this application as a comprehensive solution, all the factors contributing to erosion /failure of the coastal bluff must be reviewed and addressed. These include the documented decrease of sand supply to the beaches from coastal rivers and creeks and its effect on coastal erosion, the effects of excessive groundwater on bluff stability, the proper siting of principal development and accessory structures on top of the bluff and, as discussed above, the documented adverse impacts on shoreline processes and adjacent unprotected properties associated with construction of shoreline protection. In reviewing requests for shore and bluff protection, a determination must be made whether to allow the beach and bluff to continue to retreat /erode, which would benefit the public at the expense of the private property owner or allow the bluff /shore to be armored, benefiting the private property owner at the expense of the public. Coastal Act Section 30235 does allow for the construction of shoreline protection, if it has been documented that a need exists to protect an existing principal residence that is subject to hazard from bluff erosion /failure and if the proposed protection is designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Documentation has been presented in past Commission actions concerning the unstable nature of the bluffs in this area of the coast (ref. COP Nos. 6 -85- 396 /Swift, 6 -89 -136 -G /Adams, and 6- 89- 297- G /Englekirk). In addition, a number of significant bluff failures have occurred along this stretch of coastline including several recent slides on the bluffs a few lots to the north of the subject site that have led to emergency permit requests for various forms of shoreline protection (ref. CDP Nos. 6 -91- 312 -G /Bradley and 6- 92- 167- G /Mallen et all). Clearly the potential exists for significant bluff retreat in this area. The applicant has submitted several documents regarding seacliff retreat at the subject site. These reports /plans indicate that the existing residential setbacks from the edge of the bluff are approx. 12 ft. for the property at 354 Neptune Avenue, with the remaining properties having from 28 ft. to 35 ft. setbacks. The applicant's engineer has indicated that there has been no significant upper bluff failures documented on these properties. The base of the bluff has been undercut somewhat and has experienced some minor sloughages, however, it also has not experienced any substantial failures. The submitted slope stability analysis' for each of the affected properties indicates that the bluff fronting each of the properties has an estimated static factor of safety of less than 1.5 for three of the properties, indicating that the bluff is only marginally stable for those properties and that if some method of stabilization is not provided, slope failure may occur. The engineer further states that should a significant failure occur, each of the residential structures on the top of the bluff could be damaged or destroyed. Although proposed as a preventative measure, as discussed above, the submitted geotechnical reports have documented that without some form of protection at the toe of the bluff to prevent further undercutting, failure of the upper 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 10 bluff could occur and threaten the residential structures. As noted previously however, once a need has been documented, it must be determined that the proposed "solution" does not adversely affect shoreline processes or other coastal resources. If adverse impacts are identified, the Commission must determine if there are other alternatives available that would achieve the result of protecting the residential structures while at the same time having minimal or no adverse impact on the adjacent beach area. In response to this mandate, the applicant has submitted information on a number of alternatives to the proposed project. These include the construction of a rip —rap revetment, underpinning of the existing structures, removing threatened portions of the residences or relocating the residences on —site, several "soft" solutions that include the placement of sandbags or sand tubes at the base of the bluff, as well as various other lower and upper wall /stabilization designs. Each of these alternatives were discussed and eliminated from consideration by the applicant because they were either considered by the applicant to be infeasible or to result in greater impacts on the environment that the proposed alternative. Given that none of the alternatives have received endorsement of the applicant's engineer, the applicant has submitted the subject request for construction of a 9 ft. high seawall at the base of the bluffs, the purpose of which is to eliminate erosion and undercutting at the toe of the bluff. Although the proposed development will result in significant adverse impacts on the coastal environment (which will be discussed in greater detail in this report), it does not appear that any other feasible less damaging alternatives, which also acknowledge the requirements of Section 30235, are available at this time. However, given the impacts that are anticipated to result from the proposed development and the number of Coastal Act policies which are applicable, a number of revisions to the subject proposal must be implemented for the development to be found consistent with Chapter 3 policies. In addition, mitigation measures for remaining impacts must also be implemented. In reviewing solutions to shoreline erosion comprehensively, all the factors contributing to bluff erosion /failure must be addressed. The problems that have been identified as contributing to bluff erosion /failure in this area of the coast are: undercutting of the base of the bluff due to wave action, the potential for blockfalls in the lower formations due to lateral fracturing, and groundwater impacts. As such, any proposed comprehensive solution should address all three of these concerns. To do so and seek to avoid the need for additional lower, mid— and upper —bluff protection devices on the subject site, consistent with Section 30253 of the Act, the following requirement must be incorporated into conditions of approval of the coastal development permit. The applicant's engineer has indicated that the proposed lower wall with tiebacks in not proposed for retention purposes, but only as a means of eliminating undercutting of the toe of the bluff. However, the applicant's engineer has also stated that one particular concern in this area of the coast is the presence of lateral 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 11 fracturing in the lower bluff face. These fractures, along with oversteepening of the upper formations can lead to significant block falls in the Torrey Sandstone formations. As the proposed seawall has minimal retentive value, such block falls could lead to failure of the lower wall leading to proposals for much more substantial structures to then stabilize the site. As such, Special Condition #la requires the submittal of final revised plans that have received City of Encinitas approval that indicate that the proposed tieback system has been modified in such a manner as to increase the retentive strength of the wall, thereby reducing the potential for blocks falls resulting in failure of the wall in the future. In addition, the geotechnical report for the project has indicated that groundwater was encountered in a boring approximately 59 ft. from the surface, which is approximately the area between the Terrace Deposits and the Torrey Sandstone formations. In addition, groundwater seepage was also observed on the bluff face at the contact between the Torrey Sandstone and the Terrace Deposits. The likely sources of groundwater in this area are from natural groundwater migration from areas upland and east of the subject site, infiltration of the terrace surface by rainwater, and by residential irrigation on the site and in the general vicinity. It has been documented in other reports submitted to the Commission for this general area that the major effect of groundwater relative to bluff erosion is the mechanical erosion of sand grains exiting the bluff face. In addition, as groundwater nears the bluff, it infiltrates the various fractures and joints which have formed naturally behind the bluff face. This can lead to hydrostatic loading of parallel joints resulting in block falls of the lower formations and in this particular case, potential failure of the proposed seawall. It therefore makes sense that by reducing and /or eliminating this groundwater before it reaches the bluff face, that an additional factor of safety can be added to the bluff. As such, Special Condition #4 has been proposed to require the applicant to submit plans and install some means of reducing the groundwater on the site before it reaches the bluff should it be encountered during construction and be determined to be a detriment to bluff stability on this site. With this condition addressing groundwater impacts, along with other conditions of approval discussed previously, the Commission can be reasonably assured that the herein approved shore and bluff protection will constitute a comprehensive solution to bluff /shore erosion on the subject site. In reviewing this application as a comprehensive solution, the Commission must be assured that the proposed shoreline protective structure is needed and will, in fact, protect the residential structures that have been documented to be in danger from bluff failure. In addition, pursuant to Section 30253 of the Coastal Act, new development must not create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic stability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area that would require protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. As stated, the proposed project involves construction of a seawall fronting six non — contiguous lots spanning 13 properties with substantial "gaps" (from 40 ft. to 200 ft.) between the protective structures. As such, the Commission is concerned with the development's impacts on adjacent unprotected properties and the potential 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 12 consequences should a substantial bluff failure occur on these properties. The applicant's engineer has indicated that "unprotected properties along the bluff in the area of the Auerbach group's application should be taking steps to protect their 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 To The Presence Of A Seawall (A Comparison 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 properties, failure of the bluff is likely. Thus, future failures could "spill over" onto the adjacent protected sites, 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 a minimal thickness (approximately 18- to 24- inches), which will reduce the turbulence at the end of the wall which leads to accelerated erosion of adjacent unprotected bluffs. The seawall design also incorporates a slight protrusion at its terminating points to reflect lateral splash away from the bluff, helping to reduce wave reflection onto adjacent unprotected bluffs. Although the proposed seawall design includes several design features to reduce impacts of the wall on sand supply and adjacent properties, at best, the above described impacts can be reduced, but not eliminated. In addition, the reduction in end turbulence due to the minimal thickness of the wall is only a temporary effect. The proposed seawall design also includes return walls at the end of each seawall segment which go into the bluff perpendicular to the wall and bluff face. These return walls are important components of a seawall as they protect the wall from wave flanking, which leads to erosion behind it. Regardless of whether accelerated erosion were to occur on the adjacent unprotected properties, evidence contained in the file for these properties suggests that these adjacent bluffs will continue to erode due to the same forces that are causing them to erode currently. As this occurs, 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 -65 Revised Findings Page 13 In this particular case, as discussed above, the gaps created by construction of the proposed non - contiguous seawall raise serious Coastal Act consistency concerns. However, to address the "gap issue ", 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 report documenting, among other things, the problem of coastal erosion in the City and a means of addressing such problems with both structural and non - structural solutions (ref. Beach Bluff Erosion Technical Report for the City of Encinitas by Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. dated January 24, 1994). Based on this report the bluffs in this area are considered a hazard area subject to coastal erosion. In addition, the Encinitas City Council has recently adopted a resolution expressing their intent to vigorously pursue the formation of a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GRAD) as a means of "initiating, funding, constructing and maintaining projects to stabilize coastal bluffs... ". To accomplish this, the City has conducted an evaluation of the assessed value of the City's blufftop properties, has retained a special counsel to prepare the documents necessary for formation of the abatement district, and has conducted workshops to inform citizens and concerned persons of what a GHAD is and how it works. As such, even though gaps will initially be created by the proposed seawall, the Commission finds that such gaps will only be temporary and thus, the proposed development will not contribute significantly to geologic instability of the site or the surrounding area, consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. Aside from the gap issue raised in the subject development, 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 sand supply from coastal rivers and creeks and armoring of the coast, which scours what sand is deposited on the beaches from below the seawalls, beaches will continue to erode without being replenished. This will, in turn, decrease the public's ability to access the shoreline. It would be appropriate for the Commission to be involved in a regional group along with other agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, local jurisdictions, and shoreline property owners to address the shoreline erosion problem, and more importantly, to reach and implement solutions to reintroduce beach equilibrium. In order to be assured that the applicant will participate in such a program once it is established, Special Condition #5 has been proposed. This condition requires the applicant, or successors -in- interest, to participate in a regional solution to the shoreline erosion problem if and when such a program is initiated. As stated previously, in approving the proposed seawall, the Commission must find that a need for the project has been documented consistent with Chapter 3 policies, and that the proposed alternative is the least damaging to the environment. Additionally, Section 30235 of the Coastal Act requires that construction of seawalls which "alter natural shoreline processes" shall be permitted to protect existing structures when "designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply ". The natural 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 14 shoreline processes referenced in Section 30235, such as the formation and retention of sandy beaches, may be altered by the construction of a seawall, since bluff retreat is one of the many ways that beach quality material is added to the shoreline. This retreat is a natural process resulting from many different factors such as undercutting by wave action of the toe of the bluff causing bluff collapse, saturation of the bluff soil from ground water causing the bluff face to slough off and natural bluff deterioration. When a seawall is constructed on the beach at the toe of the bluff, the seawall directly impedes these natural processes. While the seawall may be necessary to protect development located on the bluff top, the seawall has adverse impacts on shoreline processes and on public access to, and use of, the beach. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has adopted the Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego region and is currently working on techniques toward its implementation. The Strategy considers a full range of shoreline management tactics, but emphasizes beach replenishment to preserve and enhance the environmental quality, recreational capacity, and property protection benefits of the region's shoreline. As identified in the Strategy, while shoreline protective devices result in immediate protection for the endangered property, they also result in long —term adverse impacts on the beach seaward of the wall or revetment. The construction of a seawall along a shoreline backed by coastal bluffs, such as in Encinitas, can have several quantifiable impacts on shoreline processes and beach access, as well as numerous, less quantifiable effects which have been discussed elsewhere in current literature on seawalls. Three of the quantifiable impacts from such structures are: 1. The seawall will halt natural bluff retreat, preventing a portion of the bluff material from becoming part of the sand supply; 2. The seawall will halt the landward migration of the beach and nearshore profiles, preventing the formation of beach that would otherwise be available for public use over time, if the seawall were not constructed; 3. The seawall will physically occupy area, by its encroachment seaward of the toe of the bluff, that would otherwise be available for recreational use. The above is graphically depicted on attached Exhibit #3 (Figures 1 — 6). Figures 1 — 5 depict the current and future bluff conditions as discussed above. Figure 6 depicts the losses to beach that will occur as a result of the armoring. Shoreline protective devices, such as that proposed, fix the inland extent of the beach. Therefore, when additional erosion occurs seaward of the wall, it is at the expense of beaches or recreational areas owned or utilized by the general public. "Seawalls inhibit erosion that naturally occurs and sustains the beach. The two most important aspects of beach behavior are changes in beach width and changes in the position of the beach. On narrow, natural beaches, the retreat of the back of the beach, and hence the beach itself, is 6 -93 -65 Revised Findings Page 15 the most important element in sustaining the width of the beach over a long time period. Narrow beaches, typical of most of the California coast, do not provide enough sacrificial sand during storms to provide protection against scour caused by breaking waves at the backbeach line. This is the reason the back boundary of our beaches retreats during some storms. Armoring in the form of a seawall fixes the backbeach line and interrupts this natural process. A beach with a fixed landward boundary is not maintained on a recessional coast because the beach can no longer retreat." (ref. Memo by Or. Everts dated 3/14/94 re: Review of CCC Methodology for Quantifying Impacts to Sand Supply from Bluff Armoring). Seawalls also trap bluff material which would otherwise become part of the local sand supply, thus reducing the sand supply for the affected beach and surrounding areas. Accordingly, in its review of such projects under Section 30235 and the access policies of the Coastal Act, the Commission must assess both the need to protect property and the need to mitigate adverse effects on beach access and shoreline sand supply. Funding from a variety of sources will be required to implement the beach replenishment and maintenance programs identified in the SANDAG Strategy. The purpose of the program is to aid in the restoration of the beaches within San Diego County. In this particular case, SANDAG has agreed to administer a program which would identify projects which may be appropriate for support from the beach sand replenishment fund, through input from the Shoreline Erosion Committee which is made up of representatives from all the coastal jurisdictions in San Diego County. The Shoreline Erosion Committee is currently monitoring several large scale projects, both in and out of the coastal zone, they term "opportunistic sand projects ", that will generate large quantities of beach quality material suitable for replenishing the region's beaches. One means to do this would be to provide funds necessary to get such "opportunistic" sources of sand to the shoreline. Special Condition #2 requires the applicant to deposit an in —lieu fee to fund beach sand replenishment projects as mitigation for impacts of the proposed shoreline protective device on beach sand supply and shoreline processes. The applicants are being required to pay a fee, in —lieu of depositing the sand on the beach, because the benefit /cost ratio of such an approach would be too low. The larger projects can take advantage of the economies of scale and result in quantities of sand at appropriate locations to benefit both the local jurisdiction where the fees were derived, and the entire littoral cell in which it is located. The funds will be used only to implement projects which benefit the area where the fee was derived, and provide sand to the region's beaches, not to fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. Such a fund will aid in the long —term goal of increasing the sand supply and thereby reduce the need for additional armoring of the shoreline in the future. The fund also will insure available sandy beach for recreational uses. Several of the comments received at the Shoreline Erosion Committee meeting, addressing the proposed methodology to determine an appropriate mitigation fee, suggested the fee would be requiring the blufftop property owners to compensate for the fact that dams, breakwaters and other upcoast structures 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 16 have resulted in less sand on the beach, and, thus, greater erosion potential. However, the methodology, as proposed, is not attempting address any impacts to shoreline processes other than those directly attributable to the proposed seawall on the subject properties. The methodology provides a means to quantify the sand and beach area that available for public use, but for the seawall. The following is the methodology to be used by the applicant t in -lieu fee which will provide mitigation for the quantifiable proposed project on this segment of the Encinitas shoreline. estimates the total quantity of sand necessary to replace: a) beach quality material contributed from the seacliff over the armoring; b) the reduction in beach width which will occur whe migration of the beach profile is stopped, over the life of th c) the reduction in beach area which will occur from the seawa of the seawall. The methodology uses site specific informatio the applicant as well as estimates, derived from region- specif both of the loss of beach material and beach area which could life the structure, and of the cost to purchase an equivalent quality material and to deliver this material to beaches in th vicinity. to would be o develop the effects of the The methodology the reduction in life of the n the landward e structure; and rd encroachment n provided by is criteria, of occur over the amount of beach e project The following is a description of the methodology. The calculations which utilize values that are applicable to the subject sites, and were used as the basis for calculating the estimated range of the mitigation fee, are attached as Exhibit #4 to this report. Fee = (Volume of sand for mitigation) x (unit cost to buy and deliver sand) M= Vt x C where M = Mitigation Fee Vt = Total volume of sand required to replace losses due to the structure, through reduction in material from the bluff, reduction in nearshore area and loss of available beach area (cubic yards) . Derived from calculations provided below. C = Cost, per cubic yard of sand, of purchasing and transporting beach quality material to the project vicinity ($ per cubic yard). Derived from the average of three written estimates from sand supply companies within the project vicinity that would be capable of transporting beach quality material to the subject beach, and placing it on the beach or in the near shore area. Vt = Vb +Vw +Ve where Vb = Volume of beach material that would have been supplied to the beach if natural erosion UZ 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 17 continued, based on the long —term regional bluff retreat rate, design life of the structure, percent of beach quality material in the bluff, and bluff geometry (cubic yards). This is equivalent to the long —term reduction in the supply of bluff material to the beach resulting from the structure. VW = Volume of sand necessary to replace the beach area that would have been created by the natural landward migration of the beach profile without the seawall, based on the long —term regional bluff retreat rate, and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Ve = Volume of sand necessary to replace the area of beach lost due to encroachment by the seawall; based on the seawall design and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) (S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + (hu /2 x (R + (Rcu — Rcs)))] where R = Long —term regional bluff retreat rate (ft. /yr.), based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Encinitas area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.2 ft. /year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. L = Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of the seawall beyond the initial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. W = Width of property to be armored (ft.) h = Total height of armored bluff (ft.) S Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff material, based on analysis of bluff material to be provided by the applicant hs = Height of the seawall from the base to the top (ft) hu = Height of the unprotected upper bluff, from the top of the seawall to the crest of the bluff (ft) 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 18 Rcu = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming no seawall were installed (ft /yr). This value can be assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. Rcs = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming the seawall has been installed (ft /yr). THis value will be assumed to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. NOTE: For conditions where the upper bluff retreat will closely follow the lower bluff, this volume will approach a volume of material equal to the height of the total bluff, the width of the property and a thickness equal to the total bluff retreat that would have occurred if the seawall had not been constructed. For conditions where the upper bluff has retreated significantly and would not be expected to retreat further during the time that the seawall is in place, this volume would approach the volume of material immediately behind the seawall, with a thickness equal to the total bluff retreat that would have occurred if the seawall had not been constructed. Vw = R x L x v x W where R = Long -term regional bluff retreat rate (ft. /yr.), based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Encinitas area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.2 ft. /year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. L = Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of the seawall beyond the initial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. V = Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall; based on the vertical distance from the top of the beach berm to the seaward limit of reversible sediment 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 19 movement (cubic yards /ft of width and and ft. of retreat). The value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yard per square foot of beach. In the report, Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report" (December 1987, part of the Coast of California Storm and Tide Have Study, Document #87 -4), a value for v of 0.9 cubic yards /square foot was suggested. If a vertical distance of 40 feet is used for the range of reversible sediment movement, v would have a value of 1.5 cubic yards /square foot (40 feet x 1 foot x 1 foot / 27 cubic feet per cubic yard). These different approaches yield a range of values for v from 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot. The value for v would be valid for a region, and would not vary from one property to the adjoining one. Until further technical information is available for a more exact value of v, any value within the range of 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot could be used by the applicant without additional documentation. Values below or above this range would require additional technical support. W = Width of property to be armored (ft.) Ve = E x W x v where E = Encroachment by seawall, measured from the toe of the bluff or back beach (ft.) W = Width of property to be armored (ft.) V = Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall, as described above; The applicant shall be responsible for documenting the appropriate values which shall be used to determine the amount of the mitigation fee to be deposited, prior to issuance of the permit. With implementation of this condition, mitigation for impacts on shoreline process and sand supply resulting from the proposed development is provided, consistent with Section 30235 of the Coastal Act. As stated previously, seawalls and bluff retaining structures often can conflict with the visual resource protection, public access and recreational policies of the Coastal Act. In recognition of these policies, the Commission has identified alternatives to shoreline protection, including the use of increased setbacks, moving structures, and support of buildings on pilings as practical alternatives to shoreline and bluff protective works. In this particular case, it has been documented that some form of protection is 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 20 necessary as a preventative measure to protect the existing residence and such protection is being approved pursuant to Section 30235. However, such shore /bluff protection structures do have a finite lifespan, even with periodic maintenance, as do the residences for which they afford protection. Due to the forces of the ocean and the uncertainty regarding bluff stability and erosion rates, one way to assure additional shore /bluff retaining devices will not be required in the future should the herein approved shore /bluff protection structures fail or be destroyed by storm events or other forces, would be to assure that remedial measures, such as removal of the residence or portions which are threatened will be pursued. Any additional bluff retaining devices for the site would likely be more massive and require greater beach encroachment, again raising significant questions regarding consistency with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. As such, Special Condition #3 has been proposed. This condition requires the applicant to record the conditions and adopted findings for this coastal development permit and to agree to make copies of such available to subsequent purchasers of the property. In this way, the applicant and their successors in interest are put on notice of obligations needed to ensure that the development is consistent with Coastal Act policies. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act mandates that all new development must minimize, not create geologic hazards. Section 30250 mandates that new development shall be sited so as not to individually or cumulatively adversely affect coastal resources. Moreover, pursuant to Section 21080.5 of CEQA and Section 13096(a) of the Commission's implementing regulations, the Commission must assess alternatives if additional protective devices are to be found consistent with Section 30235 and any other applicable Chapter 3 policies. The intent of this condition is to make known to the owner and any future owners of the property that, as a filing requirement for any future proposals for shore or bluff protection, an extensive alternatives analysis will need to be submitted. Due to the inherent risk of shoreline development and the Commission's mandate to minimize risks (Section 30253), the standard waiver of liability condition has been attached through Special Condition #6. By this means, the applicant is notified of the risks and the Commission is relieved of liability in permitting the development. Pursuant to Section 13166(a)(1) of the Commission's administrative regulations, an application may be filed to remove Special Condition #6 from this permit if new information is discovered which refutes one or more findings of the Commission regarding the existence of any hazardous condition affecting the property and which was the basis for the condition. In addition, Special Condition Nos. 9 and 10 have been proposed to provide further protection to the coastal bluff. Special Condition #9 requires recordation of a deed restriction acknowledging that a separate coastal development permit or amendment is required for any future additions to the residence or for other development on the subject site as defined in the Coastal Act. In this fashion, any future development will be regulated to ensure that no development inconsistent with applicable policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act could occur without prior Commission review. The 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 21 restriction helps ensure that new inappropriate development which may contribute to bluff instability or adverse visual impacts does not occur adjacent to the bluff edge. While other types of development, such as additions to the principal structure, are typically visible from the frontage road, development activities in the rear yard immediately adjacent to the coastal bluff can occur unnoticed and without adequate review. Therefore, the attached deed restriction will serve to notify the owner any any subsequent owners of the coastal development permit requirements. Special Condition #10 notifies the applicants that they are responsible for maintenance of the herein approved shore and bluff protection to include removal of debris deposited on the beach during and after construction of the structures. The condition also indicates that should it be determined that maintenance of the seawall is required in the future, that the applicant shall contact the Commission office to determine if permits are required. Additionally, Special Condition #7 has been proposed. This condition requires recordation of a deed restriction that prohibits any additional alteration to the face of the coastal bluff, seaward of the existing bluff edge. This is required to avoid the placement of structures or alteration of natural landforms in such a fashion as to add to the instability of the coastal bluff or remove vegetation cover which serves to retard or limit bluff erosion. Special Condition #8 would require the submittal of a plan which indicates the removal of any permanent irrigation systems which may be in place within 40 feet of the bluff edge or on the bluff face. Finally, to assure the proposed shore /bluff protection has been constructed properly, Special Condition #13 has been proposed. This condition requires that within 60 days of completion of the project, that certification by a registered civil engineer be submitted that verifies that the proposed seawall /upper bluff retention system has be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. In summary, it is anticipated that the adjacent unprotected areas surrounding the subject site will be included in the GHAD being pursued by the City and any potential end effects from the herein approved wall will be addressed through such a program. Additionally, although the proposed development was approved without benefit of a comprehensive solution in place, through the recent Encinitas Council actions, the Commission is reasonably assured that such a comprehensive program is being developed through the formation of the CHAD. Based on conversations with City staff and in testimony presented to the Commission, the CHAD will deal with more than just the "gap" issue. In other words, it is expected that the GHAD will contain components that deal with all the factors affecting the bluff such as the need for future upper bluff protective work, impacts of protective structures on the beach and sand areas and mitigation for such impacts, groundwater and irrigation impacts, new development setbacks etc... In this particular case, absent such a program, the proposed conditions of approval address these concerns. However, in order to allow the applicant to begin construction on the seawall while the GHAD is being pursued, Special Condition #14 has been proposed. This condition gives the applicant the option of complying with certain special conditions prior to 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 22 issuance of the permit or within 180 days of Commission action. The condition further states that through formation of a GHAD or other similar means, should alternative methods /programs be developed, which have been reviewed by the Executive Director and accepted as alternatives to compliance with one or more of the conditions of the coastal development permit, the applicants may process an amendment to revise and /or eliminate said conditions, subject to Commission approval. In this way, the applicant can begin work on the seawall while the GHAD formation is being processed. This gives the applicant and the City the incentive to have a comprehensive program implemented during the prescribed time frame. Therefore, given the proposed conditions of approval that provide for additional measures to assure a comprehensive approach to bluff protection and also provide mitigation for any remaining impacts, the Commission finds the proposed development is consistent with Sections 30235, 30240 (b), and 30253 of the Coastal Act. 3. Visual Resources /Alteration of Natural Landforms. Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states, in part: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. As stated above, the proposed development will occur at the base of a coastal bluff fronting a City public beach park. The bluffs along this section of the Encinitas coastline remain in a natural state, with virtually no existing bluff or shore protection from just north of Moonlight Beach to just north of the subject site, an approximate one -half mile stretch of beach. As such, the potential for adverse impacts on visual resources associated with the proposed seawall running along the base of the bluff fronting six non - contiguous properties (that spans 13 properties) could be significant. In order to address this concern and help reduce potential adverse visual impacts, the proposed wall has been minimally designed with a proposed height of approximately 9 ft. above MSL. The seawall segments will be constructed with air -blown concrete (shotcrete) that will follow the natural contour of the bluff. In addition, the seawall will incorporate a surface treatment that allows for coloring and sculpting to match the adjacent natural bluff. However, in order to assure the proposed seawall will incorporate all of the above described design features, Special Condition #lb has been attached. This condition requires the submittal of detailed plans and information on construction methods and technology for the surface treatment of the wall along with samples of the proposed coloring of the seawall. In this way, the Commission can be assured that the proposed seawall will blend with the natural bluffs in the area to the extent feasible. Given the proposed condition, the Commission finds that potential visual impacts associated with the proposed development have been reduced to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 23 4. Public Access /Recreation. Pursuant to Section 30604 (c), the Coastal Act emphasizes the need to protect public recreational opportunities and to provide public access to and along the coast. Section 30210 of the Coastal Act is applicable to the proposed development and states: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. In addition, Section 30212 of the Act is applicable and states, in part: (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby.... Additionally, Section 30220 of the Coastal Act provides: Coastal areas suited for water — oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses. The project site is located on a public beach utilized by local residents and visitors for a variety of recreational activities. The site is located approximately from just south of the City of Encinitas' "Stone Steps" public access stairway running approximately 13 lots north. The proposed seawall will be constructed on sandy beach area that is currently available to the public. a. Direct Interference with Public Access Along the Beach. The proposed seawall, although minimally designed, will project approximately 2 ft. seaward of the toe of the bluff. Although the seaward encroachment of the wall is minimal, the beach along this area of the coast is narrow and at high tides and winter beach profiles, the public may be forced to walk virtually at the toe of the bluff or the area would be impassable. As such, any encroachment of structures, no matter how minimal, onto the sandy beach, reduces the beach area available for public use. This is particularly true given the existing beach profiles and relatively narrow beach. b. Indirect Effects of Shoreline Structures. In addition to the above described direct interference with public access by the proposed seawall, there are a number of indirect effects as well. Shoreline processes, and 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 24 supply and beach erosion rates are affected by shoreline structures and thus alter public access and recreational opportunities. The precise impact of shoreline structures on the beach is a persistent subject of controversy within the discipline of coastal engineering. However, the Commission is lead to the conclusion that if a seawall works effectively on a retreating shoreline, it results in impacts on the beach. As discussed previously the construction of a shore /bluff protective structure has a number of quantifiable and not so quantifiable impacts on the local sand supply on the adjacent sandy beach. Briefly stated, the seawall will halt natural bluff retreat, preventing bluff material from becoming part of the sand supply; will physically occupy beach area, displacing recreational use of a public beach, thereby creating a burden on the public; will halt the landward migration of the beach; and, the vertical seawall can cause increased turbulence, accelerating the pace of sand scour, steepening the beach profile and causing the beach to become narrower and eventually disappear. Additionally, seawalls can lead to accelerated erosion of the adjacent unprotected bluff due to wave reflection. c. Relation5hip of Project to Tidal Boundary. It is generally accepted that the dividing line between public tidelands and private upland to tidal boundary in California is the mean high water datum (MHW). From an engineering point of view, a water boundary determined by tidal definition is not a fixed mark on the ground, such as a roadway or a fence; rather, it represents a condition at the water's edge during a particular instant of tidal cycle. The line where that datum intersects the shoreline will vary seasonally. Reference points such as Mean Sea Level and Mean High Water Datum, are calculated and reflect the average height of the tide levels over a period of time. The applicant has submitted a letter from the State Lands Commission staff which indicates that the proposed development does not appear to involve public trust lands. However, to protect any public rights which may exist at the site that may have been previously established through public use and to protect lands subject to the public trust, Special Condition #14 has been proposed. d. Mitigation for Impacts on Public Access. Development along the shoreline which may burden public access in several respects has been approved by the Commission. However, mitigation for any adverse impacts of the development on access and public resources is always required. The Commission's permit history reflects the experience that development can physically impede public access directly, through construction adjacent to the mean high tide line in areas of narrow beaches, or through the placement or construction of protective devices seawalls, riprap, and revetments). Since physical impediments adversely impact public access and create private benefit for the property owners, the Commission has found in such cases (in permit findings of #4 -87 -161 [Pierce Family Trust and Morgan], #6 -87 -371 [Van Buskirk], #5 -87 -576 [Miser and Cooper]) that a public benefit must arise through mitigation conditions in order that the development will be consistent with the access policies of the Coastal Act, as stated in Sections 30210, 30211, and 30212. The development proposed in this application is the construction of a vertical 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 25 seawall. In this location, there is a distinct western property boundary. The proposed seawall will be located off the applicants private property and on a public beach area, subject to an encroachment permit from the City of Encinitas, the operator of the beach park. Shoreline structures have been shown to have adverse impacts upon the beach. In order to partially mitigate the known adverse impacts, the Commission typically requires an offer of dedication of lateral public access in order to balance the burden placed on the public with a public benefit. In this case, because the proposed seawall will be located on public property, a lateral access dedication is not required. However, Special Condition #2, as discussed in a previous section of this staff report, will require the applicant to provide mitigation for such impacts by depositing money in an account that will be used to fund sand replenishment projects in the area. As debris dislodged from the seawall, either during construction or after completion, has the potential to affect public access, Special Condition #10 has also been proposed. This condition notifies the applicant that they are responsible for maintenance and repair of the seawall and that should any work be necessary, they should contact the Commission office to determine permit requirements. In addition, the condition requires the applicants to be responsible for removal of debris deposited on the beach during and after construction of the project. In addition, the use of the beach or public parking areas for staging of construction materials and equipment can also impact the public's ability to gain access to the beach. As such, Special Condition #11 has been proposed to require that the a staging area plan be submitted that indicates that the beach not be used for storage of materials and equipment and that construction on the beach be prohibited on the sandy beach during the weekends and holidays during the summer months of Memorial Day to Labor Day of any year. Thus, as conditioned, the Commission finds the proposed project consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. (see Exhibit A — Background Findings involving effects of seawalls on beaches and public access opportunities.) 5. Local Coastal Planning. Section 30604 (a) also requires that a coastal development permit shall be issued only if the Commission finds that the permitted development will not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) 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 is in the process of preparing for the Commission's review a new or revised LCP for the area. Because of the incorporation of the City, the certified County Local Coastal Program no longer serves as the valid LCP for the area. However, the issues regarding protection of coastal resources in the area have been addressed by the Commission in its review of the County of San Diego LUP and Implementing Ordinances. As such, the 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 26 Commission will continue to utilize the County LCP documents for guidance in its review of development proposals in the City of Encinitas until such time as a new or revised LCP is approved for the City. The San Diego County LCP contains special overlay areas where sensitive coastal resources are to be protected. The subject property falls within the "CD" or Coastal Development overlay area. The CD regulations sought to limit the construction of seawalls to those areas that truly were subject to hazard, similar to the requirements of Section 30235 of the Act. In addition, the City of Encinitas has prepared a draft "Coastal Bluff Overlay (CBO)" ordinance which contains many of the provisions of the previously applied CO overlay. 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. In addition, the City is pursuing the formation of a GHAD as a means of addressing issues related to bluff erosion on a comprehensive basis. City staff has indicated that such a program, once implemented, will be part of the City's LCP. As described above under the findings on blufftop stability, the Commission finds the subject site where the shore /bluff protection is proposed is a hazard area and may be subject to significant hazard from wave damage and bluff erosion /failure which could threaten existing development. As conditioned, the proposed shoreline /bluff protection can be found consistent with Section 30235 of the Act, all other applicable Chapter 3 policies, as well as with the basic requirements of the CD and CBO ordinances. Therefore, the proposed development, as conditioned, will not prejudice the ability of the City of Encinitas to prepare a certifiable local coastal program. 6. Consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA). Section 13096 of the Commission's administrative regulations requires Commission approval of Coastal Development Permit application to be supported by a finding showing the application, 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 impact which the activity may have on the environment. The proposed project has been conditioned in order to be found consistent with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Mitigation measures have been incorporated as conditions of approval which will minimize all adverse environmental effects. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed project, as conditioned to mitigate the identified impacts, is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and can be found consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA. 6 -93 -85 Revised Findings Page 27 STANDARD CONDITIONS: Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval. 4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the development during construction, subject to 24 —hour advance notice. 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. (3085r) �1 Q' I I I I 1 -- 1 tl :ice I 1 I 1 n�a z i a I ft I .yl. g'l s ..___._ c i Oi c J; �I G I Sta�� NEPTUNE >.LM: ';I%'% t� J d '^ � r s o'—iz �F`l_ rAnK 5EASIDE GARDEN. Np Im 61. O. 18..iu -I[1 uE Gpj 7 I F c it A. {.IFIC UCEA.PI. DI� .II: I1 all •:1. (y I Vp } m AR !��Iz IIf11R1 d 1SF 111.10 N...i.as GARDEN s' f' A v V S \ Q 1 u UI a J X w < DI� .II: I1 all •:1. (y I Vp } m AR !��Iz IIf11R1 d 1SF 111.10 N...i.as GARDEN s' f' A 1: _. _1 .. ♦ ,v. . — -, !1 _ •� M•4•r ; �� •• I g 1N .� t•��., _ a.. 1 � SEC710N E/2 , DETAIL C/2 t I fit•_ .. � .�. �yys;�t SECTION F/2 DETAIL B/2 DETAIL D/2 .1, • ��[ rari u�i.i. c[..