The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2317 RUE DES CHATEAUX; ; CB911704; PermitStr 02/28/92 15 54 B U I L D I K G P E R M I T Page 1 of l Job Address 2317 RUE DES CHATEAUX Permit Type RETAINING WALL Parcel No Valuation: 338,500 Construction Type NEW Occupancy Group Class Code Description 4650 SF SEAWALL Permit No CBS 11704 Project No A9102191 Development No. FL Ste 6582 02/28/92 0001 01 02 C-PRMT 2167-00 Appl/Ownr THE BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSN 2335 RUE DES CHATEAUX ___ CARLSBAD, CA 920,08' ' Status- ISSUED Applied 12/19/91 Apr/Issue 02/28/92 Validated By CD 619 434-5253 * * *Fees Required ***>' ......... fyJ^ . /'.e^-, Coveted &Credits Fees . Adjustments. Total Fees. Fee description Building Permit Plan Cneck Strong Motion Fee * BUILDING TOTAL 2,4-69. 00 •. . GO 2,4tV9\.OC Total Credits: .. Qtal Payments: Balance Tjue • • Uni t s •. ' .Fee XUn 1 *: \ 00 302 00 2,157 00 Ext fee Data 1476 00 959 00 34 CO 2469 00 APPROVAL DATE CLEARANCE CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr , Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161 PERMIT APPLICATION City of Carlsbad Building Department 2075 Las PaImas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161 1PERMITTYPIi A - U Commercial U New Building U Tenant Improvement B - D Industrial D New Building D Tenant Improvement C - D Residential D Apartment D Condo D Single Family Dwelling D Addition/Alteration D Duplex D Demolition D Relocation D Mobile Home D Electrical D Plumbing D Mechanical DPool D Spa D Retaining Wall D Solar j&Other Sea Wall 2 PROJECT INFORMATION PLAN CHECK NO. V/— C-PRHT 302-00 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Address Rue des Chateau* Nearest Cross Street Ocean Street building or suite NO 2305, 2310, 2315, 2320, 2325, 2330, 2335, 2340, 2345, 2350, 2355, 2360, 2365, 2375 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract # 81-35 Lot No Subdivision Name/Number Unit No Phase No According to Map No. 11007, filed 7/27/84 in the Office of The County Recorder of San Diego County.umv, D u.."The Beach" CHECK bELOW Vc bUBMlI IfcU Submitted to PlanmnjS Engineering D 2 Energy Calcs 0 2 Structural Calcs 5 2 Soils Report §p 1 Addressed Envelope ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 203-010-19-01 thm 0-14 EXISTING USE Residential Condos PROPOSED USE Same DESCRIPTION OF WORK Construction of a 350 foot long concrete verticle sea wall. SQ FT 4650 # OF STORIES 3 CDNTACTFtKbUn (it uiHereni irom applicant; NAME Dave Copley CITY Carlsbad STATE CA ADDRESS 2335 Rue Des Chateaui ZIP CODE 92008 DAY TELEPHONE (619) 434-5253 4 APPLICANT LJ CON 1RAL, I OR LJAGhNl rOR CON 1 HAL 1CJR laOWNhK LJACiLNl rOR OWNhK NAME The Beach Homeowners Assoc. ADDRESS c/o Dave Copley 2335 Rue Des Chateaux CITY Carlsbad STATE ZIP CODE 92008 DAY TELEPHONE (619) 434-5253 5 PROPERTY OW N hK X,* NAME Tne Beach Homeowners Assoc. CITY Carlsbad STATE CA ADDRESS c/o Dave Copley 2335 Rue Des Chateaui ZIP CODE 92008 DAY TELEPHONE (619) 434-5253 6 CONTRACTOR NAME To be determined. BIDS ARE DOE 12/10^91,^CITY STATE LIC # ADDRESS ZIP CODE LICENSE CLASS DAY TELEPHONE COY BUSINESS LIC # LJESTCiNER NAMh AJJUKIiSb Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers CITY Long Beach STATE CA ZIP CODE 250 W. Wardlow Rd., P.O. Box 7707 90807 DAY TELEPIIONE (213) 426-9551STATE LIC # 36045 T woitKKRS'TXJMi'hNSAnoN None by applicant. Contractor will be required to carry „____ Workers' Compensation Declaration I hereby atlirm that I have a certiticale ol consent to sell-insure issued by the Director ot Industrial Relations, or a certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance by an admitted insurer, or an exact copy or duplicate thereof certified by the Director of the insurer thereof filed with the Building Inspection Department (Section 3800, Lab C) INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO EXPIRATION DATE Certificate ot Exemption 1 certily that in the pertormance ot the work lor which this permit is issued, 1 shall not empjoy any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California •^.CH I-IOriEOWNERS ASSOCIATION by SIGNATURE DATE 12/5/91 ~ Anaf.m Kavm. ot employ any persoi <$;N^/Ct--<-->^V|__ 8 OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION Owner-Builder Declaration I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractors License Law lor the following reason D I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec 7044, Business and Professions Code The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who docs such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale) ** 0 I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec 7044, Business and Professions Code The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law) D I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason (Sec 7031 5 Business and Professions Code Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (Chapter 9, commencing with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption Any violation of Section 7031 5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]) Qirw Tffii16' J^ph Homepwners^gBsoci^tion by OATF ^ZL/.^^A^^^^^^..^ust.lr}. Gavin' Pr(ls- 12/5/91COMPLETE"rHIS SbCrloN FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY ~ Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? D YES O NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district7 n YES a NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? D YES D NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED AFTER JULY 1, 1989 UNLESS THE APPIJCANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING Tl IEREQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 9 CUNS'l'HUCrmN LENDING AGENCY NONE 1 hereby atlirm that there is a construction lending agency tor the pertormance of the work lor which this permit is issued CScc 3097(0 Civil Code) LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS 10 APPLICANT CJiKlTl'lCAnON I certify that l nave read the application and stale that the above information is correct I agree lo comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS HIE CTTY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE CHANTING OF THIS PERMIT OSHA. An OSHA permit is required for excavations over S'O" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height Expiration Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 365 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 303(d) Uniform Building Code) APPLICANTS SIGNATURE President DATE 12/5/91 WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance ** Each member of the Association has an undivided 1/14 interest in the Common Area where the wall- will be built, pursuant to the Declaration, the Association hap the exclusive right and duty to buildimprovements on the Common Area. DATE UNSCHEDULED INSPECTI INSPECTO PERMIT #///£? JOB ADDRESS PLANCK #_ tr Pr TIME ARRIVE:TIME LEAVE: CD LVL DESCRIPTION A- ACT COMMENTS PERMITS 6/15/89 DATE PERMIT JOB ADDRESS UNSCHEDULED INSPECTI INSPECTOR1 PLANCK f. TIME ARRIVE:TIME LEAVE: CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS PERMITS 6/15/89 UNSCHEDULED INSPECTIO DATE * / ' / ? 7 P-" INSPECTOR PERMIT # ^\~\)U1 PLANCK #_ JOB ADDRESS TIME ARRIVE: TIME LEAVE: CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS PERMITS 6/15/89 DATE PERMIT # JOB ADDRESS iNSPECTio: INSPECTOR PLANCK # TIME ARRIVE: CD LVL DESCRIPTION TIME LEAVE: ACT COMMENTS PERMITS 6/15/89 DATE tf'^' PERMIT # // -y7fl JOB ADDRESS 7 UNSCHEntTf^r* TNSPECTIO INSPECTOR PLANCK #_ X TIME ARRIVE:TIME LEAVE: CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS 77 PERMITS 6/15/89 PERMIT* CB911704 DESCRIPTION: 4650 SF SEAWALL CITY OF CARLSBAD INSPECTION REQUEST FOR 04/07/92 TYPE: RETAIN JOB ADDRESS: 2317 RUE DES CHATEAUX APPLICANT: THE BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSN CONTRACTOR: OWNER: REMARKS: RS/CHUCK/746-4955 SPECIAL INSTRUCT: INSPECTOR AREA PD PLANCK* CB911704 OCC GRP CONSTR. TYPE NEW STR: FL: STE: PHONE: 619 434-5253 PHONE: PHONE: INSPECTO: TOTAL TIME: —RELATED PERMITS—PERMIT* TYPE STATUS RW920041 ROW ISSUED CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS 11 ST Ftg/Foundation/Piers DATE DESCRIPTION ***** INSPECTION HISTORY ***** ACT INSP COMMENTS Ti EONSTRUCTION lESTING & H/NGINEERING , INC. ESCONDIDO • MODESTO ENGINEERING, INC CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT NAME: SAN MALO SEAWALL PLAN FILE #: 91-1704 PROJECT ADDRESS: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA OTHER: CTE PROJECT #: 92-1058 ARCHITECT:MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEER: MOFFATT & NICHOL CONTRACTOR: CHILCOTE TYPE OF INSPECTION: REINFORCED STEEL & CONCRETE WORK INSPECTION, JOB PROBLEMS, MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION PROGRESS, WORK REJECTED, REMARKS, ETC. ALL REINFORCING STEEL AND CONCRETE INSTALLATIONS MONITORED BY CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. WERE PERFORMED IN CONFORMANCE WITH PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Certification of Compliance: All work, unless otherwise noted, complies with the approved plans and specifications and the uniform building code. DISTRIBUTION: 1) CHILCOTE 1)THE BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 1) JOB FILE 92-1058.CER Thomas A. Gaeto, RCE #040182 .3.9-93- Date GEOTECHNICAL & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING & INSPECTION 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE SUITE G ESCONDIDO, CA 92029(619)7464955 FAX (619)7469X06 3540 OAKDALE ROAD MODESTO, CA 95355 (209)551 2271 FAX (209)551 3593 ESGIL CORPORATION 9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 2O8 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 56O-1468 DATE: zhnja.™ 19, JURISDICTION: . ^ COPY PLAN CHECK NO: 9/-/7^V _ SET;7ZT~ _ QUPS QDESIGNER PROJECT ADDRESS: _ ?U€L PROJECT NAME: ___ <^ (A)*. 1 1 The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficien- cies identified are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. D The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: pjpj Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that ^^ plan check has been completed. I j Esg.il staff did advise applicant that the plan check has — been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: Telephone if REMARKS: By; /farTL(//t><£s- Enclosures: ESGIL CORPORATION V/o DGA DCM ESGIL CORPORATION 9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 2O8 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 56O-1468 DATE: JURISDICTION: PLAN CHECK NO: 3LO . Rl- |-7<g"-f PROJECT ADDRESS: PROJECT NAME: f<l SET: TJT C JtJRISDICTIOr "LjPLAN CHECKER QFILE COPY QUPS rjDESIGNER D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. -, The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply J with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficien- cies identified _ are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. !