[:•.oa R R I t to i0 �1 �� I.Y.. �••^•'•- •141•I..N •NO•.Y Y, PROFILE' .�'.�, ;1;- ,,•N_I. SECTION A/2 .Y ... DETi1L G/2 c�i v P Z�Q J 0OO LJ r; wuu LL ^ < 44 _ O oj U r W 1 6i mss' N r A 1� C 0 20 > �x m ti e �> CD I 1 RaN • 1 • ' 1 vb O I I �1 �� I.Y.. �••^•'•- •141•I..N •NO•.Y Y, PROFILE' .�'.�, ;1;- ,,•N_I. SECTION A/2 .Y ... DETi1L G/2 c�i v P Z�Q J 0OO LJ r; wuu LL ^ < 44 _ O oj U r W 1 6i mss' N r A 1� C 0 20 Ii ....,.'.s•: ti tr I 1 RaN • 1 • ' 1 1 1 I I I I �1 �� I.Y.. �••^•'•- •141•I..N •NO•.Y Y, PROFILE' .�'.�, ;1;- ,,•N_I. SECTION A/2 .Y ... DETi1L G/2 c�i v P Z�Q J 0OO LJ r; wuu LL ^ < 44 _ O oj U r W 1 6i mss' N r A 1� C 0 20 Ii ....,.'.s•: ti tr _�tw— RaN • �1 �� I.Y.. �••^•'•- •141•I..N •NO•.Y Y, PROFILE' .�'.�, ;1;- ,,•N_I. SECTION A/2 .Y ... DETi1L G/2 c�i v P Z�Q J 0OO LJ r; wuu LL ^ < 44 _ O oj U r W 1 6i mss' N r A 1� C 0 F»uke BLUFFS AT I'IZESENT WITHOUT A SEAWALL I IEIGHT OF SEACLIFF C r. AcI I . D_ ,,- : b Jo i 0 CREST OF SEACLIFF UPPER GEOLOGICAL TERRACE UNIT LOJVER GEOLOGICAL TERRACE UNIT BASE OF SEACLIFF FIGURE 2 BLUFFS AT PRESENT WITII A SEAWALL SEAWALL D" i D o c,, A ' f! AREA OF BEACH LOSS BY SEAWALL ENCROACHMENT nil c°9 Ic FIGURE 3 BLUFFS IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT A SEAWALL I11-IG11 "l' OP SEACLIFF 0 l .: p 0... C �� f�, .•p a BEACH B f /// //l / /il CREST OF SEACLIFF UPPER GEOLOGICAL TERRACE UNIT LOIJ ER GEOLOGICAL TERRACE UNIT BASE OF SEACLIFF FIGURE 4 AREA OF BEACH LOST AS SHORELINE RETREATS F - F' E F;' BLUFF CHANGES IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT A SEAWALL I I B I A i i i i •i 1 i o,.o....p..' / A O iA' / AREA OF BEACH CREATED /-BLUFF RETREATS �J C � C'• A C' FOR EQUILIBRIUM BEACHES, OVER THE LONG -TERM AREA OF BEACH LOST WILL EQUAL AREA OF BEACH CREATED FIGURE 5 BLUFF CHANGES IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT A SEAWALL UPPER BLUFF WILL RETREAT FROM A -B to A' -B' LOWER BLUFF WILL RETREAT FROM C -D to C' -D' \ NFW B�, old r B 0 ?,� p o AoP�r��.�i AI''lljf'F r ° BEACH C I 1 CT u MATERIAL IN THE BLUFF WILL _ — — GO INTO TIIE LITTORAL SYSTEM/ TIrh(- TT ATrnT.mAn C'lrnnr. X B R' / \ r � r C C II / FIGURE 6 BLUFFS IN THE FUTURI, WITH A SEANVALL 1. MATERIAL TRAPPED BEHIND SEAWALL T] IAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE LITTORAL SYSTEM (Vb IN METHODOLOGY). 2. AREA OF BEACH LOST AS SHORELINE RETREATS (NOT OFFSET BY NEW BLACH AREA SINCE BLUFF CANNOT IZETIZEAT) (Vw IN METHODOLOGY). B' B �� t i A SEA W 1? _ D' F a o . o.. Aga 'o• .., . S . ° BEACH .r' E C FAF •A' 3. AREA OF BEACH LOSS BY SI:AWAI.L ENCROACHMENT (V� in ME'T'HODOLOGY Beach Sand Replenishment In -Lieu Fee Worksheet - Exhibit #4 402 Neptune Avenue - Frickman - 256- 282 -10 The following values for the applicable variables have been utilized for the above site to estimate the required mitigation fee: .2 ft. /yr. = R = Long -term regional bluff retreat rate (ft. /yr.), based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Encinitas area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.2 ft. /year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. .40 - .80 S Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff material, based on analysis of bluff material 1.5 = v Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall; based on the vertical distance from the top of the beach berm to the seaward limit of reversible sediment movement (cubic yards /ft of width and and ft. of retreat). The value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yard per square foot of beach. In the report, Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report" (December 1987, part of the Coast of California Storm and Tide Wave Study, Document #87 -4), a value for v of 0.9 cubic yards /square foot was suggested. If a vertical distance of 40 feet is used for the range of reversible sediment movement, v would have a value of 1.5 cubic yards /square foot (40 feet x 1 foot x 1 foot / 27 cubic feet per cubic yard). These different approaches yield a range of values for v from 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot. The value for v would be valid for a region, and would not vary from one property to the adjoining one. Until further technical information is available for a more exact value of v, any value within the range of 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot could be used by the applicant without additional documentation. Values below or above this range would require additional technical support. EXHIBIT NO. t4 AP LICATIONNO�� ruo-i' S rs ♦r(� cam ma coastal Commnsbn Exhibit #4 (cont.) 20 to 50 yr. = L = Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of the seawall beyond the intial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. 40 ft. = W = Width of property to be armored (ft.) 86 ft. = h . Total height of armored bluff (ft.) 2 ft. = E - encroachment by seawall, measured from the toe of the bluff or back beach (ft.) $5.00 — $10.00 = C = cost, per cubic yard of sand, of purchasing and transporting beach quality material to the project vicinity ($ per cubic yard). Derived from the average of three written estimates from sand supply companies within the project vicinity that would be capable of transporting beach quality material to the subject beach, and placing it on the beach or in the near shore area. 9 ft. = hs = Height of the seawall from the base to the top (ft) 77 ft. = hu = Height of the unprotected upper bluff, from the top of the seawall to the crest of the bluff (ft) .2 ft./yr. = Rcu Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming no seawall were installed (ft /yr). This value can be assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. 0 ft. /yr. = Rcs = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming the seawall has been installed (ft /yr). This value will be assumed to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. V Exhibit #4 (cont.) Low Estimate Vb - ( S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + Jhu /2 x (R + (Rcu — Rcs)))] Vb -(.40 x Qx20/27) x [(.2(9)) +(77/2 x(.2 +(.0 — 0)))]• 112.6 cu.vds.(1) High Estimate Vb - ( S x W x L /27) x [(R hs) + Shu /2 x (R + (Rcu — RCS))-)] Vb -(--U x Ox50 27) x [(.2(9))+(77/2 x(.2 +(.2 — 0))] . 1.019.3 cu.vds.(1) Low Estimate Vw - R x L x v x W Vw . .2 x 20 x .9 x 40 High Estimate Vw- RxLxvxW Vw . .2 x 5_ x 1.5 x 40 • Low Estimate Ve . E x W x v Ve - 2 x 40 x .9 - High Estimate Ve - E x W x v Ve - 2 x 40 x1.5— - 144 cu.yds. (2) 600 cu.yds. (2) .yds. (3) u.yds. (3) Low Estimate Vt - Vb +Vw +Ve Vt - 112. + 144 + 72 - 328.6 cu.yds. (4) (1) (2) (3) High Estimate Vt - Vb +Vw +Ve Vt . 1019.3 + 600 + 120 1.739.3 cu.yds. (4) (1) (2) (3) Exhibit #4 (cant.) Low Estimate M =Vt x M- 328.6 (cu.yd.) x 5 ($ /cu.yd.) 1,643 $ (5) (4) High Estimate M =VtxC M= 1,739.3 (cu.yd .) x 10 ($ /cu.yd.) - 17.393 $ (5) (4) MITIGATION FEE _ ($ range) = $1,643 to $17,393 Vb = the amount of beach material that would have been supplied to the beach if natural erosion continued or the long -term reduction in the supply of bluff material to the beach, over the life of the structure; based on the long -term average retreat rate, design life of the structure, percent of beach quality material in the bluff, and bluff geometry (cubic yards) VW = the long -term erosion of the beach and near - shore, resulting from stabilization of the bluff face and prevention of landward migration of the beach profile; based on the long -term average retreat rate, and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Ve - the volume of sand necessary to replace to area of beach lost due to encroachment by the seawall; based on the seawall design and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Vt = total volume of sand required to replace losses due to the structure, through reduction in material from the bluff, reduction in nearshore area and loss of available beach area (cubic yards). Derived from calculations provided below. Beach Sand Replenishment In -Lieu Fee Worksheet - Exhibit #4 396 Neptune Avenue - Auerbach - 256 - 282 -11 The following values for the applicable variables have been utilized for the above site to estimate the required mitigation fee: .2 ft. /yr. R = Long -term regional bluff retreat rate (ft. /yr.), based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Encinitas area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.2 ft. /year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. .40 - .80 = S = Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff material, based on analysis of bluff material .9 - 1.5 = v = Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall; based on the vertical distance from the top of the beach berm to the seaward limit of reversible sediment movement (cubic yards /ft of width and and ft. of retreat). The value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yard per square foot of beach. In the report, Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report" (December 1987, part of the Coast of California Storm and Tide Wave Study, Document #87 -4), a value for v of 0.9 cubic yards /square foot was suggested. If a vertical distance of 40 feet is used for the range of reversible sediment movement, v would have a value of 1.5 cubic yards /square foot (40 feet x 1 foot x 1 foot / 27 cubic feet per cubic yard). These different approaches yield a range of values for v from 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot. The value for v would be valid for a region, and would not vary from one property to the adjoining one. Until further technical information is available for a more exact value of v, any value within the range of 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot could be used by the applicant without additional documentation. Values below or above this range would require additional technical support. Exhibit #4 (cont.) 20 to 50 yr. = L = Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of the seawall beyond the intial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. 40 ft. = W = Width of property to be armored (ft.) 85 ft. = h = Total height of armored bluff (ft.) 2 ft. = E = encroachment by seawall, measured from the toe of the bluff or back beach (ft.) $5.00 - $10.00 = C = cost, per cubic yard of sand, of purchasing and transporting beach quality material to the project vicinity ($ per cubic yard). Derived from the average of three written estimates from sand supply companies within the project vicinity that would be capable of transporting beach quality material to the subject beach, and placing it on the beach or in the near shore area. 9 ft. = hs = Height of the seawall from the base to the top (ft) 76 ft. = hu = Height of the unprotected upper bluff, from the top of the seawall to the crest of the bluff (ft) .2 ft. /yr. = Rcu = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming no seawall were installed (ft /yr). This value can be assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. 0 ft. /yr. = Rcs = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming the seawall has been installed (ft /yr). This value will be assumed to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. Exhibit #4 (cont.) Low Estimate Vb - ( S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + (hu /2 x (R + (Rcu - Rcs)))] Vb -(.4Q x Qx20/27) x [(.2(9)) +(76/2 x(.2 +( 0 - 0)))]- 111 cu.yds.(1) High Estimate Vb - ( S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + (hu /2 x (R + (Rcu - RCS)))] Vb .(.3D x 4Qx50/27) x [(.2(9))+(76/2 x(.2 +(.2 - 0)))] - 1.007 cu.yds.(1) Low Estimate Vw - R x L x v x W Vw - .2 x 20 x .9 x 40 - High Estimate Vw - R x L x v x W Vw - .2 x 50 _ x 1.5 x 40 - L w it mate Ve - E x N x v Ve - 2 x 40 x _.9 - High Estimate Ve - ExWxv Ve - 2 x 40 x 1.5 _ u.yds. (2) 600 cu.yds. (2) cu.yds. (3) u.yds. (3) Low Estimate Vt - Vb +Vw +Ve Vt - 111 + 144 + 72 327 cu.yds. (4) (1) (2) (3)- High Estimate Vt - Vb +Vw +Ve Vt - 1.007 + 600 + 120 1.727 cu.yds. (4) (1) (2) (3)- Exhibit #4 (cont.) Low Estimate M. Vt x C M- 327 ( cu.yd.) x 5 ($ /cu.yd.) = 1.635 $ (5) (4) High Estimate M =VtxC M. 1.727 (cu.yd.) x 10 ($ /cu.yd.) = 17.270 $ (5) (4) MITIGATION FEE _ ($ range) _ $1.635 to $17.270 Vb the amount of beach material that would have been supplied to the beach if natural erosion continued or the long -term reduction in the supply of bluff material to the beach, over the life of the structure; based on the long -term average retreat rate, design life of the structure, percent of beach quality material in the bluff, and bluff geometry (cubic yards) VW = the long -term erosion of the beach and near- shore, resulting from stabilization of the bluff face and prevention of landward migration of the beach profile; based on the long -term average retreat rate, and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Ve = the volume of sand necessary to replace to area of beach lost due to encroachment by the seawall; based on the seawall design and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Vt = total volume of sand required to replace losses due to the structure, through reduction in material from the bluff, reduction in nearshore area and loss of available beach area (cubic yards). Derived from calculations provided below. Beach Sand Replenishment In -Lieu Fee Worksheet - Exhibit #4 378 Neptune Avenue - Rose - 256 - 282 -13 The following values for the applicable variables have been utilized for the above site to estimate the required mitigation fee: .2 ft. /yr. = R - Long -term regional bluff retreat rate (ft. /yr.), based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Encinitas area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.2 ft. /year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. .40 - .80 = S - Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff material, based on analysis of bluff material .9 - 1.5 v = Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall; based on the vertical distance from the top of the beach berm to the seaward limit of reversible sediment movement (cubic yards /ft of width and and ft. of retreat). The value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yard per square foot of beach. In the report, Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report" (December 1987, part of the Coast of California Storm and Tide Wave Study, Document #87 -4), a value for v of 0.9 cubic yards /square foot was suggested. If a vertical distance of 40 feet is used for the range of reversible sediment movement, v would have a value of 1.5 cubic yards /square foot (40 feet x 1 foot x 1 foot / 27 cubic feet per cubic yard). These different approaches yield a range of values for v from 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot. The value for v would be valid for a region, and would not vary from one property to the adjoining one. Until further technical information is available for a more exact value of v, any value within the range of 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot could be used by the applicant without additional documentation. Values below or above this range would require additional technical support. Exhibit #4 (cont.) 20 to 50 yr. = L = Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of the seawall beyond the intial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. 40 ft. = W = Width of property to be armored (ft.) 86 ft. = h = Total height of armored bluff (ft.) 2 ft. = E = encroachment by seawall, measured from the toe of the bluff or back beach (ft.) $5.00 — $10.00 = C = cost, per cubic yard of sand, of purchasing and transporting beach quality material to the project vicinity ($ per cubic yard). Derived from the average of three written estimates from sand supply companies within the project vicinity that would be capable of transporting beach quality material to the subject beach, and placing it on the beach or in the near shore area. 9 ft. = hs - Height of the seawall from the base to the top (ft) 77 ft. = hu = Height of the unprotected upper bluff, from the top of the seawall to the crest of the bluff (ft) .2 ft. /yr. = Rcu = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming no seawall were installed (ft /yr). This value can be assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. 0 ft./yr. = Rcs = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming the seawall has been installed (ft /yr). This value will be assumed to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. Low Estimate Exhibit #4 (cont.) Vb - ( S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + -Chu/2 x (R + (Rcu - Rcs)))] Vb -(AQ x 4Qx20/27) x U-2(9))+(77/2 x(.2 +(.0 - 0)))]- 112.6 cu.vds.(1) High Estimate Vb - ( S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + -Chu/2 x (R + (Rcu - Rcs) )-)] Vb .(.IQ x Qx50/27) x [(.2(9))+ 7( 7/2 x(.2 +(.2 - 0))] - 1.019.3 cu.vds.(1) Low Estimate Vw- R x L x v x W Vw - .2 x 20 x .9 x 40 - 144 cu.yds. (2) High Estimate Vw- R L x x Vw . .2 x 5_ x 1.5 x 40 = 600 cu.yds. (2) Low Estimate Ve - E x W x v Ve - 2 x _Q_ x _ 9 72 cu.yds. (3) High Estimate Ve - ExWxv Ve . 2 x 40 x 1.5 - 120 cu.yds. (3) Low Estimate Vt - Vb +Vw +Ve Vt - 112.6 + 144 + 72 - 328.6 cu.yds. (4) (1) (2) (3) High Estimate Vt - Vb +Vw +Ve Vt - 1019.3 + 600 + 120 - 1.739.3 cu.yds. (4) (1) (2) (3) Exhibit #4 (cont Low Estimate M.Vt x M. 328.6 ( cu.yd.) x _5 ($ /cu.yd.) - 1.643 $ (5) (4) High Estimate M -Vt X M- 1,739.3 ( cu.yd.) x 10 ($ /cu.yd.) = 17.393 $ (5) (4) MITIGATION FEE = ($ range) = $1,643 to $17,393 Vb the amount of beach material that would have been supplied to the beach if natural erosion continued or the long -term reduction in the supply of bluff material to the beach, over the life of the structure; based on the long -term average retreat rate, design life of the structure, percent of beach quality material in the bluff, and bluff geometry (cubic yards) VW = the long -term erosion of the beach and near - shore, resulting from stabilization of the bluff face and prevention of landward migration of the beach profile; based on the long -term average retreat rate, and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Ve the volume of sand necessary to replace to area of beach lost due to encroachment by the seawall; based on the seawall design and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Vt total volume of sand required to replace losses due to the structure, through reduction in material from the bluff, reduction in nearshore area and loss of available beach area (cubic yards). Derived from calculations provided below. Beach Sand Replenishment In -Lieu Fee Worksheet - Exhibit #4 370 Neptune Avenue - Pierce - 256 - 282 -14 The following values for the applicable variables have been utilized for the above site to estimate the required mitigation fee: .2 ft. /yr. = R - Long -term regional bluff retreat rate (ft. /yr.), based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Encinitas area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.2 ft. /year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. .40 - .80 = S = Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff material, based on analysis of bluff material - 1.5 = v = Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall; based on the vertical distance from the top of the beach berm to the seaward limit of reversible sediment movement (cubic yards /ft of width and and ft. of retreat). The value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yard per square foot of beach. In the report, Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report" (December 1987, part of the Coast of California Storm and Tide Wave Study, Document #87 -4), a value for v of 0.9 cubic yards /square foot was suggested. If a vertical distance of 40 feet is used for the range of reversible sediment movement, v would have a value of 1.5 cubic yards /square foot (40 feet x 1 foot x 1 foot / 27 cubic feet per cubic yard). These different approaches yield a range of values for v from 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot. The value for v would be valid for a region, and would not vary from one property to the adjoining one. Until further technical information is available for a more exact value of v, any value within the range of 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot could be used by the applicant without additional documentation. Values below or above this range would require additional technical support. Exhibit #4 (cont.) 20 to 50 yr. - L - Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of the seawall beyond the intial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. 40 ft. = W - Width of property to be armored (ft.) 86 ft. = h - Total height of armored bluff (ft.) 2 ft. _ E = encroachment by seawall, measured from the toe of the bluff or back beach (ft.) $5.00 - $10.00 - C - cost, per cubic yard of sand, of purchasing and transporting beach quality material to the project vicinity ($ per cubic yard). Derived from the average of three written estimates from sand supply companies within the project vicinity that would be capable of transporting beach quality material to the subject beach, and placing it on the beach or in the near shore area. 9 ft. = hs = Height of the seawall from the base to the top (ft) 71 ft. = hu = Height of the unprotected upper bluff, from the top of the seawall to the crest of the bluff (ft) .2 ft./yr. = Rcu = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming no seawall were installed (ft /yr). This value can be assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. 0 ft. /yr. = Rcs = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming the seawall has been installed (ft /yr). This value will be assumed to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. Page 15 Exhibit #4 (cont.) Low Estimate Vb - ( S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + Jhu /2 x (R + (Rcu - Rcs)))l Vb -(.40 x 9x20/27) x [(99Z) +(77/2 x(.2 +(.0 - 0)))l- 112.6 cu.vds.(1) High Estimate Vb - ( S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + ihu /2 x (R + (Rcu - Rcs))-)l Vb -(&Q x 49,x50/27) x [(.2(9))+(77/2 x(.2 +(.2 - 0))l - 1.019.3 cu.yds-(l) Low Estimate Vw - R x L x v x W Vw - .2 x 20 x _9 x 40 High Estimate Vw - R x L x v x W Vw - .2 x 50 x 1.5 x 0 - Low Estimate Ve - E x W x v Ve- 2 x40x.9 High Estimate Ve - E x W x v Ve - 2 x 40 x 1.5 - Low Estimate Vt - Vb +Vw +Ve Vt - 112.6 + 144 + 72 - (1) (2) (3) High Estimate Vt - Vb +Vw +Ve Vt - 1019.3 + 600 + 12_ - (1) (2) (3) 144 cu.yds 600 cu.yds (2) (2) u.yds. (3) 120 cu.yds 328.6 cu.yds u.yds (3) (4) (4) I aye iO Exhibit #4 (cont.) Low Estimate M =VtxC M- 328.6 (cu.yd.) x 5 ($ /cu.yd.) - 1.643 $ (5) (4) High Estimate M -Vt x M= 1.739.3 (cu.yd.) x 1_ ($ /cu.yd.) - 17.393 $ (5) (4) MITIGATION FEE _ ($ range) _ $1.643 to $17.393 Vb the amount of beach material that would have been supplied to the beach if natural erosion continued or the long -term reduction in the supply of bluff material to the beach, over the life of the structure; based on the long -term average retreat rate, design life of the structure, percent of beach quality material in the bluff, and bluff geometry (cubic yards) VW the long -term erosion of the beach and near - shore, resulting from stabilization of the bluff face and prevention of landward migration of the beach profile; based on the long -term average retreat rate, and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Ve - the volume of sand necessary to replace to area of beach lost due to encroachment by the seawall; based on the seawall design and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Vt = total volume of sand required to replace losses due to the structure, through reduction in material from the bluff, reduction in nearshore area and loss of available beach area (cubic yards). Derived from calculations provided below. Page 17 Beach Sand Replenishment In —Lieu Fee Worksheet — Exhibit #4 354 Neptune Avenue — Canter — 256- 282 -17 The following values for the applicable variables have been utilized for the above site to estimate the required mitigation fee: .2 ft. /yr. = R = Long —term regional bluff retreat rate (ft. /yr.), based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Encinitas area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.2 ft. /year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. 40 — .80 = S = Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff material, based on analysis of bluff material = v = Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall; based on the vertical distance from the top of the beach berm to the seaward limit of reversible sediment movement (cubic yards /ft of width and and ft. of retreat). The value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yard per square foot of beach. In the report, Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report" (December 1987, part of the Coast of California Storm and Tide Have Study, Document #87 -4), a value for v of 0.9 cubic yards /square foot was suggested. If a vertical distance of 40 feet is used for the range of reversible sediment movement, v would have a value of 1.5 cubic yards /square foot (40 feet x 1 foot x 1 foot / 27 cubic feet per cubic yard). These different approaches yield a range of values for v from 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot. The value for v would be valid for a region, and would not vary from one property to the adjoining one. Until further technical information is available for a more exact value of v, any value within the range of 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot could be used by the applicant without additional documentation. Values below or above this range would require additional technical support. Page 18 Exhibit #4 (cont.) 20 to 50 yr. = L = Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of the seawall beyond the intial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. 