£ The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that plan check has been completed. ~j Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: REMARKS: Telephone # By:&trr/J,ll/l/W Enclosures: ESGIL CORPORATION i/flf cA DCM _Date plans received by plan checker; PLAN CHECK NO.; PROJECT ADDRESS. TO: C^^ t/e- Date plan recheck completed: _ l/ZP/3 Z. By; l<(us-l- (JJL RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION SHEET FOREWORD; PLEASE READ Plan check is limited to technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. The plan check is based on regulations enforced by the Building Inspection Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The items shown below need clarification, modification or change. All items have to be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec 303(c), of the Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. PLANS Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints, and any original plan sets that may have been returned to you by the jurisdiction, to- The following items have not been resolved from previous plan reviews The original correction number has been given for your reference. the—prior In case yoi A i A r\r\t~ V^nar* oncloocd- wis Please contact me c?rp if you items . have any questions regarding these To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this check sheet with the revised plans. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list9 Please check. Yes No 6,,r\-Hv "Oeftttl/e,"f ILCy& n ft a, rt>~thf.ttr 7- /*/>£t/f na Form No. RPCS.41290 Date Jurisdiction Prepared by: VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE Q Bldg, Dept. D Esgil PLAN CHECK NO. ?I_-I70H BUILDING ADDRESS APPLICANT/CONTACT £>. BUILDING OCCUPANCY PHONE NO. 11 DESIGNER PHONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PHONE BUILDING PORTION •^^ a?A// Air Conditioning Commercial Residential Res. or Comm. Fire Sprinklers Total Value BUILDING AREA ^6SG> VALUATION MULTIPLIER +3 @ @ e VALUE -6>£^+s&. -*>^,ss>c>& ^ 3 8} S^^> /%^r t f c . o T Building Permit Fee $_ Plan Check Fee $ COM ME NTS: SHEET OF / 12/87 ESGIL CORPORATION 9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 2O8 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 56O-1468 DATE: JURISDICTION: PLAN CHECK NO: PROJECT ADDRESS :_ PROJECT NAME: Co SET: QAPPIJJQ """[JURISDICTION" CPLliNI CHECKER" QFILE COPY [jUPS !"~ DESIGNER -| The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where J necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficien- cies identified are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. s—; The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the •—J jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person. ^ The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: %ffi\ Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that plan check has been completed. I| Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has —"' been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: [J REMARKS: Telephone #_ By:Enclosures: ESGIL CORPORATION L]GA L]CM JURISDICTION;Date plans received by plan checker; PLAN CHECK NO ; C\\-\'70H PROJECT ADDRESS: _ Fur TO: QgLv/g- Date plan check completed; \lb 1 9 Z- By; PLAN CORRECTION SHEET FOREWORD; PLEASE READ Plan check is limited to technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. The plan check is based on regulations enforced by the Building Inspection Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments The items shown below need clarification, modification or change. All items have to be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 303(c), of the Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. A. PLANS Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints, and any original plan sets that may have been returned to you by the jurisdiction, to- f>. T To facilitate checking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this check sheet with the revised plans. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please check. Mrf- u Yes No -T Hie lows he b . 4$4$CQ r\-rf -r& fr ic.& -tor f-a.r- 7,U>Ctl\ in S> .'ie-S n v\d hea , r I a,-r~ Form No. PCS.k1390 Date Jurisdiction Prepared byi VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE Q Bldg. Dept, D Esgil PLAN CHECK NO. BUILDING ADDRESS APPLICANT/CONTACT b. BUILDING OCCUPANCY J?u*. PHONE NO. DESIGNER PHONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PHONE BUILDING PORTION <^*^ U}*ll Air Conditionine Commercial Residential Res. or Comm. Fire Snrinklers Total Value BUILDING AREA Ht,s& VALUATION MULTIPLIER /3 @ @ @ VALUE ^?, */5Ti> (e>&<4*>& Building Permit Fee $_ Plan Check Fee $ COMMENTS- SHEET OF / 12/87 M OFF ATT&NICHOL, ENGINEERS JAN 1 5 1992 January 13, 1992 CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4959 Attn: David Hauser Assistant City Engineer 7"5l"7 I^UE Subj: Point San Malo Seawall CT 81/35 CP 182 M&N File: 2499-02 Dear Mr. Hauser: I have reviewed the comments provided by Kurt Culver of Esgil Corporation. It is my understanding that some of his comments have already been addressed by review from your staff, however, all responses will be provided in this submittal. The comments will be addressed in order of the enclosed Esgil Corporation plan correction sheet. A. PLANS 1-4. Two sets of plans are provided in the submittal to Esgil Corporation. Fifteen sets are provided to the Planning Department. The only correction is inclusion of a Registered Engineers stamp on sheets 3 and 4. 5. The plans now include a Registered Engineers stamp on all four sheets. A Registered Engineers stamp is also provided on the cover sheet for the coastal design and structural calculations. 6. A letter from the soils engineer is provided confirming soils diagrams and earth pressure. 7. The wall drainage system provided by the soils engineer was for conceptual purposes only. The drainage system shown on the plans fulfills the intent of the soils engineer. 250 WEST WARDLOW ROAD • POBOX77O7 . LONG BEACH • CALIFORNIA • 9O8O7 • (310)4269551 FAX (310) 424 7489 City of Carlsbad Mr. David Hauser January 13, 1992 Page Two 8. A copy of the California Coastal Commission Permit has been previously provided aHHr.OCcjpn finujJiflJ^WiYriiiMfi&^i AjJH&Tjcate copv °f the letter ^^^jjrWlWudlBBBMMMi 9.^^^An Engineers construction cost estimate of $389,000 is provided. received from ten contractors on December 10, 1991 range from $262,000 to $521,000. Please Ce Sincerely, MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS ler questions"!rvts. Alan Alcorn Civil Engineer AA/pjb c: Kurt Culver (Esgil Corporation) w/encl. Anne Hysong (City of Carlsbad) w/15 Plan Sets. JURISDICTION* ' ^"-(soa^< Date plans received by plan checker:. PLAN CHECK NO., q 1- \7<PH Date plan check completed; t/£ ^92. By;. PROJECT ADDRESS: TO: OgiVC- C-j PLAN CORRECTION SHEET FOREWORD; PLEASE READ Plan check is limited to technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. The plan check is based on regulations enforced by the Building Inspection Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The items shown below need clarification, modification or change. All items have to be satisfied before the plans vill be in conforoance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 303(c), of the Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. Please make all corrections on the original (3.) Please indicate here if any changes have tracings and submit two new sets of prints, \-S been made to the plans that are not a result and any original plan sets that may have been of corrections from this list. If there are returned to you by the jurisdiction, to: other changes, please briefly describe then and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please check. To facilitate checking, please identify, next Yes No to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this check sheet with the Ci revised plans. of ' ' 57 Sb anaf-sfe of th** a -fiPt^f 0f- -fa ip, ^r nren/idb GL. Form No. PCS 41390 COASTAL DESIGN INFORMATION FOR SHORE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT THE BEACH CONDOMINIUMS Prepared for THE BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 2335 Rue Des Chateaux Carlsbad, California 92008 and CITY OF CARLSBAD Engineering Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4959 Prepared by MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS 250 W Wardlow Road Long Beach, California 90807 M&NFile: 2499-01 September 1991 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC Geotechnicol and Environmental Engineering Consultants August 29, 1991 Project No. 8880700-02 To: Attention: 'Subject: Moffat and Nichol Engineers 250 West Warlow Road P.O. Box 7707 Long Beach, California 90807 Mr. Alan Alcorn Review of Draft Seawall Plans and Specifications The Beach" Subdivision, Carlsbad, California In response to your letter dated August 22, 1991, we have reviewed the subject plans and specifications. We have also responded to the list of items provided in your letter. Our comments are provided below. 1 Construction excavations in the bluff materials may be performed at a slope of 3/4 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) provided that the geotechnical consultant observes the excavations before workers are permitted to work adjacent to these side slopes. If unfavorable geologic conditions are encountered, shoring on a flatter inclination may be recommended. 2. The top of the excavation should be maintained no closer than 10 feet from the existing block wall. 3. The surface elevation of the borings as indicated on the boring logs were estimated in the field based on the horizontal location of the borings and the base map we were provided entitled Pomte San Malo Grading Plan dated July 2,1984. Borings were not surveyed. We estimate that the actual elevations of the borings (and the bedrock contact) may vary plus or minus 2 feet. The minimum footing embedment into undisturbed formational soils is 2 feet for footings and 4 feet for foundation keys. 4. Backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent based on ASTM D1557-78. Backfill unit weights have been assumed as 120 pcf (moist) and 130 psf (saturated). 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 (619) 292-8030* (800) 447-2626 FAX (619) 292-0771 8880700-02 5. The pressure diagrams to be utilized for wall design are attached. 6. Reference to the soil report in Section 1.14 of the supplementary conditions of the specifications should refer to the date of the'most recent report (July 18, 1988 - Revised August 11, 1989). 7. Provision for contractor dewatenng has not been included in the specifications. It may be desirable to indicate that "dewatenng if necessary shall be provided by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner." 8. Sections for walls shown on page 2 of the project plans should indicate a minimum key embedment of 4 feet below the siltstone contact 9. Section A of sheet 2 is unclear as to the 2 foot minimum dimension. The 2 foot minimum should be measured from the sfltstone contact to the base of the footing. It may be desirable to indicate "typical" under this dimension so that it may be implied on Sections B, C, D, and F. If you have any questions regarding our letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC Stan Helenschmidt, GE 2064 (Exp. 6/30/92) Managing Principal, San Diego Region SRH/mw Attachments: Pressure Diagrams Distribution: (1) Addressee (1) The Beach Homeowners Association Attention: Mr. David Copley -2- LEIQHTON and ASSOCIATES Engineer/Qeologist Drafting By LEIQHTON and ASSOCIATES T- rf= JP-.s'*)CL^'C^ 1 X H~H Jsd ^ &3 IV tn:i i;.._( 4-r -I I ! I -7-J-- )<u ftAT -°fv rl tt±t ±i: ^. -t-T- T" " ^-H ^Tui - r-L ' I ! j LL j—J i 1 1 LL 4T-HLill i_ j i j l ' _iti. ttr^i.