40 ft. = H = Width of property to be armored (ft.) 90 ft. = h = Total height of armored bluff (ft.) 2 ft. = E = encroachment by seawall, measured from the toe of the bluff or back beach (ft.) $5.00 — $10.00 = C = cost, per cubic yard of sand, of purchasing and transporting beach quality material to the project vicinity ($ per cubic yard). Derived from the average of three written estimates from sand supply companies within the project vicinity that would be capable of transporting beach quality material to the subject beach, and placing it on the beach or in the near shore area. 9 ft. = hs Height of the seawall from the base to the top (ft) 81 ft. - hu = Height of the unprotected upper bluff, from the top of the seawall to the crest of the bluff (ft) .2 ft. /yr. = Rcu = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming no seawall were installed (ft /yr). This value can be assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. 0 ft. /yr. - Rcs = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming the seawall has been installed (ft /yr). This value will be assumed to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. Page 19 Exhibit #4 (cont.) Low Estimate Vb - ( S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + ihu /2 x (R + (Rcu — RCS)-))] Vb =(.40 x 0x20/27) x [(.2(9)) +(61/2 x(.2 +(0 — 0)))]. 117 cu.yds.(1) High Estimate Vb - ( S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + (hu /2 x (R + (Rcu — RCS)))] Vb -(.,Q x 0x50/27) x [(.2(9)) +(81/2 x(. +(.2 — 0)))] - 1.067 cu.yds.(1) Low Estimate Vw. R x L x v x Vw . ._ x 20 x .9 x 40 144 cu.yds. (2) High Estimate Vw - R x L x v x W Vw . .2 x _ 0 x 1.5 x 40 600 cu.yds. (2) Low Estimate Ve - E x W x v Ve - 2 x 40 x 9 . 72 cu.yds. (3) High Estimate Ve - E x W x v Ve - 2 x 40 x 1.5 120 cu.yds. (3) Low Estimate Vt -Vb +Vw +Ve Vt - 117 + 144 + 72 - 333 cu.yds. (4) (1) (2) (3) High Estimate Vt - Vb +Vw +Ve Vt - 1,067 + 600 + 120 _ (1) (2) (3) u.yds. (4) rage _� Exhibit #4 (cont.) Low Estimate M. Vt x C M. 333 (cu.yd.) x 5 ($/cu.yd. ) - 1,665 $ (5) (4) High Estimate M. Vt x C M -1,787 (cu.yd.) x 10 ($ /cu.yd.) - 17,870 $ (5) (4) MITIGATION FEE - ($ range) - $1,665 to $17,870 Vb = the amount of beach material that would have been supplied to the beach if natural erosion continued or the long -term reduction in the supply of bluff material to the beach, over the life of the structure; based on the long -term average retreat rate, design life of the structure, percent of beach quality material in the bluff, and bluff geometry (cubic yards) VW = the long -term erosion of the beach and near - shore, resulting from stabilization of the bluff face and prevention of landward migration of the beach profile; based on the long -term average retreat rate, and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Ve - the volume of sand necessary to replace to area of beach lost due to encroachment by the seawall; based on the seawall design and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Vt total volume of sand required to replace losses due to the structure, through reduction in material from the bluff, reduction in nearshore area and loss of available beach area (cubic yards). Derived from calculations provided below. Page 21 Beach Sand Replenishment In -Lieu Fee Worksheet - Exhibit #4 312 Neptune Avenue - Evleth - 256 - 352 -03 The following values for the applicable variables have been utilized for the above site to estimate the required mitigation fee: .2 ft./yr. = R . Long -term regional bluff retreat rate (ft. /yr.), based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Encinitas area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.2 ft. /year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. .40 - .80 = S = Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff material, based on analysis of bluff material v = Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall; based on the vertical distance from the top of the beach berm to the seaward limit of reversible sediment movement (cubic yards /ft of width and and ft. of retreat). The value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yard per square foot of beach. In the report, Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report" (December 1987, part of the Coast of California Storm and Tide Have Study, Document #87 -4), a value for v of 0.9 cubic yards /square foot was suggested. If a vertical distance of 40 feet is used for the range of reversible sediment movement, v would have a value of 1.5 cubic yards /square foot (40 feet x 1 foot x 1 foot / 27 cubic feet per cubic yard). These different approaches yield a range of values for v from 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot. The value for v would be valid for a region, and would not vary from one property to the adjoining one. Until further technical information is available for a more exact value of v, any value within the range of 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot could be used by the applicant without additional documentation. Values below or above this range would require additional technical support. rage z2 Exhibit #4 (cont.) 20 to 50 yr. = L - Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of the seawall beyond the intial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. 40 ft. = W = Width of property to be armored (ft.) 82 ft. = h = Total height of armored bluff (ft.) 2 ft. = E = encroachment by seawall, measured from the toe of the bluff or back beach (ft.) $5.00 — $10.00 = C = cost, per cubic yard of sand, of purchasing and transporting beach quality material to the project vicinity ($ per cubic yard). Derived from the average of three written estimates from sand supply companies within the project vicinity that would be capable of transporting beach quality material to the subject beach, and placing it on the beach or in the near shore area. 9 ft. - hs - Height of the seawall from the base to the top (ft) 73 ft. = hu = Height of the unprotected upper bluff, from the top of the seawall to the crest of the bluff (ft) .2 ft. /yr. - Rcu = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming no seawall were installed (ft /yr). This value can be assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. 0 ft. /yr. = Rcs = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming the seawall has been installed (ft /yr). This value will be assumed to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. rage e..i Exhibit #4 (cant.) Low Estimate Vb - ( S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + (hu /2 x (R + (Rcu – Rcs)))] Vb -(.44 x 4-Q–x20/27) x [(.2(9))+113/2 x(.2 +(0 – 0)))]- 108 cu.yds_(1) Hiah Estimate Vb - ( S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + (hu /2 x (R + (Rcu – Rcs)))] Vb -(�Q x 40x50/27) x [(.2(9))+(73/2 x(.2 +(.2 – 0)))] - 972 cu.yds.(1) Low Estimate Vw- RxLxvxW Vw - .2 x ZQ_ x —9 x 40 144 cu.yds. (2) High Estimate Vw- R x L x v x W Vw - .2 x 50 x 1.5 x 40 600 cu.yds. (2) Low Estimate Ve - E x W x v Ve - 2 x 40 x .9 = 72 cu.yds. (3) High Estimate Ve - E x W x v Ve = 2 x 40 x 1.5 120 cu.yds. (3) Low Estimate Vt - Vb +Vw +Ve Vt - 108 + 144 + 72 324 cu.yds. (4) (1) (2) (3) High Estimate Vt - Vb +Vw +Ve Vt - 972 + 600 + 120 1.692 cu.yds. (4) (1) (2) (3) Exhibit #4 SLD nt. Low Estimate M. Vt x C M- 324 (cu.yd.) x 5 ($ /cu.yd.) 1.620 $ (4) High Estimate M. Vt x C M= 1,692 (cu.yd.) x 10 ($ /cu.yd.) (4) (5) 16.920 $ (5) MITIGATION FEE = ($ range) = $1.620 to $16,920 Vb = the amount of beach material that would have been supplied to the beach if natural erosion continued or the long -term reduction in the supply of bluff material to the beach, over the life of the structure; based on the long -term average retreat rate, design life of the structure, percent of beach quality material in the bluff, and bluff geometry (cubic yards) VW = the long -term erosion of the beach and near - shore, resulting from stabilization of the bluff face and prevention of landward migration of the beach profile; based on the long -term average retreat rate, and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Ve = the volume of sand necessary to replace to area of beach lost due to encroachment by the seawall; based on the seawall design and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Vt = total volume of sand required to replace losses due to the structure, through reduction in material from the bluff, reduction in nearshore area and loss of available beach area (cubic yards). Derived from calculations provided below. (9304A) <$> SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street. P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280 -4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TMUE: Neptune Sea Wall SCMIvO.E Nn: 9512037 r.B.NO: 6 (Pg 1 of 1) PROJECT LOCATION: See Below PERhUr NO: See Below PLAN EO.E NO: AROmECr: ENGINEER: Civil Engineering Consultants GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Soil Engineering Construction suBCONrRACrOR, 5/30/95 GROUT CUBES Time Arrived: 0500 Time Departed: 0630 L. Shaw Grout: 3000 psi 60844 Richards Residence: 522 Neptune, Encinitas Permit No.: 3531 PE On site to sample the grout for tie - backs. The grout was mixed on site and injected into the borings with a small diameter pipe. Obtained three samples during the grout placement. 5/31195 GROUT CUBES Time Arrived: 0500 Time Departed: 0630 L. Shaw Concrete: 3000 psi 60844 Han Residence: 386 Neptune, Encinitas Permit No.: 3833 PE On site to sample the grout for tie - backs. The grout was mixed on site and injected into the borings with a small diameter pipe. Obtained three 2 'x2' samples during the grout placement. 6/1/95 GROUT CUBES Time Arrived: 0500 Time Departed: 0630 L. Shaw Concrete: 3000 psi 60844 Pierce Residence: 370 Neptune, Encinitas Permit No.: 3829 PE On site to sample the grout for tie - backs. The grout was mixed on site and injected into the borings with a small diameter pipe. Obtained three 2 "x2" samples during the grout placement. UISIA ®ViION: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BY: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 0280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627. Sam Diego, CA 92160, (619) 2804321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT nwiECr TrrLE: Neptune Sea Wall S( THE NO: 9512037 LX NO: 7 (Pg i of 1) FRO. Cr r. UON: See Below rvRnm NO: See Below PLAN Eae NO: See Below .+RaDTECr: Er+GMM Civil Engineering Consultants Gnvexnr. CONrxnCroR: Soil Engineering Construction SrncuNrancrOR: 6113/95 REINFORCED CONCRETE L. Shaw Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60, epoxy coated 60844 Concrete: Palomar Transit Mix #414006, 4000 psi Wills Residence: 470 Neptune. Encinitas Permit No.: 3797 PE Unscheduled cancellation. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0300 Time Departed: 1000 6/14/95 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60, epoxy coated L. Shaw Concrete: Palomar Transit Mix #414006, 4000 psi 60844 Epoxy: Two part Akzo Avgaurd Wills Residence: 470 Neptune, Encinitas Permit No.: 3797 PE On site to provide continuous special inspection for the placement of approximately 40 cubic yards of concrete for the second lift of the wall section, from the south end of the residence (abutting the city wall) to 40' northward. The concrete was placed by a conveyor belt and a loader bucket and consolidated by a mechanical vibrator. The concrete was placed when the loads were 2'k to 3% hours old. The contractor was notified that this could result in lower than specified strength and elected to use the concrete at his awn risk. Cast one set of four compressive strength samples and measured slump. Slump = 1 -314' at the time of placement. Air = 4.4 %. Observed the reinforcing steel as per the plans. However, the dowels from the first lift had the epoxy coating wom away and the bars had rusted. The contractor cleaned the majority of the rust off with Naval Jelly. However, some rust did remain. The epoxy coating was applied to the dowel bars but some small areas were coated with very thin epoxy or not coated at all. The City Inspector was notified of the above conditions. DOITRUIMON: (2) Soil Engineer Construction RsvvawwIDBY: /r'` /A /�J Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 •ST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280 -4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: Neptune Sea Wall SC &T FILE NO: 9512037 I.ILNO: 16 (Pg 2 of 3) PROJECT LOCATION: See Below PERMIT NO: See Below PLAN FILE NO: A MTeCT: ENGINEER: Civil Engineering Consultants GENERALCONTRACTOR: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 10/25/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 10/26/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1600 Time Departed: 1900 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi Euleth Residence, 312 Neptune, Permit No. 3827 PE Arrived on site as requested to provide special inspection of the reinforcing steel and provided continuous observation of the concrete placement for the Euleth residence, middle or second lift. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 49 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 5'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1730 Time Departed: 2000 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design M375P, 4000 psi Pierce Residence, 370 Neptune Avenue Arrived on site as requested to inspect the reinforcing steel and to provide continuous observation of the concrete placement for the Pierce residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel at this location and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 50 cubic yards of concrete at this location with the placement by means of a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (1) City of Encinitas RE"EIVEDM Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627, Sao Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-0321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: Neptune Sea Wall s TTLE NO: 9512037 I.R. NO: 18 (Pg 1 Of 1) PROJECT LOCATION: See Below PERMrr NO: See Below PLAN TILE NO: ,RCHFTECT, ENCE49ER: Civil Engineering Consultants GENERAL C01'ITMCrOR: Soil Engineering Construction BUBCONTRACrOR: 11/6195 G. Ledbetter 80621 11/8/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1430 Time Departed: 1800 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi Han Residence, 286 Neptune, Permit No. 3833 PE Pierce Residence, 370 Neptune, Permit No. 3829 PE Arrived on site as requested to perform the special inspection of the reinforcing steel and provided continuous observation of the concrete placement for full 40 ft. of the Pierce residence and 40 ft. of the Han residence, top lift. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 36 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electrical vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4 -3/4 ". Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1600 Time Departed: 1 730 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375P, 4000 psi Klinck Residence, 502 Neptune, Permit No. 3793 PE Sbordone Residence, 510 Neptune, Permit No. 3792 PE Oakley Residence, 498 Neptune, Permit No. 3794 PE Arrived on site as requested to perform special inspection of the reinforcing steel and to provide continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcing steel for the northerly 8 ft. of the Oakley residence and 40 ft. of the Klinck residence and the southerly 40 ft. of the Sbordone residence and found them to be as per the plans. Observed the placement of approximately 80 cubic yards of concrete at this location with the placement by means of a conveyor and consolidation done by an electrical vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4'A'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. DUTIURLMON: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (11 City of Encinitas REVIEWED BY: /. iLW' _ MISSION Michael B. Wheeler. R.C.E. #45358 - 4.0 E� Wyman Testing Laboratories (619) 675 -0270 COVERING WORK PERFORMED WHICH ❑ REINFORCED CONCRETE ❑ STRUCT. STEEL ASSEMBLY REQUIRED APPROVAL BY THE SPECIAL ❑ PRE - STRESSED CONCRETE ❑ REINFORCED GYPSUM ❑ GLUE -LAM, FABRICATION INSPECTOR OF ❑ REINFORCED MASONRY ❑ PILE DRIVING ❑ OTHER JO 'e&ne Avenue (Multi Homes) NO. 94-236 FOORWEEK 12 -23 094 OW9@&*W11CTPPM eat BLDG. PERMIT NO PLAN FILE NO. CONSTR. MAT 'L (TYPE. GRADE. ETC.) ARCHITEf7 J Randle P E DESIGN STRENGTH SOURCE OR MFGR. ENGINEE Ift J Randle P E DESCRIBE MAT 'L (MIX DESIGN, (RE -BAR GRADE & MFGR) GENERAT,5jjifiCT2hglneering CO CONTR. %P'9TA YT?Mering Co LAB Wyman Testing Laboratories UNSCHEDULED CANCELLATION 12 -23 Arrived at 5:00 pm as scheduled for a concrete pour. Due to conditions outside of our control, tidal action to close to area of the pour, the scheduled work was canceled without notice. No inspections were performed. Location: Frickman and Averbach Residences. PIP �,1`cptl` . FcNci roe o�T�S S'on, WHD 01 -17 Don Webb CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE INSPECTED ALL OF THE ABOVE REPORTED WORK. UNLESS - 'T(71f OTHERWISE NOTED I HAVE FOUND THIS WORK TO COMPLY WITH THE APPROVED PLANS & / i- .? SPECIFICATIONS, AND APPLICABLE SECTIONS. SOIL Enanii41nG cans- nurlmn.Y R00019Q boa: f - Amp iett'SZ GN�.ardtS December 21, 1994 N AJ@- Civil Engineering Consultants Mr. Charles J. Randle 619 South Vulcan, Suite 207 Encinitas, CA 92024 Plan Change Request Lower Bluff Seawall- Richards & Auerbach Groups Temporary Encroachment Permit 3531 TE & 3511TE Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Charles J. Randle: This letter is being submitted for your review and approval concerning the following changes to the approved plans for the Lower Bluffs Seawall Project - Richards Group (3531 G/M.U.P. 93 -111 & 3511TE/M.U.P. 93 -060) Change from shotcrete to poured in place concrete with similar material specifications shown on the approved plans. 2. Change proposed top of wall elevation to +13' (MSL). 3. Change tieback anchor elevations to +5 t (lower) and +11 t (upper) and respective lengths to 20 feet with 15 foot bond length and 25 feet, with 10 foot bond length, respectively. 4. Tieback anchor holes will be drilled to approximately 5 inches in diameter. 5. Tieback anchors will be threaded #8 epoxy coated steel reinforcing bar. If you have any questions regarding these changes, please do not hesitate contacting us. truly yours, ' 1NGINEE CONSTRUCTION )oMt W. Niven Contractor's License No. 268082 c: Mr. Hans Jensen, City of Encinitas Engineering Mr. Greg Shields, City of Encinitas Engineering Mr. Todd Baumbach , City of Encinitas Engineering Inspection 61 9 Sou[tt Vulcan Avenue, Suite 210 • Encinitas. CA 92024 • (6 19) 944 -4124 • FAX 161 9) 634 -2401 General Enaineerina Contractor LicenseA- 268082 C4 FUTIAIF LN'PER WAI -1- If REWIRED TOP OF WALL Q — •413'MSL / h 4 -04 ( SEE SECTION m F Rv50' "HEAR COURSE tl MONOLITHIC CONCRETE 'ppyy' (POURED IN- PLACE) Q PLACEMENT. SSE NOTE > BELOW (TYP.) /3 TIES 0 I VARIES w SEE SECTION F/2 a 24 3' PVC BACRL)RAIN OUII E1 , .n!ST A13OVE� FORMATIONAL MATERIAL �J ri 4 "x4" KEY 03 TIE 0 4- I SEE DETAI� C/2 4' WIDE "J" DRA`N OR SIMILAR AT 10' C 05 En t"- RONFIED AREA J � �4 —p6 (2 EF) 12 6� SEE DETAIL 1112 5 MIN 'FROX. LOCATIOII OF–/ MUTATION MATERIALS VARIES TOE OF WALL TO BE EMBEDDED AT LEAST 2 rEEr IITTo BEDROCK (MINIMUM) OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER IN THE FIELD NOTE: SIIOTCRETE IS REPLACED WrIll POURED IN- PIACE CONCRETE. 171E (POURF.1) IN- PLACE) CONCRETE MIX DESIGN SIIAIA, MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPRESSIVE SIRENG '111(28 days) AND WATER/CEMENT RATIO SPECIFIED IN "NOTES" ON DRAWING SHEET I of 2. 111E CONCRETE MIX DESIGN SHALL Qt SUUMrM -D TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONCRETE FORMS WILL RE PROFESSIONALY SCULP`IF.D SO TIIAT TTIF, FINISIIED FACE OF TILE SEAWALL WILL CIASEI,Y MATCH 111E APPEARENCE OF 171E ADJACENT BUIFF. REVISED DETAIL : 3/2 N.T.S. 44000 ROCK ANCHOR 8 KIPS. L=25 Al 100 C /0 4"0 I'O(k AIICII(111 19 1�IPS. L =20� Al 10'0 C City of Encinitas June 29, 1995 Mr. John Niven 3220 South Standard Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 Re: Reinstatement of Beach Encroachment Permit for Seawall Construction Dear Mr. Niven: As a follow -up to last night's meeting, you are hereby authorized to begin construction on the seawalls for MUP 93 -070 and 93 -111 between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. with the following direction: 1. As a first order of work, the exposed rebar and tiebacks must either be capped, cut off or otherwise covered to protect the public from injury. Prior to pouring any more concrete, the rebar and tieback safety issue must be resolved. 2. All the K -rail must be removed from the beach and stored off - site until needed. Again, this must be done before proceeding with wall construction. 3. If you wish to continue constructing the upper 10 feet of wall in two pours a request for a plan revision must be submitted by the design engineer and approved by the City. 4. Your lease of the Encinitas contractors yard is terminated effective July 15, 1995. If you wish to continue using that site beyond the July 15 date, please contact Bob Nelson, Director of Public works to discuss the conditions under which a lease extension might be approved. 5. The Council was extremely concerned about noise violations. Rather than requiring you to post a bond or cash deposit to insure compliance with our noise ordinance, they have put the responsibility on SEC to control noise. Any violation of the noise ordinance will result in the pulling of your seawall permits. gc4631 TEL 619-633 -2600 / FAX 619-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue. Encinitas. California 92024 -3633 TDD 619-633 -2700 C i mydedpoW Mr. John Niven June 29, 1995 page two 6. Please submit a revised schedule based upon the 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday work period. 7. The summer operation work measures in your June 23, 1995 letter, with the exceptions stated above, are approved. Should you have any questions, please contact either Greg Shields or Todd Baumbach. Si_ ncerely &LW Alan D. Archibald, P.E. Director of Engineering Services cc: Gxeg Shields, Sr. Civil Engineer, Field operations ✓Todd Baumbach, Inspector Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager Bob Trettin Dave Oakley, GRAD Chick Randle Bob Nelson, Director of Public Works gc4631 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP "Specialists In Earth Retention Solutions" SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS OCEAN FRONT SLOPE EROSION 300 & 400 BLOCK NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: HOMEOWNERS 300 & 400 BLOCK NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 14, 1992 PREPARED BY: EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 1529 GRAND AVENUE SUITE A SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 1529 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE A • SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 • (619) 471 -6351 N.C.E.E. #4170 • CA. R.C.E. #622096 • ARZ. R.C.E. #11971 • NEV. R.C.E. #3037 • WA. C.E. #10776 C:VIL, STRUCTURAL, AND SOILS ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY • SURVEY • CERTIFIED INSPECTION • SOIL AND MATERIAL TESTING • FEASIRILRY STUDIES • CONTRACT MANAGEMENT e II FS= /,Z`% 100 ----------------------------------------I-------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ----------------------------- = --------------- ------ �(59,d2� EXISTING RESOENGE (150 .82) so------------- -------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- - -- - -- -- - --- 9la.8'1�--- ----------- - - - - -- 7o-- -- - - -- ------- - - - - -- --------------------------------------- - - - - - - -- F /a /LUF�E � - -- -- - --- -- -- - - -- -- --------------------------------------------- -------- - - - - -- - --- --WHITE WHITE TERRACE DEP051T5 (PLEI5TOCENE) so------------------------- ------------------------- ---- - - - - -- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ilo,31 20 ------------------ --------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- TORREY SANDSTONE (EOCEIVE) 10 ------- ----- - - -- -- ---------- ------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------- LE: SECTION A —A SCALE: 1 " -30' - - -SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS- - SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 312NEP EVLETH BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 TOP BOUNDARIES 3 TOTAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARY X -LEFT Y -LEFT X -RIGHT * * Design Professionals Management Systems * * Kirkland. Washington x * x x * * ----------------------- * * STABL4 Slope Stability * ----------------------- 82.00 1 x * IBM PC R 8066/8088 MS -DOS Version * * Revision 4.1 - 03/03/86 * ,r x 1 3 96.00 - -SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS- - SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 312NEP EVLETH BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 TOP BOUNDARIES 3 TOTAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARY X -LEFT Y -LEFT X -RIGHT Y -RIGHT SOIL TYPE NO. (FT) ( FT ) (FT) ( FT ) BELOW BND 1 16.00 31.00 59.00 82.00 1 2 59.00 82.00 96.00 82.00 1 3 96.00 82.00 150.00 82.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOTL PARAMETERS 1 TYPE(S) OF SOIL SOIL TOTAL_ SATURATED COHESION FRICTION • PORE PRESSURE PIEZ O _TRIO TYPE UNIT WT. UNIT WT. INTERCEPT ANGLE PRESSURE CONSTANT SU R 4CE NO. ( P(F ) ( PCF ) ( PSF ) (DEG) PARAMETER ( PSF ) t t06.0 106.0 300.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 i A HORIZONTAL_ EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT 070.150 HAS BFEKI ASSIGNED - A VEPTTCAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFIC..IENT OFO.000 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED CAVITATION PRESSURE = 0.0 PSF A f'RTTT!'AF. f-AIL'&F S"P7 "T 'FARCHING METHOD. USING A RANDOM TTPHNTOUT FOP F;mmATTNA rTr•C01AP SOPFACE4. HAS RFEN SPECIFIED. 1.0O TRIAL SUP.FACER HAVE BEEN GENERATED. 10 SURFACES TNITIATE FROM EACH OF 10 POTNTS EQUALLY SPACED ALONG THE GROUND 9URFACE BETWEEN X = 19.00 FT. AND X = 30.00 FT. EACH SURFACE TERMINATES BETWEEN X = 00.00 FT. AND X = 125.00 FT. UNCETS FURTHER LIMITATIONS WERE IMPOSED. THE MINIMUM ELEVATION AT WHICH A SURFACE EXTENDS TS Y = ^1.00 FT. ? ?.Yn ;=T. LTN °_ SOGMENT•S OOFTNE EACH TRIAL FATi_URE SURFACE. PE?TRTrTTONS KAVF BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE ANGLE OF INITIATION. THE ANQLF HAS 9REN PT TRICTED BETWEEN THE ANGLES OF 0.0 AND 45.0 DEG FOL.LOWTN6 ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE. TRIAL. FAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICAL FIRST. * * * SAFETY FACTORS ARE CALCULATED BY THE MODIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * FATI._URE SIIRFArE SPECIFIED BY o COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y-BURF NO. (FT) (FT) l 20.22 36.01 2 31.87 41.32 3 43.32 47.04 4 54.57 53.14 5 65.61 59.63 6 76.41 66.49 7 86.98 73.72 8 97.29 81.30 9 98.17 $2.00 * ** 1.283 * ** FAILIIRF SURFACE. SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT Y -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 19.00 34.56 2 31.80 34.56 3 44.43 36.67 4 56.53 40.83 5 67.79 46.93 6 77.89 54.7Q 7 86.55 64.21 8 93.55 74.93 9 96.65 82.00 * ** 1.290 * ** FATI_URE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) t. 21.44 37.46 ^_ 33.10 42.75 3 44.56 4,q.45 4 55.81 54.56 5 66.84 61.05 6 77.F? 67.93 7 88.19 75.1-4 R 47.37 82.00 * ** 1.299 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY. 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 19.00 34.56 2 31.77 35.41 3 44.34 37.85 4 56.50 41.83 5 68.07 47.30 6 78.87 54.18 7 88.73 62 -34 A 97.49 71.68 9 104.99 82.00 ** 1.337 * ** FATLURF SURFACE_ SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINT'S POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 21.44 37.46 2 33.73 41.04 3 45.76 45.42 4 57.47 50.59 5 68.82 56.51 6 79,75 63.17 7 QO.22 70.54 ? 100.18 73.58 9 103.89 82.00 1.341 * ** FAILURE_ SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 21.44 37.46 2 34.24 37.72 3 46.84 39.99 4 58.92 44.21 5 70.20 50.27 6 80.38 58.03 7 89.23 67.28 8 96.51 77.81 9 98.52 811.00 ** 1.341 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED nY 10 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF Nth. (FT) (FT) 1 19.00 14.56 2 31.64 36.55 3 44.04 39.72 4 56.09 44.05 5 67.67 49.50 6 78.69 56.02 7 89.05 63.54 e 78.65 72.01 9 107.40 81.34 10 107.91 82.00 *r 1.341 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COOP.DTNATE POINTS POINT Y -SURF Y -SURF N), (FT) (FT) 1 21.44 37.46 2 34.24 37.88 3 46.82 40.22 4 58.91 44.45 5 70.21 50.44 6 80.48 58.08 7 89,49 67.18 R 97.01 77.54 9 99.31 82.00 * ** 1.344 * ** FATUIRF SURFACE SPFr-TFTEP RY -� (,O0rDTNATE POTMTP. OOTNT X-SURF Y-SURF No FT 1 f FT 1 72.67 38.,x1 2 S 43.57 4:1 01 4':) .72 4 55.13 55.89 5 -17 6 77.51 61) .4Q 7 88.68 74.58 8 99.83 80.87 1.01.%33 82.00 1.347 *** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF Y-SURF NO ( FT ) ( FT ) 1 ?1.44 37.46 2 32.69 43.57 4 3 4':) .72 4 55.13 55.89 5 6 2. o,:) 6 77.51 68.32 7 88.68 74.58 8 99.83 80.87 1.01.%33 82.00 1.385 *** Y A 0.00 13.75 X O.C)o --------------- 18.75 F X I s 37.50 56.25 T. 2 e4, F T 75.00 93.75 ------------- - ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- X .27. .5.30. ...69. ...... .......13 276..5 ... ..9.. 75.00 + ... ..... ..27.... 3. . .... ..... .4. .6 . I ...........ti . . . . . . . 71 7 111.25 150.00 - ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- 100 B0__ R -------------- --- ----- ---- ----- --- ---- - --- ------------------------------------------------------ EXISiNC RESIDENCE ___ ___ ________ _____ ____________ ________ `S= D.9? _ _____ _____ ____ __ j o ! u: cZit �i oa h rai ;fs as� w W F- Q d _________________ _____________________ F /1 /G!/Ke67 0rlRFALE 70 ---- p--- ---- ------ -- ----- - -- -- - - - --- ------------------------------------------------------------ T WHITE TERRACE DEPOSITS CPLEI5TOCENE) 60 ----=- ------------- - - - - -- - - - ---- ---------------------------------- -- ------- -------------- - - - -- -- w s0--- ----------- - - - --- -- ---- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 ---------- - - - - -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zo'M (150�3��-- 90 ----r--- - - -- -- ------------ --------- ------ - -� --- --- — -- -- — - 20 ------- - -- ------ ----- -------------------------- ----- --- -------------- ----------- - --- — TORREY SANDSTONE (EOGENE) 10 -- --- - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- - PROFILE: SECTION A —A SCALE: 1 " -30' JOINT IN TORREY SANDSTONE STRIKE N5'E DIP 75 W r rJ 1 CONTENTS SLIP CIRCLE ANALYSIS............ Page .......................... 1 - 3 WALL DESIGN EL -6 TO EL 10,1 .................................. 4 DESIGN SLAB ............... ............................... 4 DESIGN BEAM AT EL 9 ....... ............................... 6 BEAM DESIGN ........... ............................... 6 CHECK SHEAR ........... ............................... 7 TIEBACK DESIGN ........ ............................... 7 TIEBACK BEARING PLATE . ............................... 0 PUNCHING SHEAR ........ ............................... 0 DESIGN BEAM AT EL 0 ....... ............................... 9 BEAM DESIGN ........... ............................... 9 CHECK SHEAR—* ....................................... 10 TIEBACK DESIGN ........ ............................... 10 TIEBACK BEARING PLATE . ............................... 10 PUNCHING SHEAR— 11 WALL DESIGN EL 10 TO EL 24 .... ............................... 12 DESIGN SLAB.... . . ... ........ ............................ 12 DESIGN BEAM AT EL 10 AND EL 24 ........................... 14 BEAM DESIGN ........... ............................... 14 CHECK SHEAR ........... ............................... 15 TIEBACK DESIGN ....................... 15 TIEBACK BEARING PLATE . ............................... 15 PUNCHING SHEAR ....................................... 16 - 11 - 5 - B 6 7 7 - 8 - S - 9 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 11 - lb - 13 16 14 - 15 15 15 16 M&-rHOD OF SLICES. 1 PROJECT: AUREBACH RESIDENCE ADDRESS: 396 NEPTUNE. LOCATION: DATE: 1/4/93 Notes to designer. x = -50 ft Y 30•ft Center of circle. c u b := 1 ft gamma 126 pcf �p 40 dee c := 1600 paf Sandstone properties. gamma3 105 pcf Upper slope properties. H 10 ft Height of lower slope. H 15 ft Height of middle slope. H 100 ft rH + H H = 75 ft Height of sand. H + H = 25 £t Height of sandstone. r n 1 ^'1 := atan — -1 = 2.9'deg "Backslope of H0% L20J 110 Y atanl —I 0 = 84.3-deg "Slope of Hf,. I_1 J j1.4j 03 atanl — I 03 = 3b-deg "Slope of sand. L 2 m tan(90 deg - xl) m = 20 L (x) m x U.5- tt m m x v = 1u-ft m = tan(0) m = 10 (X) := M. jx x I i v J! L 1 j v =H +H V =25 ft V x + x ft 2 v = H + H -i H v = 100 ft 4 a G 3 4 x = x + x = 109.1 ft 4 1, tan(.03) 4 L(x) if ix < 0-ft.U*tt.ifix < x L (x).ifix < x L (x).v,, Ill jjj 2 v 2 - V,.; 4 ' vc; + V + - x I I c 1 jxc co Ix C: I V V x x Given > FS x I LAX I i L.9 J x J Find i. x v = 25 ft L!x = 25 t t 35 ft L(x).FS(x) r•I -1 ft -50 ft x 15 ft Slope of slice. r ' rd H(x) := iflx t O' ft. 0.ifIx > x 0.atan — FS(x)�I L L 3 I.3x ii.1 Surcharge load on each slice. 6?(x) f,- x :- x U plf,ifrx __ x ix - x2 tan(03),H j'gamma3 bj 4 2 3 J Total weight of each slice. W(x) gamma b (L(x) - FS(x)) + 9(x) rx D d (W(x)) sin(l��(x)) dx Driving force. F `I 0 f t D = 13813.3 lb F 'X R = I3 (W(x) (cos(13(x)) tan(¢)) + c b) dx Resisting force. F I. 1 U ft R = 17628.4 lb F fs 1.5 Ila fs D - h F F I?a pa F "'- "- = 1.276 Existing FS'. D F Required factor of B&Mv. ha = 3091.6'lb Design unbalanced force, 2 pa = 4.95 pcf H + H I U -- --- -- 2ROJECT: AUREBACH RESIDENCE .LOCATION: FROM EL -6 TO EL 10 TYPE: . Assume hinge at el -6 and el 10. Install rock anchor at el 0 and el 9. pa 7 pcf AB (9 - 0) it BC (0 - -b) it H 25 £t w pa H - b Design slab. (AB)� M max1w S M = $.2 Pt'kips Mu := 1.7-M b := 12 in Total height. w = 175 plf "I BCC •w' 2 _I Mu'= 5.4'it' kips Mu Mn — Mn = 6-ft-kips a h 12 in d h .5 d = d in ff Y "c 3000 psi fv 6U'kei I I f'c - 4000 psi II �{ if f'c < 4000 pei..8b.maxI.85 - .05 ..65II 1 � L, 1000' psi J.l k = 0.65 1 .85 £'c 07000 psi B P = U.0214 b iv 1 87000 psi + fv b 200 psi _ . 75 ' r - _ - - -- max b min iV F = 0.016 r? = 0.0033 max min r- .21 ' r? r? = 0.0034 max As p • b' d 2 As = 0.24'in T : = As' fv `1' = 14.b kips As'PV a a = 0.4B in .85'f -c'b C .85'f "c'b'a U = 14.b ' kips a C lid - = 83.8 in kips Required capacity= Mn = 71.4 in kips L 2._I Mn = 6 it kips 'l .002 b h = 0.3 in Use #5 at 12" OC M and 95 at 12" OC (H) with steel in center. Design beam at ei 9. 5 := 10 ft Span between rock anchors. w : = pa H' I, I w = 787.b ' pif L2 i 2 h = 12 in Slab. (S) h := h M := w --- b := 10 in 10 d := h - 3.4 in d = 8.6 in M = 7.9'ft•kips Mu := 1.7'M Mu = 13.4'ft' kips Mu Mn :_ — Mn = 14.9 ft kips H f'c := 3000'psi fv := 60 ksi "c f'c - 4000-psi G = ifjf < 4000 psi..85,maxj.85 - .05 ,.65II 1 I, !_ 1000 psi JJ K = 0.85 1 .85 f'c 87000 psi R . _ - -- k, r> = U . U214 b tv 1 87000 psi + fv b 200 psi _ .75 lo - max b min fy r = O.U16 p = 0.0033 max min _ .28 - r? = 0.0045 max As := rj b d 2 As = 0.39'in T := As fy T = 23.2'kips As fv a :_ - a = 0.91 in .85'f'c'b C :_ .85'f'c'b'a C = 23.2'kips a1 C. Id - -J = 188.7-in-kips Required capacity= Mn = 178.5-in,-kip Mn = 14.9'ft' kips check shear. Vc 2 j —' psi b' d Vc = 9.4 kips psi J V := W.- V = 3.9 kips Vu 1.7 V Vu = 6.7'kips Vu .5-Vc = 4.7-kips Vn Vn = 7.9 kips .85 d 2 - = 4.3 in Av .22 in Av 40 ksi'd 3 : = - -- Vn - Vc Av 4U'ksi - - - - -- = 17.6 in 5U psi b Tieback design. w'S T -- .97 f 800 psf T L : _ .....__._.._._ t ll.. ,4, s = -49 • in Use 93 ties at 4' 00. T = 8.1 kips r := 6-in L = 6.5 ft Use 6" t x 8 ft. 7 Bearing plate. 2 A2 b 1.7 T Al .85 .7•f'c 2 A2 = 100 in 2 Al = 7.7 in {A1 = 2.8-in A = 3.6 a .= 3 i 4A1 �IA2 fp .35 Mill i 2 f'c :ja' a J 1.7 T fp :_ -- fp = 153:1.5 psi 2 a 16 fp 1 in a� tp I. _ 41-in 8.24'ksi Use 3/4" x 3" plate. Punching shear. Vn = 7.9 kips tp = 0.7 in If_' V Vc := 4' — 4 (d + a) .5 d' in psi .I psi tp = 2100-psi U = 10 in d = 8.6 in a = 3 in Vc = 43.7 length kips i •Desian beam at el U. ' S := 10 ft Span between rock anchors. AB r B w : = pa' H' + BC w = 1837.5' pit i I2 J 2 h = 12 in Slab. (S) h := h M := w - -- b := 14 in 10 d := h - 3.4 in d = 8.6 in M = 18.4 ft kips Mu := 1.7'M Mu = 31.2 ft'kips Mu Mn :_ — Mn = 34.7 ft kips a f'c := 3000-psi fv := 60 ksi f "c - 4000'psi �l 0 = if f "c < 4000 psi,.85,maxj.85 - .05 -- -- 65jII 1 I. L 1000 psi �J k = 0.85 1 .65'f'c 87000 psi U.0214 b fv 1 87000 psi i tv b 200 psi max b min fv p = 0.016 + = 0.0033 max min ;. ._ .458-r, t> = U.U073 max As : _ p b` d 2 As = 0.88 in T := As'fv T = b3.1 kips As'fv a :_ — a = 1.4U in .8b t'c'b C :_ .85 f'c•b a C = 53.1 kips I a C, Id - -j = 416.8'in' kips Required capacity= Mn = 416.5 in kip 2 Mn = 34.7 1't' kips Check shear. 1 o f Vc := 2'I-- Pei b d Vc = 13.2 kips A psi S V W.- V = 9.2•kips 2 Vu 1.7 V Vu = 15.6-kips Vu .5 Vc = 6.6-kips Vn -- Vn = 18.4-kips .85 d 2 Av 40'ksi'd - = 4.3 in Av : _ .22 in s : _ --- -- - - -- -- - s = 14.6 in 2 Vn - Vc Av 40 ksi ---'-"'--- = 12.6' in Use #3 ties at 4" OC. 50 psi b Tieback design. w S 18.9 kips .97 f := 800 psf a, 6'in T L L = 15.1'ft Use 6" •t x 15 ft. f n•o Bearing plate. 2 2 A2 := b A2 = 196 in 1.7.T 2 Al :_ --- Al = 18-in •4A1 = 4.2-in .65'.7.f 'c A2 = 3.J a 5•in qA1 r fp .35,min1IA` ,2� f`c tp = 2100 pai 1.7 T fp --- -- tp = 1288.1,psi L 2 6•fp'1'in'a tp — tp = l in 1•in'8.24•ksi Punching shear. Vn = 18.4 kips b = 14 in d = 8.6 in a = 5 in t'C Ve 4,1 —.4,(d + a) 2+in-pai Ve = 23.8-kips 4 Psi K * Design Professionals Management Svstems * * Kirkland. Washington * * ----------------------- * STABL4 Slope Stability * * ----------------------- * * IBM PC 8 8086/8088 MS -DOS Version * * Revision 4.1 - 03/03/86 - -SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS- - SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 TOP BOUNDARIES 3 TOTAL BOUNDARIES 354NEP CANTER BOUNDARY X -LEFT Y -LEFT X -RIGHT NO. (FT) (FT) (FT) 1 20.00 30.00 70.00 2 70.00 93.00 87.00 3 87.00 93.00 150.00 Y -RIGHT SOIL TYPE (FT) BELOW BND 93.00 1 93.00 1 93.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 TYPE($) OF SOIL SOIL TOTAL SATURATED COHESION FRICTION PORE PRESSURE PIEZ O ETRIC TYPE KNIT WT. UNIT WT. INTERCEPT ANGLE PRESSURE CONSTANT SU RFACE NO. (PCF) (PCF) (PSF) (DEG) PARAMETER (PSF) 0. 1 106.0 106.0 300.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 A HORIZONTAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING, COEFFICIENT OFO.150 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED A VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT OFO.000 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED CAVITATION PRESSURE = 0.0 PSF A CRITICAI. FAILURE SIIPFACE SEARCHING METHOD. USING A RANDOM TECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING CIRCULAR SURFACES. HAS BEEN SPECIFIED. 100 TRIAL SURFACES HAVE BEEN GENERATED. 10 SURFACES TNITIATE FROM EACH OF 10 POINTS EQUALLY SPACED ALONG THE C -POUND SURFACE BETWEEN X = 23.00 FT. AND X = 35.00 FT. EACH SURFACE TERMINATE_$ BETWEEN X = 93.00 FT. AND X = 120.00 FT. UNLESS FURTHER LIMITATIONS WERE IMPOSED. THE MINIMUM ELEVATION AT WHICH A SURFACE EXTENDS IS Y = 30.00 FT. 15.80 FT. LINE SEGMENTS DEFINE EACH TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE. RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE ANGLE OF INITIATION. THE ANGLE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED BETWEEN THE ANGLES OF 0.0 AND 45.0 DEG FOLLOWING ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIAL FAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICAL FIRST. * * * SAFETY FACTORS ARE !:ALCULATED BY THE MODIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * FATLUPF SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X- S!.JRF Y -SURF NO (FT) (FT) 1 24.'31 35.4A 2 ?8.71 4 ?.02 3 S2 _33 50.03 4 55.06 54.39 5 76.76 70.01 6 87.30 81.77 7 95.46 93.00 * ** 0.991 * ** FAILURE SURFACE_ SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 25.67 -47.14 2 40.05 43.68 3 53.65 51.72 4 66.30 61.18 5 77.86 71.95 6 88.20 83.91 7 Q4.49 93.00 * ** 0.99Q * ** FATI_URF SURFACE SPECIFIES BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 25.67 37.14 2 40.84 41.56 3 55.25 48.04 4 68.63 56.44 5 80.72 66.61 6 91.30 78.35 7 100.15 91.43 8 100.92 93.00 * ** 1.043 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 23.00 33.78 2 38.44 37.14 3 53.22 42.72 4 67.03 50.41 5 79.56 60.02 6 90.56 71.37 7 99.78 84.20 8 104.33 93.00 * ** 1.052 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 27.00 38.82 2 42.56 41.54 3 57.28 47.32 4 70.61 55.81 5 82.04 66.72 6 91.13 79.64 7 97.06 93.00 �* 1.058 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 29.67 42.18 2 44.21 48.37 3 57.96 56.14 4 70.76 65.40 5 82.45 76.04 6 92.87 87.91 7 96.41 93.00 ** 1.058 * ** FAIUURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 23.00 33.78 2 38.73 35.22 3 53.90 314.67 A 67.91 46.96 5 80.26 56.82 6 90.47 68.88 7 98.16 82.68 8 101.52 93.00 1.079 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 32.33 45.54 2 47.18 57.96 3 61.09 58.44 4 73.79 67.84 5 85.02 78.95 6 94.54 91.56 7 95.33 93.00 * ** 1.082 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 6 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 33.67 47.22 2 48.40 52.94 ? 62.16 60.70 4 74.68 70.33 5 85.71 81.65 6 93.97 93.00 * ** 1.091 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 29.67 42.18 2 44.76 46.86 3 59.09 53.51 4 72.41 62.02 5 84.47 72.22 6 95.06 83.94 7 101.27 93.00 * ** 1.096 * ** 13 A Y A X I S 0.00 18.75 37.50 56.25 0.00 +---------+---------+---------+-- 18.75 + 37.50 + F T 75.00 93.75 -- +---- - - - - -+ X I S F T 56.25 + 75.00 + 93.75 + 112.50 + 131.25 + 150.00 + ..7.4 12 _.. �. .... 53 .. .. ...... 06... .89. .. 4... 12.... 7.. .3 .. 5. 0 6.... ........ .8.9 4....12. I .7.... 3... 6. I .......... ..0 -8.9 2.. .74. .3. . I ..... .. .0.6.81 :.:.:.;.74.. 33 ......... .4 . t - ----------------------------------------- F_..ecution complete, time = 15.22 seconds -------------------------- ----------- - - - - -- h I �i T� _.. �. a � ��, .�• �� y i .� :� o a �bc a L;: L N ' 100 _________ _____________________________ __ --- --- - -S-T ______________ ------------------------------------------ ~F RESIDENCE I sy ____ __________________ __________________________ 90 ----------------- ---- - -- - -- - --- T- --- ----- __ ___ - (6b186� 50, - - - - -- ----------------------- Bo ------------------------ - - - - -- -- -0 0 7o------------------- - - - --- -- ---------- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------- -- `nicvec Svc: Fc� 60 -------------- - - - - -- ------------- - - - - -- ------------------------- ---------------- --------- - - - - -- TLU AN WRITE TERR E DEPOSITS CPLEISTOGENE) C1 50 ---------- - - - - -- ---- --- ------ -- - - -- ---------------------------------- ---------------- 40 ------ - - - - -- - ----- ---- -- - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- -'_ ilE,Zd) Zs� zo - -- -- ------ ------------------------- ------------------------------ -�150� - ----------------- TORREY SANDSTONE CEOGENE� ro----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 ------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ----- ------------- - - - - -- ` w= PR09LE: SECTION A —A 4 SCALE: 1--30' k WS - -SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS- - SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 TOP BOUNDARIES 3 TOTAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARY X -LEFT NO. (FT) 370NEP PIERCE Y -LEFT X -RIGHT (FT) (FT) Y -RIGHT SOIL TYPE (FT) BELOW BND 1 13.40 28.00 66.00 86.00 1 2 66.00 86.00 102.00 86.00 1 3 102.00 86.00 150.00 86.00 1 * * Design Professionals Management Systems * * Kirkland, Washington * * ----------------------- * * STABL4 Slope Stability * * ----------------------- :x * * x * * IBM PC & 8086/8088 MS -DOS Version * Revision 4.1 - 03/03/86 - -SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS- - SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 TOP BOUNDARIES 3 TOTAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARY X -LEFT NO. (FT) 370NEP PIERCE Y -LEFT X -RIGHT (FT) (FT) Y -RIGHT SOIL TYPE (FT) BELOW BND 1 13.40 28.00 66.00 86.00 1 2 66.00 86.00 102.00 86.00 1 3 102.00 86.00 150.00 86.00 1 ISOTROPIr SOIL PARAMETERS 1 TYPE(S) OF SOIL SOIL TOTAL SATURATED C014ESTON FRICTION PORE PRESSURE PIEZ OMETRIC TYPE UNIT WT. UNIT WT. INTERCEPT ANGLE PRESSURE CONSTANT SU P ACE NO. (PCF) (PCF) (PSF) (DEG) PARAMETER (PSF) NO. 1 106.0 106.0 300.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 1 A HORIZONTAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT OFO.150 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED A VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT OFO.000 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED CAVITATION PRESSURE = 0.0 PSF A CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD. USING A RANDOM TECHNIQUE_ FOR GENERATING CIRCULAR SURFACES. HAS BEEN SPECIFIED. 100 TRIAL SURFACES HAVE BEEN GENERATED. 10 SURFACES INITIATE FROM EACH OF 10 POINTS EQUALLY SPACED ALONG THE GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN X = 16.00 FT. AND X = 29.00 FT. EACH SURFACE TERMINATES BETWEEN X = 102.00 FT. AND X = 130.00 FT. UNLE � FURTHER LIMITATIONS WERE IMPOSED. THE MINIMUM ELEVATION AT WHICH A SURFACE EXTENDS IS Y = 28.00 FT. 15.00 FT. LINE SEGMENTS DEFINE EACH TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE. RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE ANGLE OF INITIATION. THE ANGLE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED BETWEEN THE ANGLES OF 0.0 AND 45.0 DEG FOLLOWING ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIAL FAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICAL FIRST. * * * SAFETY FACTORS ARE CALCULATED BY THE MODIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 16.00 31.28 2 31.00 31.29 3 45.77 33.93 4 59.83 39.13 5 72.77 45.73 6 84.16 56.49 7 93.66 68.10 8 100.97 81.20 9 102.62 86.00 * ** 1.224 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 17.44 32.86 2 31.09 39.09 3 44.47 45.88 4 57.56 53.20 5 70.33 61.06 6 82.78 69.44 7 94.87 78.31 8 104.48 86.00 * ** 1.225 * ** FATLURE SURFACE SPF_CIFIEO SY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 18.89 34.44 2 32.55 40.65 3 45.93 47.43 4 59.01 54.77 5 71.76 62.66 6 84.18 71.08 7 96.22 80.03 8 103.58 86.00 * ** 1.237 * ** FATUIRE SURFACE SPECTFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POTNT Y -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 16.00 31.28 2 30.97 32.31 3 45.65 35.37 4 59.78 40.40 5 73.10 47.30 6 85.35 55.96 7 96.31 66.20 8 105.77 77.84 9 110.73 86.00 * ** 1.259 * ** FAILURE SUPFA('E SPECIFIED BY a COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF N0. (FT) (FT) 1 16.00 31.28 2 30.81 33 69 3 45.28 37.63 4 59.27 43.05 5 72.61 49.90 6 85.17 53.10 7 96.81 67.56 8 107.40 78.19 9 113.71 86.00 * ** 1.259 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y-SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 18.89 34.44 2 33.29 38.64 3 47.33 43.92 4 60.93 50.25 5 74.01 57.59 6 86.49 65.91 7 98.31 75.15 8 109.39 85.26 9 110.09 86.00 * ** 1.260 * ** FAILURE_ SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 18.89 34.44 2 33.89 34.77 3 48.61 37.63 4 62.64 42.94 5 75.56 50.55 i, R? .01 60.24 7 96.65 71.74 8 104.21 84.69 9 104.70 86.00 * ** 1.263 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (.FT) 1 18.89 34.44 2 33.88 34.94 3 48.59 37.88 4 62.62 43.19 5 75.59 50.73 6 87.14 60.29 7 Q6 .98 71.61 8 104.83 84.40 9 105.48 86.00 * ** 1.265 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 20.33 36.03 2 35.33 36.43 3 50.02 39.46 4 63.95 45.02 5 76.70 52.93 r; 87,A6 62.94 7 97.10 74.76 8 103.06 8(1.00 * ** 1.267 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 18.89 34.44 2 33.86 35.37 3 48.56 38.37 4 62.69 43.40 5 75.98 50.35 6 88.18 59.08 7 99.04 69.43 8 108.35 81.19 9 111.16 86.00 * ** 1.303 * ** Y A X I 5 F T 0.00 18.75 37.50 56.25 75.00 93.75 X0.00 +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------- 18.75 + �\9. #5 -23 7.6... `. r 14 ... 6 1... 79........ \ K 56.25 + .2 . ..79. \ ....... .... I 75.00 + 7 . 6 .. - n ...........2 - .15.... 3. ......7.96 ..... 5 93.75 + .1.....2 . 45.7 6..3 O 4 .8 .......0.6 112.50 + ....... . F 131.25 + i T 150.00 + i - ----------------------------------------- Execution complete, time = 15.93 seconds - --------------------------- -------- - - - - -- R C l�j EXISTING RESIDENCE 100 ____ _______ __________�_____________ ----------------------------------------------- go____ __________ ____________ _______ _-------------------- ------------------------- s0 ............................... -- (Gb�a7� -- - -L�81---- -------- - - - -Qf a?�----- --- ----- -- 70 --------- -------- --- -- - - -- ------------- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------- ��aicd,PE sue��tc so- - - - -- ------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------------- TAN WHITE RRACE DEPOSITS (PLEISTOCENE) so- - -- ------------ - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------------------- 40 - - -- - -------- - - - - -- -- ---------------------------------------------------- 30 ---- - - - --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (12.ZB) �� So.2e) ------------------------ TORREY SANDSTONE (EOCENE) 10 - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <xq 0 ___________________________________________________________________ _______________________________ PRORLE: SECTION A -A SCALE: 1 "- 30' - -SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS- - SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 378NEP ROSE ROUNDAPY COORDINATES 3 TOP BOUNDARIES 3 TOTAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARY X -LEFT Y -LEFT X -RIGHT * * Desian Professionals Management Systems * * Kirkland. Washington (FT) (FT) * ----------------------- * r STABL4 Slope Stability * * ----------------------- 87.00 1 * * IBM PC & P086/8088 MS -DOS Version * * Revision 4.1 - 03/03/86 87.00 1 3 102.00 - -SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS- - SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 378NEP ROSE ROUNDAPY COORDINATES 3 TOP BOUNDARIES 3 TOTAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARY X -LEFT Y -LEFT X -RIGHT Y -RIGHT SOIL TYPE NO. (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) BELOW BND 1 12.00 28.00 66.00 87.00 1 2 66.00 87.00 302.00 87.00 1 3 102.00 87.00 150.00 87.00 1 A HORIZONTAL EARTHQUAKE I.OADING COEFFICIENT OFO.150 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED . A VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT OFO.000 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED CAVITATION PRESSURE = 0.0 PSF ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 TYPE(S) OF SOIL SOIL TOTAL SATURATED COHESION FRICTION PORE PRESSURE PIEZ METRIC TYPE UNIT WT. UNIT WT. INTERCEPT ANGLE PRESSURE CONSTANT SU QFACE NO. ( PCF ) ( PCF ) ( PSF ) (DEG) PARAMETER ( PSF ) Nn. 1 106.0 106.0 300.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 1 A HORIZONTAL EARTHQUAKE I.OADING COEFFICIENT OFO.150 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED . A VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT OFO.000 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED CAVITATION PRESSURE = 0.0 PSF A CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD, USING A RANDOM TECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING CIRCULAR SURFACES, HAS BEEN SPECIFIED. 100 TRIAL SURFACES HAVE BEEN GENERATED. 10 SURFACES INITIATE FROM EACH OF 10 POINTS EQUALLY SPACED ALONG THE GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN X = 17.00 FT. AND X = 30.00 FT. EACH SURFACE TERMINATES BETWEEN X = 102.00 FT. AND X = 135.00 FT. UNLESS FURTHER LIMITATIONS WERE IMPOSED. THE MINIMUM ELEVATION AT WHICH A SURFACE EXTENDS IS Y = 28.00 FT. 15 -00 FT. LINE SEGMENTS DEFINE EACH TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE. RESTRICTIONS HAVE BFFN IMPOSED UPON THE ANGLE OF INITIATION. THE ANGLE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED BET14EEN THE ANGLES OF 0.0 AND 45.0 DEG FOLLOWING ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIAL FAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICAL FIRST. * * * c•AFETY FACTORS ARE CALCULATED BY THE MODIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * FAILURE_ SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 17.00 33.46 <^ 32.00 33.47 3 46.76 36.13 4 60.82 41.37 5 73.72 49.02 6 85.06 58.84 7 94.48 70.51 8 101.68 83.67 9 102.79 87.00 * ** 1.237 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS ')TNT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 18.44 35.04 2 32.09 41.27 3 45.48 48.04 4 58.58 55.34 5 71.38 63.16 6 83.86 71.48 7 96.00 80.29 8 304.51 87.00 * ** 1.241 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POTNT X -c,URF Y -SURF Nn. (FT) (FT) 1. 