±i . , i r i , -i—j_i""L_L..._ i .._L_j -4~ M_u 1 |r- 4- t -i- 1 1 Project Date 7- Engineer/Geologist Drafting By MOFFATT&NICHOL, ENGINEERS December 5, 1991 City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas DriveCarlsbad. CA 92009-4959 Attn: Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer Subj: Point San Halo Seawall CT 81-35/CP182 M&N File: 2499-01 Dear Mr. Hubbs: The proposed seawall Improvements at Point San Malo have been designed to meet standards Imposed within the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions and FEMA guidelines. The CCC permit specifically requires certification that the design of the proposed shore protection improvements be Intended to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83. The propose^Improvements under present conditions will fulfill this requirement. This should not be construed that the improvements will eliminate all coastal hazards associated with storm waves and beach erosion. The seawall crest 1s designed to an elevation of 15 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW), with a splash apron providing additional'protection to 20 feet above MLLW. The still water elevation for a recurrence Interval of 100 years Is 7.7 feet above MLLW. The seawall provides 12.3 feet above the 100 year still water level. Thus, this meets the criteria 1n FEMA publications for providing 2 feet of freeboard above the 100 year water elevation. The details of the California Coastal Commission permit conditions and coastal design Information are contained 1n the permit and report provided to the City In September 1991. Additional copies nay be provided if required. Sincerely, MOFFATT&NICHOL. ENGINEERS Alan Alcorn Coastal Engineer AA/mlr 2BO WEST WARDLOW ROAD • POBOX77O7 • LONG BEACH • CALIFORNIA • 9OBO7 (213)4269551 FAX (213) 424 7489 MCI-4 Cost Estimates for Point San Halo Seawall 09-0ct-91 Sea Wall Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Mobilization 1 LS $11,000 $ll,00n Excavation 4,000 CY $5 $20,000 Excavation (Hand) 150 CY $25 $3,800 Backfill 2,000 CY $10 $20,OUU Backfill (Loose) 1,000 CY $2 $2,000 Concrete (footing) 250 CY $275 $68,800 Concrete (wall) 200 CY $550 $110,000 Reinforcement 67,500 LB $0.50 $33,800 Drainage 1 LS $2,000 $2,OuO Armor Stone (1 ton) 1,200 Tons $35 $42,000 Underlayer (Gravel! 750 Tots $25 $18,800 Filter Cloth 525 SY $2.50 $1,300 Remove and Replace Fe-ce 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 Storm Drain Protection 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Total $338,500 BUILDING PLANCHECK ENGINEERING CHECKLIST wA'k .HDATE: NO. C& 31- ilflM i 2 • 3 23>°7 ROE. DES CHAT&AUX S N R TDD ITEM COMPLETE ITEM INCOMPLETE NEEDS YOUR ACTION ITEM SELECTED o h (0 , , . r roTa^T \ o n PROJECT ID: ARM 2.O3> - QtO -C C C H H H E E E LEGAL REQUIREMENTS K/ K K Site Plan 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: north arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width and dimension setbacks. 2. Show on site plan: Finish floor elevations, pad elevations, elevations of finish grade adjacent to building, existing topographical lines, existing and proposed slopes, driveway with percent (%) grade and drainage patterns. 3. Provide legal description and Assessors Parcel Number. Discretionary Approval Compliance 4. No Discretionary approvals were required. 5. Project complies with all Engineering Conditions of Approval for Project No. . 6. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of Approval for Project No. SE>P> Rl-tQ , #84 nn nnn nnn Conditions complied with by:. Field Review Date: '—' '—' 7. Field review completed. No issues raised. nn 8.Field review completed. The following issues or discrepancies with the site plan were found: nnn A. nnn nnn Site lacks adequate public improvements Existing drainage improvements not shown or in conflict with site plan. C. Site is served by overhead power lines. P \DOCS\MISFORMS\FRM0010 OH REV 02/27/91 '—' '—' '—' D. Grading is required to access site, create pad or provide for ultimate street improvement. '—' '—' '—' E. Site access visibility problems exist. Provide onsite turnaround or engineered solution to problem. nnn F. Other: Dedication Requirements 9. No dedication required. '—' '—' '—' 10. Dedication required. Please have a registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor prepare the appropriate legal description together with an 8V x 11" plat map and submit with a title report and the required processing fee. All easement documents must be approved and signed by owner(s) prior to issuance of Building Permit. The description of the dedication is as follows: Dedication completed, Date By:. Improvement Requirements 11. No public improvements required. SPECIAL NOTE; Damaged or defective improvements found adjacent to building site must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City inspector prior to occupancy. '—- '—''—'l2. Public improvements required. This project requires construction of public improvements pursuant to Section 18.40 of the City Code. Please have a registered Civil Engineer prepare appropriate improvement plans and submit for separate plancheck process through the Engineering Department. Improvement plans must be approved, appropriate securities posted and fees paid prior to issuance of permit. The required improvements are: Improvement plans signed, Date: by:. P \DOCS\MISFORHS\FRH0010 DH REV. 02/27/91 nan nan 13. Improvements are required. Construction of the public improvements may be deferred in accordance with Section 18.40 of the City Code. Please submit a letter requesting deferral of the required improvements together with a recent title report on the property and the appropriate processing fee so we may prepare the necessary Future Improvement Agreement. The Future Improvement Agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Future Improvement Agreement completed, Date: By: 13a. Inadequate information available on site plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Please provide more detailed proposed and existing elevations and contours. Include accurate estimates of the grading quantities (cut, fill, import, export). No grading required as determined by the information provided on the site plan. 15. Grading Permit required. A separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer must be submitted for separate plan check and approval through the Engineering Department. NOTE; The Grading Permit must be issued and grading substantially complete and found acceptable to the Citv Inspector prior to issuance of Building Permits. Grading Inspector sign off. Date:._by:. Miscellaneous Permits Right-of-Way Permit not required. Right-of-Way Permit required. A separate Right-of-Way Permit issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following: in nan 18. Sewer Permit is not required. 19. Sewer Permit is required. A sewer Permit is required concurrent with Building Permit issuance. The fee required is noted below in the fees section. 20. Industrial Waste Permit is not required. P \DOCS\MISFORMS\FRM0010.DH REV. 02/27/91 >V—''—''—' 21. Industrial Waste Permit is required. Applicant must complete Industrial Waste Permit Application Form and submit for City approval prior to issuance of a Building Permits. Permits must be issued prior to occupancy. Industrial Waster Permit accepted - Date: By: Fees Required D 27. Park-in-Lieu Fee Quadrant: Fee per Unit: Total Fees: D 23. Traffic Impact Fee Fee Per Unit: Total Fee: D 24. Bridge and Thorough fare Fee Fee Per Unit: Total Fee: D 25. Public Facilities Fee required. D 26. Facilities Management Fee Zone: _ Fee: D 27. Sewer Fees Permit No. _ EDU's Benefit Area: _ Fee: D 28. Sewer Lateral Required: Fee: _ H §3 29. REMARKS; CbR PH^s"^ be* i4. ( prior Tfflrn - ENGINEERING AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE PERMIT DATE; P \DOCS\MISFORMS\FRM0010.DH REV 02/27/91 rj N N Plan Check No. Planner APN PLANNING CHECKLIST Address 23)7 R'«cK.Phone 438-1161 ext (Name) >- 0/0 -f Type of Project and Use (0 <0 10 Q O 0 Zone -Facilities Management Zone ___ \ -4 *<• Legend "tl a. a. o. Item Complete Item Incomplete - Needs your action 1, 2, 3 Number in circle indicates plancheck number where deficiency was identified Environmental Review Required YES \/__ NO TYPE DATE OF COMPLETION: Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval Discretionary Action Required. YES S NO TYPE APPROVAL/RESO. NO PROJECT NO. $uf <?/--7 OTHER RELATED CASES DATE. Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval _; ; ^ Gf CalifomicCalifornia Coastal Commission Permit Required: YES I/ NO DATE OF APPROVAL $M I San Diego Coast District, 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, CA. 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036 Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval D idscape Plan Required: YES ^ NO See attached submittal requirements for landscape plans Site Plan: 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale Show North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width and dimensioned setbacks 2 Show on Site Plan. Finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grade adjacent to building, existing topographical lines, existing and proposed slopes and driveway 3 Provide legal description of property 4 Provide assessor's parcel number. Zoning DDD n n n an an an Setbacks: Front: Int. Side: Street Side- Rear: 2 Lot coverage 3 Height: 4. Parking- / Additional Comments S > •k, £W Required Required Required Required Required Required Spaces Required Guest Spaces Required «/>A^ PL. ^A Jud^l Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown ) ^Ufj far^i i~~Z3 AJT/P/O*'^ | rwJt&ct /yios- -/& '/s<;J«/,c«. & $- L~, fc^-is' «>j?s~'i L^Jj(»/^~ />/„- £^Ji furrH-T/ T. ni/'njg&g'+JZ&T- ^<f\iTV" <sa/30 f4~iLiA&&. OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE PLNCK.FRM City of Carlsbad Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION February 13, 1992 The Beach Homeowners Association Austin F Gavin, Directory & President 12432 Evenmgside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 RE: SUP 91-7 - POINT SAN MALO SEAWALL At the Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 1992, your application was considered The Commission voted 5-0 to APPROVE your request Some decisions are final at Planning Commission, and others automatically go forward to City Council If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161 MICHAEL J HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH AH km Enclosed Planning Commission Resolution Nos 3343, 3342 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619)438-1161 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3342 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO SDP 91-10 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED 30 FEET WEST OF THE BEACH CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF OCEAN STREET ALONG THE BLUFF FACE BETWEEN THE PUBLIC ACCESS STAIRWAY AND THE BUENA VISTA LAGOON DISCHARGE CASE NAME POINT SAN MALO SEAWALL CASE NO SDP 91-10 WHEREAS, a venfied application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Tide 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of February, 1992, consider said request on property described as: Lot 1, Carlsbad Tract 81-35, Map 11007, recorded in San Diego County July 27, 1984 . WHEREAS, at said public heanng, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to SDP 91-10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES SDP 91-10, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The proposed project is consistent with the R-3 Zone and Beach Area Overlay Zone since it is a permitted use which is compatible with surrounding development The seawall design follows the horizontal and vertical contour of the existing coastal bluff and the bluff area landward of the seawall will be revegetated with native coastal strand plant species. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad Mello II Local Coastal Program and it has received approval of a Coastal Permit from the California Coastal Commission Conditions- Planning. 7. Approval is granted for SDP 91-10, as shown on Exhibits "A" - "E", dated February 5, 1992, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions Approval of SDP 91-10 is granted subject to the approval of SUP 91-7 The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning Department. Pnor to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been installed as shown on the approved landscape plans Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction which shall provide that the permittee (s) or successors 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 including any feasible solution that includes, among others, beach nourishment programs. PC RESO NO. 3342 -2- 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. Replacement of the chainlink fence located north of the beach access stairway shall extend from the existing project wall to the bottom of the stairway and shall be a 5' wrought iron fence, hot dipped, painted with an epoxy primer and paint to match the natural bluff. Engineering 9 This project is located within the Buena Vista management plan All development design shall comply with the requirements of that plan 10. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan 11. The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project 12 The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S D.G &E, Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities 13 Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. 14. Prior to or concurrently with obtaining a building permit the applicant shall obtain a right-of-way permit for work in the City drainage easement at the southerly project boundary. Prior to release of the security for the right-of-way permit the applicant shall provide erosion protection for the 18" PVC storm drain and outlet structure as shown on the plans and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PC RESO NO. 3342 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; California, held on the 5th day of February, 1992, by the following vote, to wit AYES. NOES Chairman Erwin, Commissioners Schramm, Holmes, Savary & Noble None ABSENT. Commissioners- Hall & Schlehuber ABSTAIN None TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST . MICHAEL J HOI2MILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3342 -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3343 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SPECIAL 2 , USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 350' LONG CONCRETE VERTICAL SEAWALL AND SPLASH APRON ON PROPERTY 3 • GENERALLY LOCATED 30 FEET WEST OF THE BEACH CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN 4 TERMINUS OF OCEAN STREET ALONG THE BLUFF FACE 5 BETWEEN THE PUBLIC ACCESS STAIRWAY AND THE BUENA VISTA LAGOON DISCHARGE 6 CASE NAME' POINT SAN MALO SEAWALL CASE NO SUP 91-7 7 fi WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit 9 Lot 1, Carlsbad Tract 81-35, Map 11007, recorded in San Diego County dated July 27, 1984 10 has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of 13 the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and 14 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of February, 1992, 15 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 16 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 17 testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission 18 considered all factors relating to the Special Use Permit, and 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 22 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 23 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 24 APPROVES SUP 91-7, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions 25 26 27 28 Findings. 1 All permit requirements of Chapter 21-110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code have been satisfied 3 The seawall is consistent with the Mello II LCP and FEMA guidelines and the 4 California Coastal Commission has approved a coastal permit 5 Conditions Planning- 7 Approval is granted for SUP 91-7, as shown on Exhibits "A" - "E", dated February 8 5, 1992, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these 9 conditions 10 2. Approval of SUP 91-7 is granted subject to approval of SDP 91-10 and all conditions imposed by Resolution No. 3342. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PC RESO NO. 3343 -2- 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of February, 1992, by the following vote, to wit AYES NOES Chairman Erwin, Commissioners Schramm, Holmes, Savary & Noble None. ABSENT Commissioners- Hall & Schlehuber ABSTAIN None TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST MICHAEL J HOLZMULER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3343 -3- City of Carlsbad Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION February 13, 1992 The Beach Homeowners Association Austin F Gavin, Directory & President 12432 Evenmgside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 RE: SUP 91-7 - POINT SAN MALO SEAWALL At the Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 1992, your application was considered The Commission voted 5-0 to APPROVE your request Some decisions are final at Planning Commission, and others automatically go forward to City Council If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161 MICHAEL J HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH AH km Enclosed Planning Commission Resolution Nos 3343, 3342 2O75 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 - (619)438-1161 RALPH D. COPLEY JR. 2335 RUE DCS CHATEAUX CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (s S %> 2&*4 / U /. /J., IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS 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 terms and conditions thereof. <3-?£"•<( 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 6-90-159 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 Page 1 Of 4 SAN DIEGO CA 92108 1725 (619) 521 8036 On September 14. 1990 the California Coastal Commission granted to The Beach Homeowners Association this permit for the development described below, subject to the attached Standard and Special Conditions. Desciption: Construction of a 370 foot long, concrete vertical seawall with a crest elevation of 15 feet above Mean Lower Low Water. Site: Ocean front side of 2305-2375 Rue Des Chateaux, Carlsbad, San Diego County (APN 203-010-19-01 through 203-010-19-14) Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director and Date , Signature of Permittee COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6-90-159 Page 2 of 4 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval. 4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice. 6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Construction Access and Staging Areas/Pro.lect Timing. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the permittee(s) shall submit for Executive Director review and approval in writing, plans showing the locations, both on- and off-site, which will be used as staging areas and storage areas for materials and equipment during the construction phase of this project. The applicant shall also submit a final construction schedule, which shall be incorporated into construction bid documents. The schedule shall include that no construction activity, entailed by the subject permit, shall occur between Memorial Day and Labor Day of any year. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 6-90-159 Page 3 of 4 SPECIAL CONDITIONS, continued: The plan shall also indicate that if the sandy beach area to the west of the site is to be used as a staging or construction1 area, equipment used on the beach shall be removed from the beach at the end of each work day. The plans shall also indicate that no beach sand or cobble is to be used as back fill material for any aspect of the construction project and that no portion of existing public parking lots or public on-street parking areas shall be used for the storage of construction equipment or materials 2. Storm Design. The permittee(s) shall, prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, submit certification by a registered engineer that the approved shoreline protective device is designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83. Said certification shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Executive Director. 3. Maintenance Activities/Future Alterations. The property owner(s), i.e., the Homeowners Association, shall be responsible for maintenance of the permitted vertical seawall. Any debris or materials which become dislodged after completion through weathering and impair public access shall be removed from the beach. Any change in the design of the seawall, or future additions/reinforcement may require a coastal development permit. If after inspection, it is apparent that repair or maintenance is necessary, the permittee(s) shall contact the Commission office to determine whether permits are necessary. If it is determined during construction that any portion of the proposed vertical wall can not be "keyed" into the existing siltstone as proposed and therefore necessitating toe stone to anchor the wall, the applicant must apply for an amendment to this permit. 4. Public Rights. The permittee(s) shall, by accepting the terms and conditions of the permit, agree that issuance of the permit and completion of the authorized development shall not prejudice any subsequent assertion of public rights, e.g., prescriptive rights, public trust, etc. 5. Applicant's Assumption of Risk. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the permittee(s) as landowner shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide, (a) that the applicant understands that the site may be subject to extraordinary hazard from waves during storms and from erosion or flooding, and the applicant assumes the liability from such hazards; and (b) that the applicant unconditionally waives any claim of liability on the part of the Commission and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission and its advisors relative to the Commission's approval of the project for any damage due to natural hazards. The document shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens. 6. Community Wide/Regional Solution to Shoreline Erosion. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the 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 Carlsbad. The perrmttee(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. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 6-90-159 Page 4 of 4 SPECIAL CONDITIONS, continued 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 and shall be recorded 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. 7. Color of Vertical Seawall. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit plans and color samples for the surface treatment of the proposed seawall, to provide a surface that matches, to the maximum degree feasible, the surrounding bluff area. The treatment shall include covering the structure with materials that match the color and texture of the native bluff materials. 