1'4 , 89 ?6.62 ? 33.`5 42.82 3 46.93 49.59 4 60.03 56.91 5 72.81 64.76 E. 85.2`. 7 1.14 7 97.34 82.02 9 103.55 87.00 * ** 1.254 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 19.89 36.62 34.89 36.94 3 49.61 39.80 + 63.6? 45.12 5 76.55 52.75 (I £7.48 62.46 7 47.60 73.97 8 105.13 86.95 9 105.15 87.00 .lr*e 1.280 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 17.00 33.46 2 31.Q7 34.48 3 46.66 37.50 4 60.81 42.46 5 74.18 49,28 (. 86.50 57,82 7 97.57 67.95 8 107.18 79.46 9 111.92 87.00 * ** 1.?83 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 19.89 36.62 2 34.88 37.11 3 49.59 40.05 4 (,3.62 45.36 5 76.59 52.90 6 68.15 62.46 7 97.98 73.78 8 105.83 P6.57 9 )06.01 87.00 * ** 1.283 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECTFIED BY 8 COORDTNATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 21.33 38.20 2 36.33 38.60 3 51.02 41.64 4 64.94 47.23 5 77.66 55.18 6 88.78 65.24 7 97.95 77.11 8 103.11 87.00 * ** 1.283 * ** FAIU iRF SIIPFACE SPECIFTED SY 9 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) ] 19.89 36.62 2 34.29 40.82 3 48.34 46.06 4 61.98 52.32 5 75.11 59.56 6 87.68 67.74 7 99.62 76.83 8 110.86 86.76 9 111.09 87.00 * ** 1.286 * ** - 159. .82.. ` .47 . ..... - 0. \� X 56.25 + 159.....2.. `. 4.. S. .... - 7.......0. ....23 I 75.00 + 1.4...8 .... - ....67. .... 0. - 1 ... 23 - ..594.78 ... ....... . . . .0 5 93.75 + ..... ..1.... - 59.4 7.23 8 .. .... .... ... 1* S. .4 9...8 112.50 + ......• • F 131.25 + Ev "VtionT ec+m - p�}S[� i5- g�_aeeenda * FATLLIRE SURFACE SPECIFIED 8Y 9 COOPDINATE POINTS POTNT X-SIIRF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 17.00 33.46 2 31.81 35.85 3 46.30 39.72 4 60.33 45.04 5 73.74 51.75 6 86.41 59.78 7 98.20 69.06 8 108.98 79.48 9 115.33 87.00 * ** 1.289 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS DOTNT `( -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 25.57 42.93 2 3Q.6S 48.37 3 5?. 2Q 54.60 4 66.55 61.62 79.38 69.39 s 91.73 77.90 103.45 87.00 * ** 1.330 * ** Y A X I S 0.00 18.75 37.50 56.25 X 0.00 +---------+---------+---------+-- 1 1x.75 + �? 19. .2 A x.50 + .7...... F T 75.00 93.75 -- +---- - - -- -+ lm EXISTING HOUSE SO------- ------ ----------------- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- -- ------------------ --- L V -\ K - -� 80 ------- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- ED' -B - TERIZACF- DEPOSITS - (PCETS = J 7------------------- 70------ ---- ----------- --------- -- -- -- 7� ?4- -- - -- - -- - --------------- ----------------------------- RE SU --PALE n ' Lg0t -n!) -- ----- 1----- ----------- - - - - -- 5u ------- --------------------- •- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------- ---------------- T WHITE TERRACE DEPOSITS (PLEISTOCENE) 30 -- ------------ - - - - -- '------------------------------------------ ��'(IS,zz) 20 -T 1 TORREY SANDSTONE (EOCENE) 10 --------------- r-------------------------------------------------- t� ------------------------ (150, 22) - - - -- SECTION A -A' SCALE P= 30' R( (HT- 0 u ;- H - W:� c I i L•i Q U L Lu Lu Q t } vQ m� Q J IT w Q J a - -SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS- - SIMPI_IFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 396NEP AUREBACH BOUNDARY COORDINATES 4 TOP BOUNDARIES 5 TOTAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARY X -LEFT * * yc * * D =sign Professionals Management Systems SOIL TYPE x * Kirkland. Washington (FT) (FT) (FT) * x ----------------------- BELOW BND * * STABL4 Slooe Stability 18.00 * * ----------------------- 67.00 76.00 2 * * IBM PC & 8086/8088 MS -DOS Version 67.00 * * Revision 4.1 - 03/03/86 73.00 86.00 1 3 73.00 - -SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS- - SIMPI_IFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 396NEP AUREBACH BOUNDARY COORDINATES 4 TOP BOUNDARIES 5 TOTAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARY X -LEFT Y -LEFT X -RIGHT Y -RIGHT SOIL TYPE No (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) BELOW BND 1 18.00 22.00 67.00 76.00 2 2 67.00 76.00 73.00 86.00 1 3 73.00 86.00 102.00 86.00 1 4 102.00 86.00 150.00 86.00 1 5 67.00 76.00 150.00 76.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 TYPE(S) OF SOIL SOIL TOTAL SATURATED COHESION FRICTION PORE PRESSURE PIEZ O.,ETRIC TYPE UNIT WT. UNIT WT. INTERCEPT ANGLE PRESSURE CONSTANT SU R ACE Nn, ! PCF ) ( PCF 1 ( PSF ) ( DFG ) PARAMETER ( PSF ) NO. 1 114.0 114.0 200.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 106.0 106.0 300.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 A HORIZONTAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT OFO.150 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED A VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT OFO.000 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED CAVITATION PRESSURE = 0.0 PSF A CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD, USING A RANDOM TECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING CIRCULAR SURFACES, HAS BEEN SPECIFIED. 100 TRIAL SURFACES HAVE BEEN GENERATED. 10 SURFACES INITIATE_ FROM EACH OF 10 POINTS EQUALLY SPACED ALONG THE GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN X = 25.00 FT. AND X = 35.00 FT. EACH SURFACE TERMINATES BETWEEN X = 102.00 FT, AND X = 135.00 FT. UNLESS FURTHER LIMITATIONS WERE IMPOSED. THE MINIMUM ELEVATION AT WHICH A SURFACE EXTENDS IS Y = 22.00 FT_ 16.00 FT. LINE SEGMENTS DEFINE EACH TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE ANGLE OF INITIATION. THE ANGLE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED BETWEEN THE ANGLES OF 0.0 AND 45.0 DEG FOLLOWING ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIAL FAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICAL FIRST. * * * SAFETY FACTORS ARE CALCULATED BY THE MODIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 26.11 30.94 2 40.67 '37.58 3 54.71 45.26 µ F.8.16 53.92 5 80.95 63.54 6 93.01 74.04 7 104.29 85.39 8 104.82 86.00 * ** 1.081 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 27.22 32.16 2 41.79 38.78 3 55.81 46.48 4 69.22 55.22 5 81.92 64.95 6 93.85 75.62 7 103.83 86.00 * ** 1.084 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 31.67 37.06 2 46.58 42.86 3 60.83 50.13 4 74.28 58.80 5 86.78 68.78 6 98.22 79.97 7 103.24 86.00 * ** 1.116 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (.FT) (FT) 1 27.22 32.16 2 42.58 36.64 3 57.38 42.73 4 71.44 50.37 5 84.60 59.46 6 96.72 69.91 7 107.65 81.59 8 110.97 86.00 * ** 1.123 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 25.00 29.71 2 41.00 29.72 3 56.60 33.27 4 71.02 40.20 5 83.55 50.16 6 93.55 6 ?.64 7 100.54 77.04 8 102.62 66.00 * ** 1.126 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 32.78 38.29 2 47.81 43.77 3 62.18 50.80 4 75.73 59.31 5 88.32 69.19 6 99.80 80.34 7 104.52 86.00 * ** 1.137 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 33.89 39.51 2 48.80 45.30 3 63.05 52.59 4 76.46 61.31 5 88.92 71.36 6 100.27 82.63 7 101.03 86.00 * ** 1.140 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 28.33 33.39 2 44.33 33.90 3 59.81 37.93 4 74.02 45.28 5 86.25 55.60 6 95.90 68.36 7 102.49 82.94 8 103.12 86.00 * ** 1.141 * ** FAILURE SURFACE_ SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 25.00 29.71 2 40.73 32.66 3 55.96 37.57 4 70.45 44.35 5 83.97 52.90 6 96.31 63.09 7 107.26 74.75 8 115.43 86.00 *** 1.145 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 27.22 32.16 2 43.22 32.56 3 58.76 36.36 4 73.14 43.38 5 85.70 53.29 6 95.86 65.65 7 103.15 79.89 8 104.77 86.00 * ** 1.146 * ** Q N Y A X I S 0.00 18.75 37.50 56.25 0.00 +---------+---------+---------+-- 18.75 + 37.50 + F T 75.00 93.75 -- +---- - - - - -+ - ----------------------------------------- Execution complete, time = 17.57 seconds ----------------------------- -------- - - - - -- - 3.. - 7. K 56.25 + 5.9..12.... �\ - 67. - ..5.09 .4.'. .... I 75.00 + 8......367. - ..59 4 .. .. - .... ..8 ... .37. - . ..... ......\. 5 93.75 + ......5. . `.12 - .....9084.:'%..3 - . ........ ...5,67 04 112.50 - + .A .......... ..4 - - .. ... ......9 F 131.25 + J I T 150.00 + - ----------------------------------------- Execution complete, time = 17.57 seconds ----------------------------- -------- - - - - -- R Q f 100 ------------ ---------------- }-------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------- --------- --- - -- ,�..s i NEPTUNE --- - -- - -- -- --- - --- -- - -- -- - -- -- - �--- ------- ---- ----- --- -------- ---- --- -- - - AVr. - -- -----^---------- I,f� µl so ---------------------- - - - - -- - �se_sy) ----- 3t-d0 ------------- f!5Dl-sep-1 --------- ----------------- RED BR O N TERRACE DEPOSITS CPLEI5TOGENE) 70 ---------------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- W----------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------- TAN ITE TERRACE DEPOSITS (PLE15TOGENE) 50 ------------- - - - - -- - - --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 - -------------- -- ---------------- ------------------------------- -- ------ 30 - --- -------( 1528-) - Y -------- ----------------- -------------------------• - -(-I-S-o--,2--8-) - -------------- p------------------------------- -- ------------------ - TORRE5AND57ONE CEOGENE) - - -- �=L - -- - - ------ ---- - - - - --- 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ PROFILE SECTION A —A SCALE. - 30' �z J 0 C1. � ?e t_ mss; a., yam: yl: z 0 0 Uf , Y _ U L LL F * * Design Professionals Management Systems * * Kirkland, Washington * * ----------------------- * * STABL4 Slope Stability * ----------------------- * * IBM PC & 8086/8088 MS -DOS Version * * Revision 4.1 - O ?/03/86 - -SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS- - SIMPLIFIED 7ANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 402NEP FRICKMAN BOUNDARY COORDINATES 4 TOP BOUNDARIES 5 TOTAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARY X -LEFT Y -LEFT X -RIGHT Y -RIGHT SOIL TYPE NO. (FT) ( FT ) (FT) ( FT ) BELOW BND 1 15.00 28.00 51.00 70.00 2 2 51.00 70.00 56.00 86.00 1 3 56.00 86.00 93.00 86.00 1 4 93.00 86.00 150.00 86.00 1 5 51.00 70.00 150.00 70.00 2 ISOTROPIC_ SOIL PARAMETERS 2 TYPE(S ) OF SOIL SOIL TOTAL SATURATED COHESION FRICTION PORE PRESSURE PIEZ C..ETRIC TYPE UNIT WT. UNIT WT. INTERCEPT ANGLE PRESSURE CONSTANT SU F ACE NO. (PCF) (PCF) (PSF) (DEG) PARAMETER (PSF) NO. 1 114.0 114.0 200.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 L 2 106.0 106.0 300.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 A HORIZONTAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT OFO.150 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED A VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT OFO.000 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED CAVITATION PRESSURE = 0.0 PSF A CPITICAL FAILURE SURFACE. SEARCHING METHOD. USING A RANDOM TECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING CIRCULAR SURFACES. HAS BEEN SPECIFIED. 100 TRIAL SURFACES HAVE BEEN GENERATED. 10 SURFACES INITIATE FROM EACH OF 10 POINTS EQUALLY SPACED ALONG THE GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN X = 18.00 FT. AND X = 29.00 FT. EACH SURFACE TERMINATES BETWEEN X = 93.00 FT. AND X = 130.00 FT. UNLESS FURTHER LIMITATIONS WERE IMPOSED. THE MINIMUM ELEVATION AT WHICH A SURFACE EXTENDS IS Y = 28.00 FT. 16.00 FT. LINE SEGMENTS DEFINF EACH TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE ANGLE OF INITIATION. THE ANGLE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED BETWEEN THE ANGLES OF 0.0 AND 45.0 DEG FOLLOWING ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIAL FAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICAL FTRST. * * * SAFETY FACTORS ARE CALCULATED BY THE MODIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POTNT X. -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 19.22 32.93 2 33.78 39.57 3 47.81 47.25 4 61.26 55.93 5 74.04 65.55 6 86.09 76.08 7 95.92 86.00 * ** 1.053 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 20.44 34.35 2 35.01 40.97 3 49.03 48.68 4 62.43 57.43 5 75.12 67.18 6 87.03 77.86 7 94.81 86.00 * ** 1.056 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF No. (FT) (FT) 1 25.33 40.06 2 40.25 45.85 3 54.50 53.13 4 67.94 61.80 5 80.44 71.80 6 91.86 83.00 7 94.36 86.00 *x* 1 .7.02 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 20.44 34.35 2 35.81 38.83 3 50.60 44.92 4 64.67 52.54 5 77.84 61.62 6 89.98 72.05 7 100.94 83.71 8 102.67 86.00 * ** 1.125 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 8 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 18.00 31.50 2 34.00 31.50 3 49.58 35.16 4 63.91 42.26 5 76.25 52.45 6 85.95 65.17 7 92.49 79.78 8 93.69 86.00 * ** 1.130 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 26.56 41.48 2 41.59 46.97 3 55.96 54.00 4 69.52 62.49 5 82.11 72.36 6 93.60 83.49 7 95.70 86.00 * ** 1.134 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED 8Y 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 21.67 35.78 2 34.87 44.82 3 48.06 53.88 4 61.24 62.95 5 74.40 72.04 6 87.56 81.14 7 94.57 86.00 * ** 1.135 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 27.78 42.91 2 42.69 48.70 3 56.94 55.98 4 70.37 64.68 5 82.84 74.70 6 94.23 85.94 7 94.27 86.00 * ** 1.136 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 26.56 41.48 2 40.82 48.73 3 54.72 .56.66 4 68.21 65.25 5 81.28 74.49 6 93.88 84.35 7 95.79 86.00 *:K* 1.148 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 7 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 21.67 35.78 2 37.66 36.28 3 53.12 40.42 4 67.22 47.96 5 79.24 58.53 6 84.53 71.56 7 94.45 86.00 * ** 1.150 * ** Y A X I S F T 0.00 18.75 37.50 56.25 75.00 93.75 X0.00 +---------+--------- +--------- +----- ---- +---- - - - - -+ 18.75 +� 5... 2.7 \ A 37.50 + .0....... - .. 369. ------------------------------------------- E- ecution complete, time = 17.36 seconds - ----------------------- ------------ - - - - -- - ..0 ..... 3.. X 56.25 + 68 - 5.. 12..7. - 4.. .... I - .0... ..3 9 - ..........8 I 75.00 + ..5.. . 12.7. j - 04 1 - ...... . ... .369.. - ... ..... ...8 - .......5..0 127 - 4... .3 5 93.75 + .......... ....5:6 112.50 + _ I F 131.25 + T 150.00 + ------------------------------------------- E- ecution complete, time = 17.36 seconds - ----------------------- ------------ - - - - -- CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS C. I Randle, P.E, President 1529 Grand Avenue, Suite A San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone. (619) 4716000 Fax (619) 736 -0185 March 12, 1996 Rev. Robert Pierce 1770 Covina Blvd. Covina, CA 91724 Subject: Certification of Lower Bluff Stabilization System Reference: 370 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92069 Dear Rev. Pierce, We have enclosed test data, inspection reports, concrete inspection and tests results. These are presented in a tabular form within the attached Appendixes. Each Appendix reflects a specific portion of work relative to the following: Appendix A. Is a site plan, showing the location of the "As- Built" lower seawall, tiebacks and location of the backdrain weepholes, as well as, a sketched section of said sea wad. Also note, the constructed sea wall does vary from the original plans; however, these revisions will not impact the wall's structural capability to performed as originally proposed. No weepholes were found on the section of sea wall at this property. Three weepholes were drilled after construction of the sea wall. Appendix B. Is a table listing the depth and load test results of the tiebacks. Appendix C. Is a compilation of the concrete test results. This information is presented in a format which reflects each individual site and is followed by the appropriate test result. Please be advised several concrete test results reflect concrete strength in one or more sites, contingent to the extent and location of pour. Therefore, in this light, portions of these reports will be duplicated. This concludes our report relative to the placement of the lower bluff sea wall system. It is the opinion of the undersigned that the lower bluff sea wall has been constructed according to plans and specifications with the construction modification shown on Appendix A, and that it will function for the purpose intendant, PROVIDED that a responsible maintenance program be conducted in order N.C.EE 04170 • CA RC.E #C -72096 • AZ RC.E #11971 • NV RGE #3037 WA C.E #10776 CIVIL, STRUCTURAL, AND SOILS ENGINEEFANG • GEOLOGY -SURVEY • CERTIMED INSPECTION -SOIL AND MATERUL TESTING • FEASISIU7Y STUDIES • OONTRMCT MANAGEMENT to assure that the remedial action is promptly included in the event of external forces which might cause deterioration of the system either through seismic activity, uncommonly heavy tide and rainfall, or other associated acts of nature. Additionally, the entire bluff remediation is to include the, vertical extension of the sea wall and sufficient mid -bluff landscaping. Due to erosion or other natural events, an upper bluff stabilization system may be required in the future. When all areas of work are completed, the entire stabilization system may then be considered to comply with the intent of our plans and specifications. It is the understanding of the undersigned that the mid -bluff landscaping has been approved by the City of Encinitas and the California Coastal Commission. Similarly, a Geologic Hazard Abatement District is currently being formed. This district will have the ability and funds necessary to provide continued maintenance throughout the entire remediation area. Sincerely, CIVIL ENG RING CONSULT QROFESSi�y ti�Q�o JOHN 4��y Fn V h c Charles I Randle, PE 06WjW" R.C.E. 22096, President 1� r Ak cc. Mr. Hans Jensen, City of Encinitas APPENDIX A 3W 0 i--- - - --�� 0 4 j PIERCE I M 0 g0---� -� 20_^' �--- - - � CLIFF FACE �.� BCAGH 50 NEW TS3,V -K CTYP) 30 10 NEW SEAWALL LED WEEP -HOLE (TYP) PACIFIC OCEAN PLAN - TIEBACKS 111 =40 LOOKINIG DOWN @OUTSIDE COR. ScE '/ISW "A' (T RIC,HT hIATUFAL CLIFF FACE VARIZS AS CONS MIN. Pie P'...Ahl 47x4' KEYWAX- (-7Y P ) Flf�ljf -iED K.4GE'. AS DESIGN=-=) AS C�NSTRUCT�D WAS =TOP SEACH SURFACE ELEV.. VARIES .. BED ROCK ELEV. VAK1E FOOT'itA C 0 ,•r:v pT r - V�p f • � � n1 t VARIE.'S 3' MIN SEACH SURFACE ELEV.. VARIES .. BED ROCK ELEV. VAK1E FOOT'itA C 0 ,•r:v pT r - • � � n1 t Z 4-" V?�N. AS DESIGNED \_ / ME tW H.T. G. T E BACIS =zs1 8 K 11°5 MIRACRAktA Fr'%BRIG Tt G Br1C.K L = z,0' %9 KiP5 3" PVC Sk-KDRA1t1 LOWER BLUFFS SEAWALL TYPICAL SECTION (AS CONSTRUCTED) NO SCALE \'Wrek fa TIEBACK DRILL • Method: ,Client D(illing s a Site Address: a7b b)�L-Tooe ^Nim. -Testing Method: F- Swiss w I�iLj lii� .....C...... PENN a 0 m e 5 APPENDIX C m c, � H n cn •• y O IT P cy O a jl y d l� o �o � U` m m cn cn r .. y U) cvo 93 (,1115 DATE CAST 3 3 0o DESIGN PSI 0 7 DAY PSI 4 8(oo -150 28 DAY PSI 28 DAY PSI m c, � H n cn •• y O IT P cy O a jl y d l� o �o � U` m m cn cn r .. y U) (,1115 DATE CAST 3 0o DESIGN PSI DESIGN PSI 3 7So 7 DAY PSI 380 28 DAY PSI D scw 28 DAY PSI m c, � H n cn •• y O IT P cy O a jl y d l� o �o � U` m m cn cn r .. y U) DATE CAST DESIGN PSI 00 310 7 DAY PSI A,tw 28 DAY PSI 4 Ov 28 DAY PSI m c, � H n cn •• y O IT P cy O a jl y d l� o �o � U` m m cn cn r .. y U) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SA-Y DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 28011321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDMO, CA. 92025, (619) 74611541 i COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Nov. 14, 1995 ® CONCRETE (ASTM C391 PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Pierce and Han Residences ❑ MORTAR (UBC 24.22) PROJECT LOCATION 370 and 386 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas ❑ GROUT(ASTM C1019) ARCHITECT 3829PE C3 PRISMS (ASTM E447) ENGINEER PERMIT No. 3833PE CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE 40 feet of Pierce top level, 40 feet of Han Residence top level MATERIAL SUPPLIER Escondido Ready Mix ADMIXTURES) Pozz /Ai r MIX DESIGNATION 375PE Concrete Temperature: 78° TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES 80 SLUMP, INCHES 4 -3/4 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY DR8 TRUCK No. 543 TICKET No. 261813 LABORATORY No. 5880 5881 5882 5883 MARK DATE MADE 11 -06 -95 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 11 -10 -95 DATE TESTED 11-13-95 12 -04 -95 12 -04 -95 DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00 AREA, SQUARE INCHES 28,27 MAXIMUM LOAD, LES 96,500 137,500 139,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 3,410 4,860 4,930 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT. /CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) Charles J. Randle (1) Escondido Ready Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED B Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. S Z- 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 280-4321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT 5881 5882 5883 7 FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Nov. 14, 1995 ® CONCRET -c (ASTM C79) PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Pierce and Han Residences ❑ MORTAR(UBC 24.22) PROJECT LOCATION 370 and 386 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas ❑ GROUT(ASTM C1019) ARCHITECT DATE TESTED 3829PE C3 PRISMS (ASTM E4471 ENGINEER PERMIT No. 3833PE DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE 40 feet of Pierce top level, 40 feet of Han Residence top level MATERIAL SUPPLIER Escondido Ready Mix AOMIXTUREIS) Pozz /Ai r MIX DESIGNATION 375PE Concrete Temperature: 78° TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES 80 SLUMP, INCHES 4 -3/4 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY DRB TRUCK No. 543 TICKET No. 261813 LABORATORY No, MARK 5880 5881 5882 5883 7 DATE MADE 11 -06 -95 DATE RECEIVED 11 -10 -95 DATE TESTED 11 -13 -95 DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA, SQUARE INCHES 28,21 MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 96,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 3,410 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT. /CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) Charles J. Randle (1) Escondido Ready Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIE� Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #453558/�+'/A/ q> SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 746.4544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Nov. 2, 1995 ® CONCRETE (ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Pierce Residence ❑ MORTAR(UBC 24 -22) PROJECT LOCATION 370 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas ❑ GROUT(ASTM C1019) ARCHITECT ❑ PRISMS(ASTM E4471 ENGINEER PERMIT No. 3829PE ❑ CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE 40 feet at Pierce Residence - level number two (middle section) MATERIAL SUPPLIER Escondido Ready Mix AOMIXTUROSI Pozz /Air MIX DESIGNATION 375 PAE Concrete Temperature: 81' TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES 75 SLUMP, INCHES 4 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY DRB TRUCK No. 525 TICKET No. 261388 LABORATORY No. 5432 5433 5434 5435 MARK DATE MADE 10 -26 -95 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 10 -27 -95 DATE TESTED 11 -02 -95 11-22-95 11-22 -95 DIAMETER, INCHES 6,00 AREA, SQUARE INCHES 28.27 MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 104,750 132,250 130,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 3,710 4,680 4,600 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 27 27 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT. /CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) Charles J. Randle (1) Escondido Ready Mix a 1 me] SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEW�� Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 0i- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627. SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 28013321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 746 -3544 i CO'ViPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT 10 -26 -95 DATE RECEIVED 10 -27 -95 FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Nov. 2, 1995 LR] CONCRETE (ASTM 0391 PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Pierce Residence 104,750 ❑ MORTAR (UBC 24 -22) PROJECT LOCATION 370 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI ❑ GROUT AASTM C1019) ARCHITECT ❑ PRISMS (ASTM E4471 ENGINEER PERMIT No. 3829PE CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE 40 feet at Pierce Residence - level number two (middle section) MATERIAL SUPPLIER Escondido Ready Mix 'ADMIXTURE(S) Pozz /Air MIX DESIGNATION 375 PAE Concrete Temperature: 81° TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES 75 � SLUMP. INCHES 4 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY DRB TRUCK No. 525 TICKET No. 261388 LABORATORY No. 5432 5433 5434 5435 MARK DATE MADE 10 -26 -95 DATE RECEIVED 10 -27 -95 DATE TESTED 11 -02 -95 DIAMETER. INCHES 6,00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 MAXIMUM LOAD. LBS 104,750 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 3,710 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 3,000 UNIT WT. /CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) Charles J. Randle (1) Escondido Ready mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED B>�� Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 280 -3321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7564544 / COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: June 9, 1995 ❑ CONCRETE (ASTM 0391 PROJECT TITLE Pierce Residence ❑ MORTAR(UBC 24.22) PROJECT LOCATION 370 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas ❑ GROUT (ASTM C1019) ARCHITECT ❑ PRISMS (ASTM E4471 ENGINEER PERMIT No. 3829PE ® Grout Cubes CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Tie -Backs MATERIAL SUPPLIER ADMIXTURES) MIX DESIGNATION TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES SLUMP, INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY LS SAMPLES TESTED BY COD TRUCK No. TICKET No. LABORATORY No. 0755 0756 0757 MARK DATE MADE 06 -01 -95 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 06 -02 -95 DATE TESTED 06 -08 -95 06 -29 -95 DIAMETER. INCHES AREA, SQUARE INCHES Q,O MAXIMUM LOAD. LBS 15,000 25,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 3,750 6,380 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT. /CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) Charles J. Randle SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED 6Y: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. /L/k_4455358 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. T6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 280 -4321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: June 9, 1995 ❑ CONCRETE (ASTM C391 PROJECT TITLE Pierce Residence ❑ MORTAR (UBC 24 -221 PROJECT LOCATION 370 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas ❑ GROUT (ASTM CI0191 ARCHITECT ❑ PRISMS (ASTM E447) ENGINEER PERMIT No. 3829PE ® Grout Cubes CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Tie -Backs MATERIAL SUPPLIER ADMIXTURE(SI . MIX DESIGNATION TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES SLUMP. INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY LS SAMPLES TESTED BY COD TRUCK No. TICKET No. LABORATORY No. 0755 0756 0757 MARK DATE MADE 06 -01 -95 DATE RECEIVED 06 -02 -95 DATE TESTED 06 -08 -95 DIAMETER. INCHES AREA. SQUARE INCHES 4,0 MAXIMUM LOAD. LBS 15,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 3,750 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT. /CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) Charles J. Randle SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED BY, / h1' h 1 0 Wh 1 R C E #45358 1c ae ee er, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. T6280 RrvERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Apr. 27, 1995 ® CONCRETE [ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Pierce Beach Wall ❑ MORTAR (UBC 24.22) PROJECT LOCATION 370 Neptune C:] GROUT(ASTM C1019) ARCHITECT Civil Engineering Consultants C1 PRISMS(ASTM ENGINEER PERMIT No. 3829 -PE E447) a CONTRACTOR Soils Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Beach wall - first lift MATERIAL SUPPLIER Palomar Transit Mix ADMIXTURES) Super P /Air MIX DESIGNATION 414006 TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES SLUMP, INCHES 6 -1/2 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY KE SAMPLES TESTED BY COD TRUCK No. 54388 TICKET No. LABORATORY No. 9033 9034 9035 9036 MARK DATE MADE 04 -19 -95 Discarded Discarded DATE RECEIVED 04 -20 -95 DATE TESTED 04 -26 -95 05 -17 -95 DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00 AREA, SQUARE INCHES 28,27 MAXIMUM LOAD. Las 124,500 162,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 4,400 5,750 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 3,000 UNIT WTJCU. FT. IPLASTICI DISTRIBUTION (2) Soils Engineering Construction (1) Palomar Transit Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED'QC! /,4 BY- Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. SOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDMO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 i COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 PROJECT TITLE Pierce Beach Wall PROJECT LOCATION 370 Neptune ARCHITECT Civil Engineering Consultants ENGINEER (CONTRACTOR Soils Engineering Construction DATE: Apr. 27, 1995 PERMIT No. 3829-PE PLAN FILE No. ® CONCRETE(ASTM C39) ❑ MORTAR (UBC 24 -221 ❑ GROUT(ASTM C1019) ❑ PRISMS (ASTM E447) TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Beach wall - first lift MATERIAL SUPPLIER Palomar Transit Mix ADMIXTURE{SI Super P/Air MIX DESIGNATION 414006 TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES SLUMP. INCHES 6 -1/2 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY KE SAMPLES TESTED BY COD TRUCK No. 54388 TICKET No. LABORATORY No. 9033 9034 9035 9036 MARK AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 DATE MACE 04 -19 -95 DATE RECEIVED 04 -20 -95 DATE TESTED 04 -26 -95 DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 124,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 4,400 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT./CU. FT. IPLASTICI DISTRIBUTION (2) Soils Engineering Construction (1) Palomar Transit Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED/0 Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280 -3321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE, Neptune Sea Wall SC3JT FU.ENO: 9512037 I.a.NO: 18 (Pg 1 of 1) PROJECT 1.0CA11014: See Below PER.NIT NO: See Below PLAN MLENO: ARCHITECT: ENCwEER: Civil Engineering Consultants CENxR CONTILICT0R: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 11/6/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 11/8/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1430 Time Departed: 1800 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi Han Residence, 286 Neptune, Permit No. 3833 PE Pierce Residence, 370 Neptune, Permit No. 3829 PE Arrived on site as requested to perform the special inspection of the reinforcing steel and provided continuous observation of the concrete placement for full 40 ft. of the Pierce residence and 40 ft. of the Han residence, top lift. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 36 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electrical vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4 -3/4'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1600 Time Departed: 1730 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375P, 4000 psi Klinck Residence, 502 Neptune, Permit No. 3793 PE Sbordone Residence, 510 Neptune, Permit No. 3792 PE Oakley Residence, 498 Neptune, Permit No. 3794 PE Arrived on site as requested to perform special inspection of the reinforcing steel and to provide continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcing steel for the northerly 8 ft. of the Oakley residence and 40 ft. of the Klinck residence and the southerly 40 ft. of the Sbordone residence and found them to be as per the plans. Observed the placement of approximately 80 cubic yards of concrete at this location with the placement by means of a conveyor and consolidation done by an electrical vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4'/. ". Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. DISTRIRMON: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (11 Civil Engineering Consultants (1) City of Encinitas REVIMID BV: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ilk ar;C- STG SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280 -4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROTECT TITLE: Neptune Sea Wall SCSST FILENO: 9512037 I.R.No: 16 (Fig 1 of 3) PROJECT LOCATION: See Below PERMrrNo: See Below PLAN rILENO: ARCTITTECT: LYGINEER: Civil Engineering Consultants GENERAL COKTRACTOR: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 10/23/95 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1 500 Time Departed: 1 730 G. Ledbetter Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 80621 Concrete: Mix Design k375PAE, 4000 psi Frickman Residence, 402 Neptune, Permit No. 3832 PE Arrived on site as requested to inspect the reinforcing steel and provide continuous observation of the concrete placement of the tap section of the wall for 40 linear feet at the Frickman residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 30 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. 10/24/95 G. Ledbetter REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1 530 ' Time Departed: 1800 80621 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375P, 4000 psi A"ePbeek Residence, 396 Neptune, Permit No. 3831 PE AvQaa4c,,; Arrived on site as requested to perform a special inspection of the reinforcing steel and to provide continuous observation of the concrete placement for the full 40 linear feet, top level, of the Allerback residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel at this location and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 25 cubic yards of concrete at this location with the placement by means of a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4 -3/4'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (1) City Of Encinitas REVI(E�DDBBBY: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 S�. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280 -4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PRO1 47FMLS: Neptune Sea Wail SCSAT FILE NO: 9512037 Lit. NO: 16 (Pg 2 of 31 PROJECT LOCATION: See Below PERMIT NO: See Below PLAN FILE NO: ARCIOTECT: ENCMEER: Civil Engineering Consultants CENERALCOWFRACro R: Sail Engineering Construction SURCONTRACrOR: 10/25/95 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1600 Time Departed: 1900 G. Ledbetter Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 80621 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi fiulath Residence, 312 Neptune, Permit No. 3827 PE ��vLiT4 Arrived on site as requested to provide special inspection of the reinforcing steel and provided continuous observation of the concrete placement for the Euleth residence, middle or second lift. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 49 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 5'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. 10/26/95 G. Ledbetter REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1730 Time Departed: 2000 80621 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375P, 4000 psi Pierce Residence, 370 Neptune Avenue Arrived on site as requested to inspect the reinforcing steel and to provide continuous observation of the concrete placement for the Pierce residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel at this location and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 50 cubic yards of concrete at this location with the placement by means of a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: 12) Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED 9Y: T- Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 2904321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT LOCATION: ARCHITECT: Neptune Sea Wall See Below SCSST FILE NO: 9512037 LXNa: 16 (Fig 3 of 3) FERNIT NO: See Below PLAN PILE NO: ENGINEER; Civil Engineering Consultants GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 10/27/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1700 Time Departed: 2000 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design a375PAE, 4000 psi Gulch Residence, 512 Neptune, Permit No. 3827 PE E,MeS Arrived on site as requested to provide special inspection of the reinforcing steel and provided continuous observation of the concrete placement for the top level at the Euleth residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 27 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4'h'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (I I City of Encinitas REVIEWED BY: X14/ -- � Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. X45358 ST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street P.O. Box 600627, Sao Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280 -4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROMI-7II : Neptune Sea Wall S( &TE ENO: 9512037 LB. NO: 2 IPg 2 of 2) PROMCr LOCMN: See Below NO: See Below ft„w ME NO, See Below ARCBrrECr: evGm : Civil Engineering Consultants cernxwr. comanCrOR: Soil Engineering Construction suBCONm C"rOR; 4/19/95 REINFORCED CONCRETE K. Embrey Reinforced Steel: #5, Epoxy Coated 534 Concrete: Mix Design #414006, 3000 psi Major use permit 93 -070 Pierce Beach Wall: 370 Neptune, Encinitas Permit No. 3829 PE Plan File No.: 3511 -G Provided inspection of beach wall at 370 Neptune, first lift. The reinforcing steel was proper size, grade and spacing. Observed placement of concrete which was tailgated and mechanically vibrated into place. One set of concrete cylinders was cast for compression testing. Drain tubes were omitted, and needs the engineer of record's approval and /or change. Unless otherwise noted, the above mentioned work, to the best of my knowledge, complies with the approved plans and specifications. 4/20195 K. Embrey REINFORCED CONCRETE 534 Reinforced Steel: #5, Epoxy Coated Concrete: Mix Design #414006, 3000 psi Major use permit 93 -070 Milis Beach Wall: 470 Neptune, Encinitas Permit No.: 3797 PE Plan File No.: 3511 -G Provided inspection of the first lift of the beach wall. The reinforcing steel was proper size, grade and spacing. Observed placement of concrete which was tailgated and mechanically vibrated into place. One set of concrete cylinders was cast for compression testing. Unless otherwise noted, the above mentioned work, to the best of my knowledge, complies with the approved plans and specifications. OISiRrBVr10M: (2) Soil Engineer Construction 11 ) City of Encinitas REVUWYD BY: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. 945358 CML ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS C. J. Randle, P.E, President 1529 Grand Avenue, Suite A San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone. (619) 471 -6000 F= (619) 776-0185 April 17, 1996 Mr. and Mrs. Evleth 312 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Certification of Lower Bluff Stabilization System Reference : 312 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Rev. Pierce, We have enclosed test data, inspection reports, concrete inspection and tests results. These are presented in a tabular form within the attached Appendixes. Each Appendix reflects a specific portion of work relative to the following: Appendix A. Is a site plan, showing the location of the "As- Built" lower seawall, tiebacks and location of the backdrain weepholes, as well as, a sketched section of said sea wall. Also note, the constructed sea wall does vary from the original plans; however, these revisions will not impact the wall's structural capability to performed as originally proposed. No weepholes were found on the section of sea wall at this property. Three weepholes were drilled after construction of the sea wall. Appendix B. Is a table listing the depth and load test results of the tiebacks. Appendix C. Is a compilation of the concrete test results. This information is presented in a format which reflects each individual site and is followed by the appropriate test result. Please be advised several concrete test results reflect concrete strength in one or more sites, contingent to the extent and location of pour. Therefore, in this light, portions of these reports will be duplicated. This concludes our report relative to the placement of the lower bluff sea wall system. It is the opinion of the undersigned that the lower bluff sea wall has been constructed according to plans and specifications with the construction modification shown on Appendix A, and that it will function for the purpose intendant, PROVED that a responsible maintenance program be conducted in order N.C. EE 04170 • CA RC.E. #0220% • AZ R.C.E #11971 • NV R.C.E 0=7 • WA C.E #1D776 CIVIL STRUCTURAL AND SOILS ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY SURVEY • CERTIREO INSPECTION SOIL AND MATERIAL TESTING • FEASIBILITY STLOIES • CONTRACT MANAGEMENT to assure that the remedial action is promptly included in the event of external forces which might cause deterioration of the system either through seismic activity, uncommonly heavy tide and rainfall, or other associated acts of nature. Additionally, the entire bluff remediation is to include the, vertical extension of the sea wall and sufficient mid -bluff landscaping. Due to erosion or other natural events, an upper bluff stabilization system may be required in the future. When all areas of work are completed, the entire stabilization system may then be considered to comply with the intent of our plans and specifications. It is the understanding of the undersigned that the mid -bluff landscaping has been approved by the City of Encinitas and the California Coastal Commission. Similarly, a Geologic Hazard Abatement District is currently being formed. This district will have the ability and funds necessary to provide continued maintenance throughout the entire remediation area. Sincerely, CIVIL ENG ERING CONSUL Charles J. Randle, PE y 7 �o R.C.E. 22096, President K(LM 98 �' � (r ft DiY qrW cc. Mr. Hans Jensen, City of Encinitas C � i I I I II I I 'I I I I I � I I I � I I I I �I I 'I I 80 312 w u z a w ac EVLETH I I Til I �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 L! 20— CUFF FaGE .it NEW TIEBACK (T`{P) 30 �r0 I.IEW SEAWALL DRILLED WEEP- HOLE (7'f P) PACIFIC OCEAN PLAN - TIEBACKS 1 ° =30' LOOKING DOWN @ OUTSIDE COR SEE VIEW "A" @ RIGHT EL. l3'` .T'SM- RW 4x4' KE`fWA`{- (TYP. ) FINISHED FADE: AS DESIGNED AS CONSTRUCTLp — ,EL. 5 = WA-r12S i OP llll I - BEACH SURFACE '. ELEV.. VARIES BED ROCK EL-MV. FOOTIN C UATURAL CLIFF FACE VARI595 AS CON iMIN. a, . r ' VAR lES 3' MIN. .i' ,y:Pw� • r Z4.11 • 1N. 7�2,tj AS DESIGNED -+�,/ V(El�j 1111 N.T. 5. TIE BACK, L. � Z5' 8 K 11°5 MIKA R 44 FABRIC Tl E P_-Ae -K L =LO' 19 KIPS 3^ PVC 6AGKDPWI 4 LOWER BLUFFS SEAWALL TYPICAL SECTION (AS CONSTRUCTED) NO SCALE U=U&f=k--R lit TIEBACK ST UO-G Client: Drilling Method. • Site Address: esting Method: �AL� ili!�1L•L� �1�7'.y�� CSC =�O��C.�■.�.... 3 C) ro 9C r O h7 4 0 H n � ••jj I y z f� IG O 9 O O ro rn DATE CAST DESIGN PSI 7 DAY PSI 28 DAY PSI 28 DAY PSI 3 C) ro 9C r O h7 4 0 H n � ••jj I y z f� IG O 9 O O ro rn DATE CAST DESIGN PSI 7 DAY PSI 28 DAY PSI 28 DAY PSI 3 C) ro 9C r O h7 4 0 H n � ••jj I y z f� IG O 9 O O ro rn q> SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 / COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Nov. 3, 1995 ® CONCRETE (ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Eyleth Residence ❑ MORTAR(UBC 24 -22) PROJECT LOCATION 312 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas ❑ GROUT (ASTM C1019) ARCHITECT ❑ PRISMS (ASTM E447) PERMIT No. 38Z7PE ENGINEER ❑ CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Top level - full - 9�feet at Evleth Residence MATERIAL SUPPLIER Escondido Ready Mix ADMIXTURES) Pozz /Air MIX DESIGNATION 375 PAE TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES 127 Concrete Temperature: 86° SLUMP. INCHES 4 -1/2 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY DRB TRUCK No. 601 TICKET No. 1442016 LABORATORY No. 5553 5554 5555 5556 MARK DATE MADE 10 -27 -95 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 11 -02 -95 DATE TESTED 11 -03 -95 11 -24 -95 11 -24 -95 DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 MAXIMUM LOAD. LBS 92,000 126,000 125,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 3,250 4,460 4,440 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 + UNIT WTJCU. FT. (PLASTIC) -1 DISTRIBUTION 2 Soil Engineering Construction 1; Charles J. Randle (1) Escondido Ready Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED BY: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 c �T i SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2504321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 CONIPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Euleth Residence PROJECT LOCATION 312 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas ARCHITECT ENGINEER CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction DATE: Nov. 3, 1995 PERMIT No. 3827PE PLAN FILE No. ® CONCRETE(ASTM C39) ❑ MORTAR IUBC 24.221 ❑ GROUT (ASTM 01019) ❑ PRISMS (ASTM E447) AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28,27 LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Top level - full 90 feet at Euleth Residence MATERIAL SUPPLIER Escondido Ready Mix v AOMIXTURE4S) Pozz /Air MIX DESIGNATION 375 PAE TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES 127 Concrete Temperature: 860 SLUMP. INCHES 4 -1/2 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY DRB TRUCK No. 601 TICKET No. 1442016 LABORATORY No. 5553 5554 5555 1 5556 MARK DATE MADE 10 -27 -95 DATE RECEIVED 11 -02 -95 DATE TESTED 11 -03 -95 DIAMETER, INCHES 6,00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28,27 MAXIMUM LOAD. LBS 92,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 3,250 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 4,000 UNIT WT. /CU. FT. WIASTIC) DISTRIBUTION 2 Soil Engineering Construction 1 Charles J. Randle (1) Escondido Ready Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWE__.4%✓4G✓ Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. 545358 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 \ 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 746 -4544 J COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Nov. 1, 1995 ® CONCRETE (ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Evleth Residence ❑ MORTAR(UBC 24 -22) PROJECT LOCATION 312 Neptune Avneue, Encinitas ❑ GROUT(ASTM 01019) ARCHITECT ❑ PRISMS (ASTM E447) ENGINEER PERMIT No. CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Full 40 feet of Evleth Residence, middle section MATERIAL SUPPLIER Escondido Ready Mix ADMIXTURES) Pozz /Ai r MIX DESIGNATION 375PAE Concrete Temperature: 82° TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES 100 SLUMP, INCHES 5 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY DRB TRUCK No. 538 TICKET No. 1441710 LABORATORY No. 5428 5429 5430 5431 MARK DATE MADE 10 -25 -95 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 10 -27 -95 DATE TESTED 11 -01 -95 11 -22 -95 11 -22 -95 DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28,27 MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 97,500 132,500 135,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 3,450 4,690 4,780 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 3,000 UNIT WT.ICU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) Charles J. Randle (1) Escondido Ready Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED BY'. Michael B ✓Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 0- �kl SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6230 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2304321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO. CA. 92025, (619) 746 -3544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Evleth Residence PROJECT LOCATION 312 Neptune Avneue, Encinitas ARCHITECT ENGINEER CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction DATE: Nov. 1, 1995 PERMIT No. PLAN FILE No. ® CONCRETE(ASTM C39) ❑ MORTAR (UBC 24 -221 ❑ GROUT (ASTM C1019) ❑ PRISMS (AST1N E447) 10-27 -95 LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Full 40 feet of Evleth Residence, middle section MATERIAL SUPPLIER Escondido Ready Mix ADMIXTURE(SI POZZ /Ai r MIX DESIGNATION 375PAE Concrete Temperature: 82° TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES 100 SLUMP. INCHES 5 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY DRB TRUCK No. 538 TICKET No. 1441710 LABORATORY No. 5428 MARK 5429 1 5430 1 5431 DATE MADE 10 -25 -95 DATE RECEIVED 10-27 -95 DATE TESTED 11 -01 -95 DIAMETER. INCHES 6,00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES I 28,27 MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 97,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 3,450 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT.1CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) Charles J. Randle (1) Escondido Ready Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED BY Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600617, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7463544 CONIPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Apr. 19, 1995 T CONCRETE (ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Evl eth Beach Wall ❑ MORTAR (USC 24 -22) PROJECT LOCATION 312 Neptune, Encinitas ❑ GROUT(ASTM C10191 ARCHITECT C3 PRISMS IASTM E447) (ENGINEER Civil Engineering Consultants PERMIT No. 3827-PE ❑ CONTRACTOR Soils Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. 3511-G LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Beach Wall, first lift Air Content: 3% MATERIAL SUPPLIER Palomar Transit Mix ADMIXTURES) Plasticizer /Air MIX DESIGNATION 414006 TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES 90 SLUMP, INCHES 3 -1/2 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY KE SAMPLES TESTED BY COD TRUCK No. 838 TICKET No. 620041 LABORATORY No. 8869 8870 8871 8872 MARK DATE MADE 04 -12 -95 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 04 -13 -95 DATE TESTED 04 -19 -95 05 -10 -95 05 -10 -95 DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00 AREA, SQUARE INCHES 28.27 MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 113,000 139,000 141,250 COMPRESSIVE S'i RENGTH, PSI 4,000 4,920 5,000 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT./CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soils Engineering Construction (1) Palomar Transit Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED Br� Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #453,x„ T SOUTIERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6180 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 I COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT SAMPLES TESTED BY COD TRUCK No. 838 TICKET Nc_ F9nnLl1 LABORATORY No. FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Apr. 19, 1995 ® CONCRETE (ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Evleth Beach Wall 8870 8871 8872 DATE MADE 04 -12 -95 ❑ MORTAR IU8C 24421 PROJECT LOCATION 312 Neptune, Encinitas DATE RECEIVED 04 -13 -95 ❑ GROUT(ASTM 010191 ARCHITECT 04 -19 -95 ❑ PRISMS (ASTM E447) i ENGINEER G1V11 Engineering Consultants PERMIT No. 3827 -PE 6.00 i CONTRACTOR Soils Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. 3511 -G AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28,27 LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Beach wall, first lift Air Content: 3% MATERIAL SUPPLIER Palomar Transit Mix AOMIXTURE[S) Plasticizer /Air COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 4,000 MIX DESIGNATION 414006 AGE TESTED. DAYS TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES Qn (SLUMP. INCHES 3 -1/2 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY KE SAMPLES TESTED BY COD TRUCK No. 838 TICKET Nc_ F9nnLl1 LABORATORY No. MARK 8869 8870 8871 8872 DATE MADE 04 -12 -95 DATE RECEIVED 04 -13 -95 DATE TESTED 04 -19 -95 DIAMETER. INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28,27 MAXIMUM LOAD, LES 113,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 4,000 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 3,000 UNIT WT. /CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soils Engineering Construction (1) Palomar Transit Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED SY: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. =453x. cv _ �+ TC► SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280 -4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: Neptune Sea Wall SCSSr FILENO: 9512037 LILNO: 16 (Pg 1 of 3) PROJMCr LOCATION: See Below PERMIT NO: See Below PLAN FILE NO: ARCUrTECr: VNGMER: Civil Engineering Consultants GL7 ERAL CONTRACTOR: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 10/23/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 10/24/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1 500 Time Departed: 1730 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi Frickman Residence, 402 Neptune, Permit No. 3832 PE Arrived on site as requested to inspect the reinforcing steel and provide continuous observation of the concrete placement of the top section of the wall for 40 linear feet at the Frickman residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 30 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrved: 1530 Time Departed: 1800 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375P, 4000 psi A*ef9eek Residence, 396 Neptune, Permit No. 3831 PE Arrived on site as requested to perform a special inspection of the reinforcing steel and to provide continuous observation of the concrete placement for the full 40 linear feet, top level, of the Allerback residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel at this location and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 25 cubic yards of concrete at this location with the placement by means of a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4 -3/4'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (1) City of Encinitas REYTI I) BY BYY - Ze Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 TSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627 , San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280 -4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROTECT TITLE: Neptune Sea Wall SCSST FILE NO: 9512037 LXNO: 16 (Pg 2 of 3) PROJECT LOCATION: See Below PERMITNO: See Below PLAN RLEYO: ARCHITECT: E GLNEER: Civil Engineering Consultants GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Soil Engineering Construction suacoNTRwcro R: 10/25195 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1600 Time Departed: 1900 G. Ledbetter Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615. Grade 60 80621 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi 6ularh Residence, 312 Neptune, Permit No. 3827 PE �vli <M Arrived on site as requested to provide special inspection of the reinforcing steel and provided continuous observation of the concrete placement for the Euleth residence, middle or second lift. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 49 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 5'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. 10/26/95 G. Ledbetter REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1 730 Time Departed: 2000 80621 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375P, 4000 psi Pierce Residence, 370 Neptune Avenue Arrived on site as requested to inspect the reinforcing steel and to provide continuous observation of the concrete placement for the Pierce residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel at this location and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 50 cubic yards of concrete at this location with the placement by means of a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. OISTRI9uTION: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED 9Yl / Michael B. wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 STC► SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280 -1321 FIELD INSPECTI0N REPORT PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT LOCATION: AACRTTECT: Neptune Sea 'Wall See Below SC34T FiLENO: 9512037 LIINO: 16 IPg 3 of 3) PEILMTT NO: See Below PL FILEYO: ENCLYEER: Civil Engineering Consultants GIENKRAL CONTRACTOR: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 10127195 G. Ledbetter 80621 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1700 Time Departed: 2000 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design I1375PAE, 4000 psi Gulath Residence, 512 Neptune, Permit No. 3827 PE E-L=,H Arrived on site as requested to provide special inspection of the reinforcing steel and provided continuous observation of the concrete placement for the top level at the Euleth residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 27 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4A ". Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. DMIUIIDTTON: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (1) City of Encinitas RE��YIIII)LI Y�E�� RR /YY: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627, Sao Diego, CA 92160, (619) 2804321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT =E: Evleth Beach Wall s[sarr No: 9512037 u yo: 1 (Pg 1 of 1) 'I Ma ,7rEOC PION: 312 Neptune, Encinitas eERnatno: 3827PE rEenEn.Erro: 3511 -G NC!=Cr: LstNEE7t: Civil Engineering Consultants GLIIEw Mn CrOR: Soil Engineering Construction suacOKrRnCrOR: 4112195 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1320 Time Departed: K. Embrey Reinforced Steel: #6, Grade 60, Epoxy Coated 534 Concrete: Mix Design 4- 14006, 3,000 psi Arrived at the site at approximately 1320. Spoke with John from SEC, and he stated that the concrete arrival had been pushed back to 1430. 1 went and checked in with the City of Encinitas Building Department and engineering departments. Returned to the job site and reviewed plans and specifications with the representative form Civil Engineering Consultants and then with Todd Baumbach from the City of Encinitas Engineering Department. Also present was another person from the City of Encinitas and another inspector. Inspected the size, grade, spacing and epoxy coating of the reinforcing steel. Noted that the epoxy was chipping at some 900 bends. Informed Todd Baumbach and he accepted the epoxy coating as is- The reinforcing steel was acceptable prior to concrete placement. Observed the placement of 38 cubic yards of plasticized concrete, which was tailgated into place. It was not consolidated during the placement by either manual or mechanical methods. Informed Todd Baumbach, who expressed concern, however, allowed the continuation of the pour on this date. Slump indicators for the first and second concrete loads equaled 3 ". The plasticizer was added and the resulting slump exceeded 6". Informed the representatives of Civil Engineering Consultants, Todd Baumbach and John with SEC of the excessive slump, all of whom felt that since the slump was achieved by admixtures, and the water /cement ratio was not exceeded, the slump would not be a concern. Sampled the third load of concrete placed, first lift of beach wall. Slump = 3 %z air content 3 %. One set of cylinders were cast compression testing. With the exception of the slump on the first two trucks as noted, and lack of consolidation, to the best of my knowledge, the work complies with the approved plans and specifications. Note: Prior to the final special inspection report, the structural engineer is to review this report and accept in whole. DESrRmvrton: (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) City of Encinitas REY'6.tiYED /BYY: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS C. I Randle, P.E, President 1529 Grand Avenuq Suite A San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone. (619) 471 -6000 Fax: (619) 736 -0185 January 31, 1996 Dr. Rober Frickman 402 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Certification of Lower Bluff Stabilization System Reference : 402 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, CA 92069 Dear Dr. Frickman, We have enclosed test data, inspection reports, concrete inspection and tests results. These are presented in a tabular form within the attached Appendixes. Each Appendix reflects a specific portion of work relative to the following: Appendix A. Is a site plan, showing the location of the "As- Built" lower seawall, tiebacks and location of the backdrain weepholes, as well as, a sketched section of said sea wall. Also note, the constructed sea wall does vary from the original plans, however, these revisions will not impact the wall's structural capability to performed as originally proposed. Two of three weepholes were found on the section of sea wall at this property. Appendix B. Is a table listing the depth and load test results of the tiebacks. Appendix C. Is a compilation of the concrete test results. This information is presented in a format which reflects each individual site and is followed by the appropriate test result. Please be advised several concrete test results reflect concrete strength in one or more sites, contingent to the extent and location of pour. Therefore, in this light, portions of these reports will be duplicated. This concludes our report relative to the placement of the lower bluff sea wall system. It is the opinion of the undersigned that the lower bluff sea wall has been constructed according to plans and specifications with the construction modification shown on Appendix A, and that it will function for the purpose intendant, PROVIDED that a responsible maintenance program be conducted in order to assure that the remedial action is promptly included in the event of external forces which might N.C.EE #4170 • CA RGE #G22096 • AZ R.C.E 011971 • NV RC.E #3037 WA C.E #10776 CIVIL. SiR MRAL ANO SOILS ENGINEEiUNG • GEOLOGY SURVEY • CUMFIEO INSPECTION -SOIL MO MATEFUL TESTING . FEASISILT' STUDIES • 0ON7RACi MANAGEMENT cause deterioration of the system either through seismic activity, uncommonly heavy tide and rainfall, or other associated acts of nature. Additionally, the entire bluff remediation is to include the, vertical extension of the sea wall and sufficient mid -bluff landscaping. Due to erosion or other natural events, an upper bluff stabilization system may be required in the future. When all areas of work are completed, the entire stabilization system may then be considered to comply with the intent of our plans and specifications. It is the understanding of the undersigned that the mid -bluff landscaping has been approved by the City of Encinitas and the California Coastal Commission. Similarly, a Geologic Hazard Abatement District is currently being formed. This district will have the ability and funds necessary to provide continued maintenance throughout the entire remediation area. i .�.•?�1.. ate. �w:ur Charles J. Randle, PE Q10 sir R.C.E. 22096, President K*' . ,,,,,,, CAI cc. Mr. Hans Jensen, City of Encinitas W O v=-Oooe L is1 Iwo r v :% L�1 Ass d. L1 Its ti- 0 Z 1V1 0 r \� m f) 1t �o �s l i r m E U r � ZI I� �I I In III O D ISO I rl iA� J L1 r �I �Ir RESIDENCE r --1 J L 0. ftw Li i i f' L ttt EL. 13t A,Ts L Rol PMV2 PL-RN 4 "x4' KEYWA` -- (nP) FINISHED FACE A5 DESIGNED A5 CONSTRUCTED EL. 51 WATER -TO P crY?) B>=ACH 5URFACF- El_EV. VARIES � .--�' ► �: BED ROCK . . FOOTI% C NATURAL Ie" MIN. o' �R .fir. VARIES 3' MIN. .i' 4-" y +N. e h� CLIFF FACE TIE SACK L: ZS' e K1P5 MIRADR 44 F!.BRI,C - nSM;AC.K L =LO' 19 KIPS 3" PVC SACKDRAIN LOWER BLUFFS SEAWALL TYPICAL SECTION (AS CONSTRUCTED) NO SCALE DRILL Client: F-A\cktAAo Drilling Method: 2n!Rl7t,51-mm Site Address: �-Testing Method: CN Mn._ x � o [*l 4 m � � z 2 0 P O O S` a v v ro to 1 q/1 91/13 IS DATE CAST 00 3 00 DESIGN PSI 5 1&40 3 z0 7 DAY PSI 4,5TO 1 5 000 28 DAY PSI 41(090 1 5 0%0 28 DAY PSI x � o [*l 4 m � � z 2 0 P O O S` a v v ro to DATE CAST DESIGN PSI 7 DAY PSI 28 DAY PSI 28 DAY PSI x � o [*l 4 m � � z 2 0 P O O S` a v v ro to DATE CAST DESIGN PSI 7 DAY PSI 28 DAY PSI 28 DAY PSI x � o [*l 4 m � � z 2 0 P O O S` a v v ro to T SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 280 -4321 \ 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 746 -4544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Oct. 26, 1995 CK CONCRETE (ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall @ Fri ckman ❑ MORTAR IUBC 24 -221 PROJECT LOCATION 402 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas ❑ GROUT IASTM 01019) ARCHITECT 3B32PE ❑ PRISMS (ASTM E447) ENGINEER PERMIT No. ❑ CONTRACTOR Soils Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Entire 40 feet of Frickman - level 2 (middle) MATERIAL SUPPLIER San Diego Ready Mix ADMIXTURES) Pozz /Ai r MIX DESIGNATION 375 PAE Concrete Temperature: 84° TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES 95 SLUMP, INCHES 3 -1/2 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY ORB TRUCK No. 534 TICKET No. 6795783 LABORATORY No. 5277 5278 5279 5280 MARK DATE MADE 10 -19 -95 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 10 -20 -95 DATE TESTED 10 -26 -95 11 -16 -95 11 -16 -95 DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA,SQUAREINCHES 28.27 MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 10S,000 141,250 141,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 3,820 5,000 5,010 AGE TESTED, DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT. /CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) Charles J. Randle (1) San Diego Ready Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEW Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 c T SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Oct. 30, 1995 ® CONCRETE (ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall at Frickman Residence ❑ MORTAR (UBC 24 -22) PROJECT LOCATION 402 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas ❑ GROUT [ASTM 01019) ARCHITECT PRISMS (ASTM E447) PERMIT No. 3S3ZPE ENGINEER CONTRACTOR Soil Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE All 40 feet of Frickman - top level MATERIAL SUPPLIER Escondido Ready Mix ADMIXTURE(S) Pozz /Ai r MIX DESIGNATION 375 PAE TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES 90 Concrete Temperature: 840 SLUMP, INCHES 4 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY GL SAMPLES TESTED BY ORB TRUCK No. 378 TICKET No. 1441436 LABORATORY No. 5355 5356 5357 5358 MARK DATE MADE 10 -23 -95 Discarded DATE RECEIVED 10 -25 -95 DATE TESTED 10 -30 -95 11 -20 -95 11 -20 -95 DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA, SQUARE INCHES 28.27 MAXIMUM LOAD, LBS 103,000 129,250 132,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 3,640 4,570 4,690 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT. /CU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) Charles J. Randle (1) Escondido Ready Mix SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEW Y: I Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280 -4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: Neptune Sea Wall SCS&T FILE NO: 9512037 I.R. NO: 15 (Pg 1 of 1) PROJECr LOCATION: See Below PER CUNO: See Below PLAN PILENO: ARCIUTELT: ENGINEER: Civil Engineering Consultants CENERALCONTRACrOR: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 10/19/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 10/20/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0030 Time Departed: 0300 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi Frickman Residence, 402 Neptune, Permit No. 3832 PE Arrived on site as requested to inspect the reinforcing steel and provided continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 30 cubic yards of concrete at these locations with a conveyor as means of placement and consolidation done by an electrical vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 3 %'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, done as per the plans. specifications and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0100 Time Departed: 0330 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi '44Aerbeekiiesidence, 396 Neptune, Permit No. 3831 PE A'uCY 9PC.f1 Arrived on site as requested to perform a special inspection of the reinforcing steel and to provide continuous observation of the concrete placement for 40 linear feet of the Allerback residence, second level (middle). Inspected the reinforcing steel at these locations and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 30 cubic yards of concrete at these locations with a conveyor as means of placement and consolidation done by an electrical vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4%'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, done as per the plans, specifications and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. D=mBUnON: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (11 Civil Engineering Consultants 11) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BY: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280 -4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: Neptune Sea Wall S(S&T FILE NO: 9512037 I.R.NO: 16 (Pg 1 of 3) PROTECT LOCATION: See Below PERNIITNO: See Below PLAN FILE NO: AROUTECT: ENGINEER: Civil Engineering Consultants GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 10/23/95 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1500 Time Departed: 1730 G. Ledbetter Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A61 5, Grade 60 80621 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi Frickman Residence, 402 Neptune, Permit No. 3832 PE Arrived on site as requested to inspect the reinforcing steel and provide continuous observation of the concrete placement of the top section of the wall for 40 linear feet at the Frickman residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 30 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. 10/24/95 G. Ledbetter REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1 530 Time Departed: 1800 80621 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375P, 4000 psi ANe.beek Residence, 396 Neptune, Permit No. 3831 PE Arrived on site as requested to perform a special inspection of the reinforcing steel and to provide continuous observation of the concrete placement for the full 40 linear feet, top level, of the Allerback residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel at this location and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 25 cubic yards of concrete at this location with the placement by means of a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4 -3/4'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (1) City of Encinitas REVIEWED BY: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 .5�. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 2804321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PRO.IECT TITLE: Neptune Sea Wall SCS&T FILE NO: 9512037 I.R. NO: 15 (Pg 1 of 1) PROTECT LOCATION: See Below PERMIT NO: See Below PLAN EILENO: ARCIDTECT: EvcmEER: Civil Engineering Consultants GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Sail Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 10/19/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 10/20/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0030 Time Departed: 0300 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi Frickman Residence, 402 Neptune, Permit No. 3832 PE Arrived on site as requested to inspect the reinforcing steel and provided continuous observation of the concrete placement. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 30 cubic yards of concrete at these locations with a conveyor as means of placement and consolidation done by an electrical vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 3'h ". Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, done as per the plans, specifications and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 0100 Time Departed: 0330 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi 396 Neptune, Permit No. 3831 PE Arrived on site as requested to perform a special inspection of the reinforcing steel and to provide continuous observation of the concrete placement for 40 linear feet of the Allerback residence, second level (middle). Inspected the reinforcing steel at these locations and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 30 cubic yards of concrete at these locations with a conveyor as means of placement and consolidation done by an electrical vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4Y.'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, done as per the plans, specifications and the workmanship provisions of the UBC. DISTRIBUTION: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (1) City of Encinitas RENIEISED BY: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 •ST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 280-4321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: Neptune Sea Wall SCS&T FILE NO: 9512037 L&NO: 16 (Pg 2 of 3) PROJECT LOCATION: See Below PERMITNO: See Below PLAN FILE no: ARCIBTECT: ENGINEER: Civil Engineering Consultants c ENERALCONTRACrOR: Soil Engineering Construction SUBCONTRACTOR: 10/25/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 10/26/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1600 Time Departed: 1900 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615. Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi C6uletb Residence, 312 Neptune, Permit No. 3827 PE 'LW?„ Arrived on site as requested to provide special inspection of the reinforcing steel and provided continuous observation of the concrete placement for the Euleth residence, middle or second lift. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 49 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 5'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1 730 Time Departed: 2000 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375P, 4000 psi Pierce Residence, 370 Neptune Avenue Arrived on site as requested to inspect the reinforcing steel and to provide continuous observation of the concrete placement for the Pierce residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel at this location and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 50 cubic yards of concrete at this location with the placement by means of a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4'. Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. DIST111BUTION: (21 Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (1) City of Encinitas RENEW ED Bv: Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 ST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160, (619) 2804321 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT LOCATION: ARCHITECT: Neptune Sea Wall See Below SC T FILE NO: 9512037 LILNO, 16 (Pg 3 of 3) PERMITNO: See Below PLAN FILENO: ENGNEER: Civil Engineering Consultants CENERALCONTRACTOR: Soil Engineering Construction xOECONT CTOR: 10/27/95 G. Ledbetter 80621 REINFORCED CONCRETE Time Arrived: 1 700 Time Departed: 2000 Reinforcing Steel: ASTM A61 5, Grade 60 Concrete: Mix Design #375PAE, 4000 psi 6uleLh Residence, 512 Neptune, Permit No. 3827 PE Ev�6TM Arrived on site as requested to provide special inspection of the reinforcing steel and provided continuous observation of the concrete placement for the top level at the Euleth residence. Inspected the reinforcing steel and found it to be as per the plans and specifications. Observed the placement of approximately 27 cubic yards of concrete at this location with placement by a conveyor and consolidation done by an electric vibrator. One set of four test cylinders was made. Slump = 4 %: Unless otherwise noted, the work inspected is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and the applicable sections of the UBC. DISTIL R MON: (2) Soil Engineer Construction (1) Civil Engineering Consultants (1) City of Encinitas FWAIWAAMYA Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & T'ESTING, INC. 1 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627. SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 230.4321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDmO. CA. 92025. (619) 746 -4544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9512037 DATE: Oct. 26, 1995 ® CONCRETE (ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Sea Wall @ Frickman i PROJECT LOCATION 402 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas ❑ MORTAR (UBC 24 -221 ARCHITECT ❑ GROUT (ASTM C10191 ENGINEER PERMIT No. 3832PE ❑ PRISMS (ASTM E447) CONTRACTOR C] Soils Engineering Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE MATERIAL SUPPLIER AOMIXTUREfS) MIX DESIGNATION TIME IN MIXER, MINUTES SLUMP, INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY SAMPLES TESTED BY Entire 40 feet of Frickman - San Diego Ready Mix Pozz /Air 375 PAE 95 3 -1/2 GL level 2 (middle) Concrete Temperature: 840 DRB TRUCK No, 534 TICKET N, 6795787 LABORATORY No. 5277 MARK DATE MADE 10 -19 -95 DATE RECEIVED 10 -20 -95 I DATE TESTED 10 -26 -95 DIAMETER, INCHES 6.00 AREA. SQUARE INCHES 28.27 MAXIMUM LOAD. LEIS 108,000 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 3,820 AGE TESTED. DAYS 7 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 3,000 UNIT WT. /CU. FT. (PLASTIC) 5278 1 5279 1 5280 DISTRIBUTION (2) Soil Engineering Construction (1) Charles J. Randle (1) San Diego Ready Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. REVIEWED .f_ Michael 6. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358