8. Revegetation Plan. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applcant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval a detailed revegetation plan which shall indicate that the area of the bluff between the private block wall and the landward extent of the gravel backfill shall be landscaped with drought tolerant plant material designed to promote bluff stability. The revegetation plan shall identify the type, size, extent and location of all plant materials, the proposed irrigation system and other landscape features. The selected plant materials must be capable of surviving without additional irrigation after initial establishment; irrigation by hand watering only shall be peritted for the initial establishment of the landscaping. Xeriscape landscaping techniques shall be employed. 8473P \ C 09 '91 P.I 3 P 2 -2 City of, Carlsbad December 2, 1991 POINT Moffati & Nichol, Engineers AW) Akorn P O. Box 7707 Long Beach, CA 9G8H7 SUBJECT- SDP 91-10/SUP 91-7 CONDOMINIUMS) Thdnk you for applying for Land Use Permits in th* City nf Carlsbad The Planning Department has reviewed your Site Development Plan and Special Use Hermit, application no SDP 91-10 and SUP 91-7, as to its completeness for processing. The application is complete, as submitted Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. The Ciiy may, in the course of practising The application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the basic information required for the application. In addinon. you should also be aware that various design issues east (see attached list of issues') Th«se issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. Please contact your staff planner. Anne Hysong, at (619} 438 1161 extension 4477, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting ro discuss the application Sincerely, MICHAJLL J HOLZMILLER Planning Director Attachment MJH AH vd c. Gary Wayne Robert Green Erin Letsch Bob Wojok Jim Davis Tile Copy Data Entry Marjorie/Stew Ausim Gavin 12432 Eveiungside Dnvt- Santa Ana, CA 92 70S Lat> Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 * (6i9) 430-'' DEC 09 "'51 ie 47 CIGm ISSUES OP CONCERN No JSDP »I.IQ/SUP j>l-7 - Point San Malo Seawall 1. Submit a prelurunary landscape plan detailing tlu» type and location of the drought and salt tolerant coastal plant species proposed for the slope .area berween die seawall and existing project wall. 2 A more textured wall such as aggregate, grooved, or rock will create a less man- made appearance along the base of the bluff The Planning Department recommends that an alternative wall texture be use d ' 3 The proposal to replace the existing chamlink fence separating the property from the public access stauv/ay to the south with a galvanized steel chainknic fence is inconsistent with the high quality of deveJopment at the Beach Condominium project, Ihe Planning Department recnnunends that an alternative fence material such as galvanuf d and/or coated wrought iron be used to visually enhance this> area and avoid future deterioration 4, The wJl section; do noc identify the proposed grade above the np-rap Clearly indicate on the wall «alons the proposed grade (D Provide an analysis of what effect the wall will have on the public drainage outlet structure <»nd pipe located at the south end of the wall. The "pocket" created by the wall and the existing stairway could focus wave energy and increase erosion around the structure and pipe Provide an analysis of what effect the wall will have on beach erosion along the property to the south. Show the elements for drainage and the access along the southerly property line, as per Map 11007. Prior to approval of the Special Use Permit (SUPJ, you need to provide a certification that the project will not cause flooding to habitable structures signed and sealed by the registered engineer Also attached ii a reduned checkpnnt of the site plan 10 be used for corrections and changes a* noted, Please return the redlined checkpnnt with the corrected site plan to assist ui in our continued review MOFFATT&NICHOL, ENGINEERS December 11, 1991 City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4549 Attn: Michael Holzmlller Planning Director Subj: Point San Malo Seawall City No. SDP91-10/SUP91-7 M&N File: 2499 Dear Mr. Holzmlller: We have addressed the Issues of concern expressed 1n your December 2, 1991 letter 1n the following response. PLANNING 1. A landscape plan has been submitted 1n a separate correspondence on December 10, 1991. The plan 1s being simultaneously provided to California Coastal Commission. 2. After careful consideration of a grooved or cobbled texture of the wall face, 1t was decided by the Homeowners Association that maintenance and removal of graffiti would be very difficult, especially with a colored concrete. The proposed relatively smooth face will assume the wood grain appearance of the forms leaving a timber look. This will allow for a reasonable upkeep with either scrapping, painting, or sandblasting without the gaps or grooves that would hinder the removal. 3. The replacement of the existing chain link fence along the public access stairway was chosen to be consistent with the fence to the south of the stairway and match the existing fence. Use of a wrought Iron fence is highly Inadvisable 1n the salt air environment due to the 25O WEST WARDLOW ROAD • POBOX77O7 • LONG BEACH • CALIFORNIA • 9OBO7 • (21'3> 426-9551 FAX (213)424 7489 City of Carlsbad r Michael Holzmlller December 11, 1991 Page Two rapid deterioration and corrosion. Experience with both galvanized and coated wrought Iron within beach homeowner property has been unsuccessful 1n maintaining the finished appearance. A coated chain link fence using a colored coating to more closely resemble the hillside 1s proposed 1n lieu of the galvanized fence. t This will provide a longer period of time before aesthetics are 'diminished. 4. The wall sections have been modified to more clearly Indicate the proposed finish grade. ENGINEERING 1. The public drainage outlet Is proposed to be protected with concrete slurry, gravel, and armor stone as shown on Sheet 3 of the drawings. The engineering staff have approved the protection measures as shown during the review process as per telephone discussions on December 9, 1991. 2. The property to the south 1s currently armored against erosion. It Is not anticipated that the proposed seawall will Impact on beach planform to the south of the project, since the beach will be restored to the pre-project condition after construction 1s complete. 3. The drawings have been modified to show drainage and access easement. 4. A copy of a letter previously sent to the City 1s enclosed to address flooding requirements. The original redlined plans are enclosed. The enclosed revised plans reflect the markups. Sincerely, MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS Alan Alcorn Coastal Engineer AA/mlr Enclosures MOFFATT&N1CHOL, ENGINEERS December 5, 1991 City of Carlsbad2075 Las Palmas DriveCarlsbad, CA 92009-4959 Attn: Lloyd HubbsCity Engineer Subj: Point San Malo Seawall CT 81-35/CP182M&N File: 2499-01 Dear Mr. Hubbs: The proposed seawall improvements at Point San Malo have been designed to meet standards Imposed within the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions and FEMA guidelines. The CCC permit specifically requires certification that the design of the proposed shore protection improvements be Intended to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83. The propose^Improvements under present conditions will fulfill this requirement. This should not be construed that the improvements will eliminate all coastal hazards associated with storm waves and beach erosion. The seawall crest 1s designed to an elevation of 15 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW), with a splash apron providing additional'protection to 20 feet above MLLW. The still water elevation for a recurrence Interval of 100 years Is 7.7 feet above MLLW. The seawall provides 12.3 feet above the 100 year still water level. Thus, this meets the criteria 1n FEMA publications for providing 2 feet of freeboard above the 100 year water elevation. The details of the California Coastal Commission permit conditions and coastal design information are contained 1n the permit and report provided to the City 1n September 1991. Additional copies nay be provided 1f required. Sincerely, MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS Alan AlcornCoastal Engineer AA/mlr 25O WEST WARDLOW ROAD • POBOX77O7 • LONG BEACH > CALIFORNIA • SO8O7 • (213)426-9551 FAX (213)424 7469 I I I I " COASTAL DESIGN INFORMATION • FOR SHORE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS I AT THE BEACH CONDOMINIUMS I I I I Prepared for THE BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 1 2335 Rue Des Chateaux Carlsbad, California 92008 and • CITY OF CARLSBAD Engineering Department 1 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4959 • Prepared by I MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS 250 W Wardlow Road Long Beach, California 90807 M&NFile 2499-01 I September 1991 I I CONTENTS I Page • PURPOSE 1 PROPOSED SHORE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS 1 TIDES AND WATER LEVELS 2 WAVE RUNUP AND OVERTOPPING 7 • WAVE-INDUCED SCOUR AND TOE PROTECTION 7 I WALL SECTION 8 • APPENDIX A COASTAL COMMISSION REPORT APPENDIX B BREAKING WAVE HEIGHT AND BREAKING WAVE FORCES CALCULATIONS • APPENDIX C WAVE RUNUP AND OVERTOPPING CALCULATIONS APPENDIX D SEAWALL STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS 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 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide information requested by the City of Carlsbad for issuance of a building permit for construction of a seawall at The Beach Condominiums. Specifically, this report will address water levels, wave characteristics, wave runup and overtopping, scour depth, and toe protection for the proposed improvements. Structural calculations for design of seawall are also included. The report is based on application information obtained from the City of Carlsbad and requirements from the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission Report is included as Appendix A. PROPOSED SHORE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS The Beach Condominiums are located on the south side of Buena Vista Lagoon, approximately 3.7 miles south of Oceanside Harbor and north of an existing public stairway. A natural bluff 15 to 20 feet below the condominium complex has eroded from numerous severe storms, including the disastrous 1982-83 and 1988 winter storms. These intense storm waves coincide with high tides and undermine the bluff toe causing pronounced erosion. The overall bluff retreat rate from 1954 to 1987 is estimated to be 0.7 feet per year, although the 1988 storm caused 5 feet of erosion in one episode. The proposed 350 foot long seawall generally follows the bluff face just landward of the Lot I/Lot 2 boundary at an elevation of +15 feet MLLW. A splash apron will be constructed on the slope landward of the seawall to dissipate splash to an elevation of +20 feet MLLW. The toe of a seawall is one of the most critical features of the structure. An adequately constructed toe prevents the seawall from being undermined. Soils investigations have established a siltstone layer that will be used to 'key1 the structure toe. It would be prudent at this time to conduct construction of the seawall prior to the winter storm season which typically begins in November. A severe storm with high waves occurring during high tide could cause substantial erosion to the bluff. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The proposed improvements consist of constructing a concrete vertical seawall to +15 feet MLLW and splash apron using armor stone +20 feet MLLW as shown on the typical section in Figure 1. The slope of the splash apron will be at 1 on 2.5. The toe of the seawall varies from -0.5 feet MLLW to +1.5 feet MLLW along the foundation base. TIDES AND WATER LEVELS The tides at The Beach Condominiums are semidiurnal with a diurnal inequality. Tide data for Carlsbad Condominiums are presented in Table 1. The elevations are referenced to both mean lower low water (MLLW) and mean sea level (MSL); MLLW is 2.73 feet below MSL. Mean lower low water will be used for the reference datum in this report. Tabulated values were compiled by applying tidal correction factors to the tides at San Diego, a reference tide station. TABLE 1 TIDE DATA FOR CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MLLW MSL Datum Datum Extreme high tide (Jan. 28, 1983) 7.68 feet 4.95 feet Mean higher high water (MHHW) 5.60 feet 2.87 feet Mean high water (MHW) 4.60 feet 1.87 feet Mean sea level (MSL) 2.73 feet 0.00 feet Mean low water (MLW) 0.82 feet -1.91 feet Mean lower low water (MLLW) 0.00 feet -2.73 feet Extreme low tide -2.60 feet -5.33 feet A statistical analysis of recorded extreme high water levels was conducted using data obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the San Diego tide station. The estimated water elevation for various recurrence intervals at Carlsbad are presented in Table 2. K.9-.1 <-> LU LU 00 O Q_ O C£. O. O o o UJ 00 o Q. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 2 WATER LEVELS FOR RECURRENCE INTERVALS Recurrence Interval Water Elevation (Years) (Feet above MLLW) 5 7.1 10 7.3 25 7.5 50 7.6 100 7.7 The crest height of the proposed seawall is +15 feet above MLLW. As indicated in Table 2, this is 7.3 feet above the 100-year still water elevation. Thus, this meets the criteria in FEMA publications for providing 2-feet of freeboard above the 100-year water elevation. WAVE CHARACTERISTICS Deepwater Wave Conditions The waves at Carlsbad can be divided into four primary categories according to origin: northern hemisphere swell, southern hemisphere swell, seas generated by local winds, and seas and swell generated by Eastern North Pacific tropical cyclones. Wave exposure at the site is shown in Figure 2. Northern hemisphere swell, generated by extratropical cyclones of the North Pacific, approaches Carlsbad from the west through narrow corridors between Santa Catalina Island, San Nicolas Island and San Clemente Island. This swell occurs primarily during the months of November through April. These waves generally represent the most frequent severe waves at Carlsbad although typically deepwater significant wave heights rarely exceed 10 feet, with wave periods ranging from 12 to 18 seconds. Extreme extratropical storms could generate deepwater waves up to 30 feet with periods of 20 seconds. Carlsbad is exposed to southern hemisphere swell through a wide corridor from the south to southwest. Most of this swell arrives during the months of May through October. Because of the great decay distances, these waves have low heights and long periods. Typical southern hemisphere swell rarely exceeds 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOS ANGELES OCEANSIDE SAN DtEGO SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL MLANOS ca SAN NICOLAS I. ANTA CATALMA NORTHERN HEMISPHERE SWELL TO 20 SEC PERIOD SOUTH AND SOUTHWESTERLY HEMISPHERE SWELL TO 22 SEC PERIOD FIGURE 2 GENERALIZED WAVE EXPOSURE FOR CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I feet in height in deep water; however, with periods ranging up to 18 to 21 seconds, these waves can break at about twice this height. Steep, short-period waves are generated by local winds and are predominantly from the northwest, although they can occur from all offshore directions throughout the year. Fetch lengths for seas generated from the northwest are limited to a maximum of about 120 miles by the Santa Barbara Channel Islands. Wave heights are usually between two and five feet with an average period of 7 seconds. Eastern North Pacific tropical cyclones of hurricane intensity have the potential of generating some of the largest waves at Carlsbad. These waves approach from the south through the southwest from May through November. However, a hurricane track along a path that would produce large waves at the site seldom occurs. The tropical storm of September 1939, with a recurrence interval that could be greater than 100 to 200 years, produced waves from the southwest with an estimated significant breaking-wave height of 24 feet. Nearshore Wave Conditions Deepwater waves are altered by the proximity of offshore islands, refraction, diffraction and shoaling as they propagate toward Carlsbad. Review of available data and observation of waves at the project site indicate that the design waves are depth-limited. This means that the larger deepwater waves will break offshore and the height of the nearshore waves in shallow water varies directly with water depth, which is a function of beach profile and tide elevation. A maximum breaking wave condition at the project site was determined by using an extreme water elevation of + 8 feet MLLW, a scoured beach profile to MLLW, wave period of 18 seconds and methods recommended in the Shore Protection Manual (SPM). The breaking wave height calculation is shown in Appendix B. The maximum breaker height would be 7.9 feet. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Design Wave Conditions The design wave conditions for this project is a breaking wave height of 7.9 feet with a period of 18 seconds. WAVE RUNUP AND OVERTOPPING Waves breaking against a sloping structure, such as the existing revetment, will run up to an elevation higher than the still water level depending on the roughness and porosity of the structure. If the structure is lower in height than the runup elevation, the structure is overtopped. Wave runup calculations were conducted using the methods described in SPM. The theoretical wave runup elevation is approximately 18 feet above MLLW. Calculations are in Appendix C. In situations where it is impractical or undesirable to build a structure to the elevation of wave runup, such as at Carlsbad then a splash apron should be provided at the top of the structure. A splash apron using armor stone will be constructed from the seawall crest to +20 feet MLLW. This will dissipate the wave energy which will run up the slope above +15 feet MLLW. This overtopped wave energy will dissipate within the voids of the stone on the crest and reduce the potential for the ground at the top from being eroded and undermining that portion of the structure. Some overtopping of the structure by waves will occur for the combination of extreme water level and storm wave conditions. The maximum case yields 3.25 feet of overtopping at a rate of 0.5 cfs/ft. Calculations for overtopping are in Appendix C. WAVE-INDUCED SCOUR AND TOE PROTECTION Waves breaking at the toe of the structure have the potential to cause scour at the toe. This wave-induced scour has the potential to undermine the toe causing instability of the structure. Thus, toe protection should be provided. The toe protection also protects the structure from undermining when the beach profile steepens as the beach erodes. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Toe scour is a complex process and determining the depth of scour is difficult. Theoretically, the depth of toe scour is equivalent to the wave height at the toe. At Carlsbad, the theoretical toe scour depth is 7.9 feet. However, it is impractical to extend the toe protection to this depth and the siltstone layer will resist erosion. The siltstone is expected to limit erosion to approximately -1.0 feet MLLW. WALL SECTION The seawall was designed to resist wave forces and earth loads. The toe depth was determined by allowing four feet of erosion into the existing formational soil layer. Crest elevation was determined by a maximum combined water level and wave height. Calculations for reinforcement, foundation, and concrete thickness are shown in Appendix D. 8 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I - COASTAL COMMISSION REPORT I I I I I I I I I STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT 1333 CAMINO DEI RIO SOUTH, SUITE 125 SABOIEGO CA 921083520 (6T» 297 9740 I I I I I I I I I I I I Staff: WNP-SD Staff Report: 01/17/91 Hearing Date: 02/05-08/91 REVISED FINDINGS Application No.: 6-90-159 Applicant: The Beach Homeowners Assoc.Agent: Robert Nathan Original Desciption: Construction of a 370 foot long, concrete vertical seawall with a crest elevation of 15 feet above Mean Lower Low Water. Site: Ocean front side of 2305-2375 Rue Des Chateaux, Carlsbad, San Diego County (APN 203-010-19-01 through 203-010-19-14) Date of Commission Action: September 14, 1990 Commissioners on Prevailing Side: Franco, Diaz, MacElvaine, Pratt, Mclnnis, Gywn, Rynerson, Neely and Wright Summary of Commission Action: The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following revised findings in support of the Commission's action to delete conditional language requiring the applicant to "retroactively" contribute monies as mitigation for the impacts of the vertical seawall to the area sand supply. FINDINGS: The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution: I. Approval with Conditions. The Commission hereby grants a permit for the proposed development, subject to the conditions below, on the grounds that the development will be in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976, will not prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to 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. I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 6-90-159, Revised Findings Page 3 its advisors relative to the Commission's approval of the project for any damage due to natural hazards. The document shall run with the land, binding {all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens. 6. Community Wide/Regional Solution to Shoreline Erosion. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the 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 Carlsbad. 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 and shall be recordedIfree 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. 7. Color of Vertical Seawall. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit plans and color samples for the surface treatment of the proposed seawall, to provide a surface that matches, to the maximum degree feasible, the surrounding bluff area. The treatment shall include covering the structure with materials that match the color and texture of the native bluff materials. 8. Revegetation Plan. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applcant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval a detailed revegetation plan which shall indicate that the area of the bluff between the private block wall and the landward extent of the gravel backfill shall be landscaped with drought tolerant plant material designed to promote bluff stability. The revegetation plan shall identify the type, size, extent and location of all plant materials, the proposed irrigation system and other landscape features. The selected plant materials must be capable of surviving without additional irrigation after initial establishment; irrigation by hand watering only shall be peritted for the initial establishment of the landscaping. Xeriscape landscaping techniques shall be employed. IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS. The Commission finds and declares as follows: 1. Pro.lect Description. Proposed is the construction of a 370 foot long concrete vertical seawall with a crest elevation of 15 feet above Mean Low Low Water (MLLW). The seawall's proposed siting is at the base of a 15 to 20 foot I I I i i i I i i l I i I i i I i i i 6-90-159, Revised Findings Page 5 maximum access and recreation opportunities be provided, consistent with, among other things, public safety, the protection of coastal resources, and the need to prevent overcrowding. PRC Section 30211. Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. The proposed seawall will be constructed along the base of the bluff, adjacent to a cobble beach. The proposed shoreline protection will adversely affect public access and shoreline processes in several ways. The proposed seawall's alignment generally follows the contour of the bluff-face. The proposed seaward face of the vertical would be located approximately 5 to 8 feet from the bluff face or appxoximately 5 to 8 feet landward from the Lot I/Lot 2 boundary. This location is based on discussions and recommendations from the project geotechnical engineers, Leighton and Associates. The proposed 370 foot wall would span between two existing stairways. There has been documented erosion along the southern portion of the property; the applicant's coastal engineer estimates that the southern 300 feet of bluff is actively eroding and the remaining 70 linear feet of bluff is exposed to episodic storm wave events. The project design will protect the property from active and episodic erosion and will be located entirely on private property, albeit beachfront area. The State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed and endorsed the plans for the proposed vertical seawall. However, the State Lands Commission remains concerned over the potential effect of the proposed seawall on the immediately adjacent beach area. Specifically, the SLC expressed concern that the back splash from the sea hitting the wall may cause erosion of the beach in the vicinity of the public access easement. The State Lands Commission suggests that the Commission consider requiring the applicant to employ a monitoring program and perform beach replenishment if it is subsequently determined that the seawall is the causal factor of the erosion. As discussed later in this report, the Commission is requiring the applicant to participate in a community-wide solution to the shoreline erosion problem in Carlsbad, which is essential to sound management of coastal resources. The condition requires the applicant to participate in an assessment district or other regional solution to the shoreline erosion problem in Carlsbad, including any feasible solution that includes among others, beach nourishment programs, redesign of shoreline protective devices, etc. should one or more of the solutions be selected for application to the Carlsbad shoreline erosion problems. In many permit decisions the Commission has found that adverse impacts to shoreline sand supply begin upon the installation of shoreline protective devices (such as the applicant's proposed seawall). The Commission has required other projects (CDP#6-89-136G, CDP#6-89-297G) to retroactively contribute monies, established as mitigation for impacts to sand supply from seawalls, to a comprehensive shoreline erosion program that may be established to provide a solution to Carlsbad shoreline erosion problems. In the above I I I I I I I i l i I i i i i i i I i 6-90-159, Revised Findings Page 7 to the scenic quality of the area. Correspondingly, the vertical wall will have an adverse scenic impact upon public views from the beach. Therefore, some form of mitigation for the visual impacts of the project is warranted and the Commission finds that the above special condition #8, requiring the applicant to provide a surface for the vertical wall that matches, to the maximum degree feasible, the surrounding bluff area, is necessary to find the project consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. Similarly, the above Special Condtion #9 would require the submittal of a landscaping plan that will serve a dual purpose. First, the landscaping will serve to stabilize that portion of the lot between the private block wall (located upland of the bluff face) and the landward extent of the gravel backfill required to accomodate the vertical wall's riprap splash apron. Presently this area is comprised of ice plant and bare soils. Second, the planting of the slope with the type of drought and salt tolerant species typically found on a coastal bluff will reduce the contrast between this section of the bluff and the surrounding natural area. Therefore the above actions will reduce the visual impacts of the vertical wall to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. It is only with these special conditions that the Commission can find that the proposed project is consistent with Coastal Act Sections 30235 and 30253. As conditioned, the project is consistent with Section 30235 as it will protect existing structures and will be designed to minimize encroachment onto existing beach areas and/or public use areas. The conditioned project will also be consistent with Section 30253 in that it will, through shoreline protection, minimize risk to life and property. The approved project will provide adequate shoreline protection and will not result in adverse impacts to either adjacent properties or public lateral access along the shoreline. a. Indirect Affects of Shoreline Structures^ In addition to the direct interference with public access, there are indirect effects from shoreline structures. The shoreline processes, sand supply and beach erosion rates are affected by shoreline structures and thus alter public access and recreation opportunities. (See Section 4 - Geologic Conditions and Hazards) The precise impact of shoreline structures on the beach is a persistent subject of controversy within the discipline of coastal engineering However, the Commission is lead to the conclusion that if a seawall works effectively on a retreating shoreline, it results in the loss of the beach, at least seasonally. If the shoreline continues to retreat, however slowly, the seawall will be where the beach would be (absent the seawall). This represents the loss of beach as a direct result of the seawall. (For additional Commission findings, refer to Exhibit A - pages 5 & 6). The project has been redesigned as a vertical seawall in order to reduce beach encroachment. However, one of the historic concerns with shoreline protective work is its potential exacerbation of erosion along the coast. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that the applicants participate in a regional or community-wide solution for shoreline erosion, including any beach renourishment efforts, should such a program be initiated, as required by I I 1 I I 1 I I i i i i i i i i i i i 6-90-159, Revised Findings Page 9 that any type of shoreline protective device will probably change the beach profile by steepening it and increasing beach erosion around it; this in turn will interfere with and decrease the amount of sandy beach available for public access. As stated elsewhere in these findings, Section 30235 allows for the use of such a device where it is required to protect an existing structure(s) and where it has been designed to mitigate adverse impacts upon local shoreline sand supply (See Exhibit A - Background Findings). Because the proposed project has been redesigned as a vertical seawall which leaves a wider beach available for public lateral access, the Commission finds the project consistent with Sections 30235, 30210 and 30212 of the Coastal Act. (See Exhibit A - Background Findings involving effects of seawalls on beaches and public access opportunities.) 4. Geologic Conditions and Hazards. Coastal Act Sections 30235 and 30253 provides: Section 30235. 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. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish kills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible. Section 30253 (in part). New development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. a. Shoreline Protective Devices. The Commission typically requires the construction of vertical seawalls in order to minimize beach encroachment of a shoreline protective device. This also provides or saves the maximum amount of beach available for public beach lateral access. b. Seacliff Retreat. Seacliff retreat is a result of wave action at the foot or base of the bluff as well as chemical and mechanical non-wave processes in the upper portions of the cliff. The latter processes include surface and sub-surface drainage, and salt crystal weathering. The applicants submitted two documents, "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bluff Protection, 'The Beach' Subdivision, Carlsbad, CA" by Leighton and Associates and "Shore Protection for Beach Condominiums, Carlsbad, CA" by Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers. The two submitted reports address the geologic hazards associated with the proposed project and project site. I I 6-90-159, Revised Findingsm Page 11 • littoral cell is supplied with sediment by the rivers and streams that emotv into the ocean within its limits. Once deoosited at the coast. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I empty into the ocean within its limits. Once deposited at the coast, the sandy material is sorted out by wave action and incorporated into the beach. At this point the sand becomes involved with the littoral transport along the coast. The longshore transport continues until it is intercepted by a submarine canyon or other form of sink where it is lost from the nearshore environment. ... Littoral cells are usually separate entities with their own inputs, transport rates, and losses to sinks with little interchange between cells, consequently, each cell can be characterized by its own sediment budget. The sediment budget is a determination of all the sediment inputs (credits) and losses (debits) relative to the longshore transport rates within the limits of the cell. The "Shore Protection" report states that numerous studies have been conducted on the Oceanside Littoral Cell by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the cities located between La Jolla and Dana Point. The beach south of the Oceanside Harbor, including the beach in front of the project site, has sustained severe erosion since construction of the Del Mar Boat Basin in the late 1940's and construction of the harbor in the 1960's. The harbor structures prevent the sand from moving downcoast depriving the southern beaches of sand. The shoreline from the harbor to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon has sustained significant erosion. The Corps has conducted various beach nourishment projects, but have had limited success and the projects have been, it turns out, only temporary solutions. The purpose of the beach nourishment projects is to provide protection and provide a source of sand for beaches. The most recent and notable was the beach nourishment project in 1982 which placed 920,000 cubic yards of material (sand) derived from the San Luis Rey River between Third Street to Buena Vista Lagoon. The material completely eroded within one year and appears not to have been deposited downcoast. In 1982, Congress appropriated funds for the design and construction of an experimental jet-pump sand bypass system at the harbor. The objective of the system is to reduce shoaling in the harbor entrance and provide continual beach nourishment to the Oceanside Beach. Phase I of this project is now under construction. When the condominiums were approved and issued a coastal development permit (COP #6-83-51), a condition of approval required the applicant (i.e., Native Sun Investment Group) to prepare a wave study of the area. The study was to include: (1) research on the potential of wave impacts on the condominium project; (2) a discussion of a present or future need for a shoreline protective device, and (3) recommendations for construction alternatives should there be a conclusion that a seawall was necessary. The study, conducted by James Dunham, concluded that a protective device was unnecessary at the time. One of the reasons cited was the beach nourishment program on Oceanside beach and that beach material would soon reach Pointe San Malo beach (also known as the "Beach" below the existing condominiums) in significant quantity. Additionally, the study noted that the indentation of the local bluff line insures a somewhat wide protective beach berm than that along the adjacent shore frontage. If severe wave erosion does occur in the next few 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6-90-159, Revised Findings Page 13 Based on discussions with the Commission staff geologist, it is technically feasible to "tie" into the bedrock and form a stable vertical wall against the edge of the bluff. The Commission's engineer has concluded that the proposed project is a sound engineering design and that it will protect the property from active and episodic erosion. The Commission's engineer has reviewed the length and the necessity of the wall fronting the northern section of the property, as well as the splash apron and potential problems from cutting into the bluff to install the wall. With respect to the wall's length, the engineer states that a shorter 300 foot wall (the actively eroding portion of the bluff) would terminate along the section of the bluff which is experiencing only episodic erosion. Termination in the middle of the bluff would reduce the length of armored shoreline, but the wall would have to be tied somehow into the bluff, which could contribute to bluff destabilization through construction of the wall terminus and through wall flanking. The Commission's engineer concludes that it appears preferable to protect the northern 70 feet of the bluff from episodic erosion and use existing structures (the private stairwell) to tie the wall into the bluff, rather than to tie the wall into the bluff 70 feet from the northern stairway. With respect to the riprap splash apron and backfill, the Commission's engineer states that these components will protect the bluff from the erosional effects of wave overtopping. The applicant's submitted design will dissipate some energy from overtopping waves and water will be discharged through weepholes in the wall. This design will allow percolation and discharge of surface and groundwater. The Commission's engineeer also states that a concrete apron could be used as an alternative design but would provide little energy dissipation for overtopping waves and a wider apron would be required for the same protection of overtopping. If there is a high potential for erosion, groundwater could erode soil beneath the concrete apron and undermine the stability of the apron. Finally, the Commission's engineer states that to locate a properly designed and constructed vertical wall landward of the public access and recreation easement, it would be necessary to excavate some bluff material. There is not enough space between the State's easement and the bluff to locate the wall without bluff excavation. The wall should stabilize the rest of the bluff so that the small amount of bluff lost to wall construction will be much less than the long-term erosional loss that can be expected without the wall. While staff would not ordinarily support cutting into a bluff face to accommodate a shoreline protective device, staff is recommending that the Commission approve the application as this alternative would have the least adverse impact on public access and recreation opportunities. Staff also reminds the applicant that the bluff face is part of the open space easement area required in a previous approval on this site and that the deed restriction protecting this coastal resource is still in place. The Commission notes that the proposed seawall will become a permitted improvement within the open space easement area; however, the easement remains in effect on the remainder of the coastal bluff on the property. This area should remain undeveloped open space and any future development proposed in this area would require subsequent Commission review and approval. 6-90-159, Revised Findings Page 15 The ordinances of the C-D Overlay contain detailed regulations regarding the construction of revetments, seawalls, cliff-retaining walls, and other similar shoreline structures. Specifically, the ordinances allow for the construction of vertical seawalls only when they are required in order to serve coastal dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion. The two submitted geotechnical and engineering reports indicate that the bluff is in danger of further erosion given the unprotected marine terrace deposits and the possibility of more eposidic occurrences during storm conditions. Additionally, the engineers have indicated that erosion continues to occur even during "normal" conditions, that wave run-up is to the base of the bluff during high tides and causes erosion at the base which in turn destabilizes the bluff and ultimately causes bluff failure. The engineers have identified a need for a shoreline protection project in order to protect the existing 14 condominium units from ocean encroachment. Therefore, the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the C-D Overlay Zone and other pertinent sections of the certified City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval. 4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 5 Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice. 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. (0159r) I X IS" State of California California Coastal Commission San Diego District MEMORANDUM TO: Commissioners and DATE: March 7, 1991 j Interested Persons FROM: Staff FILE NO: 6-90-159 SUBJECT: Corrections and Clarifications to the Revised Findings staff p report, dated January 17, 1991. Staff recommends the following corrections and clarifications be made to the above referenced staff report: •Corrections T The cover page of the staff report should reference March 12-15, 1991 as the • correct hearing date. <;' The first partial paragraph at the top of Page 7 should reference Special § Condition #7 (rather than #8). The first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 7 should reference U Special Condition #8 (rather than #9). The last sentence of the third full paragraph on page 12 should delete ! reference to Special Condition #7. The following resolution of approval should be substituted for the resolution I of approval on page 1 of the staff report Approval with Conditions. L The Commission hereby grants a permit for the proposed development, B subject to the conditions below, on the grounds that the development, as conditioned, will be in conformity with the adopted Local Coastal T Program, and will not have any significant adverse impacts on the I environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. I Clarifications The Commission's standard seawall findings, referenced on pages 7 and 9 as >m Exhibit "A" and attached to the original staff report dated 8/27/90, are • Incorporated by reference into this staff report. T The following are substantive file documents that should appear on the cover | page of the staff report: Substantive File Documents: Shore Protection for Beach • Condominiums-Carlsbad, California by Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bluff Protection, "The Beach" Subdivision, Carlsbad, California; City of Carlsbad LCP; Background • ^ Shoreline Protection/Access Findings; previous coastal development permits: ^-81-249; 6-83-51; 6-84-627 and 6-89-246. 1 I • versions of requested changes which staff did not provide to Commissioners, and which were similar, but not identical, to the requested changes which we presented to both Commissioners and — staff on the evening of March 12. Whether any or all of these • preliminary requests can be found in the Commission files is not • known to us at this time.) I To assist in preparation of the adopted findings I am providing to you and your staff this firm's conformed copy of the material adopted by the Commission on March 12, as follows: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REVISIONS PRESENTED TO CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION BY BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, MARCH 12. 1991;Thislegal- sized document on white paper,comprised of corrections for seven pages (Pages 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, B, and 12) from staff's second "draft" Revised Findings, was provided to each Commissioner eligible to vote on the findings (Kclnnis, Franco, MacElvaine, Rynerson, Neely, and Wright), with his/her name handwritten in black ink in the upper righthand corner. Each conformed copy was further differentiated from a version rejected earlier in the day by Commission staff (and never distributed to commissioners themselves) by the presence of two additional deletions marked and initialed in blue ink by myself: on Page One/ in the paragraph identified by (1) in the lefthand margin? and on Page Four, in the paragraph identified by (4) in the lefthand margin. This firm's conformed copy of the document before the Commission, which is now being provided to you, further contains the changes to the requested revisions, per our oral presentation to the Commission, which were subsequently adopted by the Commission, along with the remainder of our requested changes, per your staff's revised oral recommendation. Those two changes are found on Page Five/Paragraph (6), and Page Six/Paragraph (7), and are marked by an *. ATTACHMENTSi Attached to the seven pages of revisions were: copies of the first eight pages of the original staff report for the September 1990 hearing (dated 8/27/90) on gray paper; the addendum to the original staff report (three pages, dated 9/12/90) on green paper; and, T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I an excerpt from the official transcript of the Commission's deliberations in approving the project (pages 21*23, dated 9/14/90) on cream-colored paper. In addition to the packets described above that were distributed to Commissioners, an identical conformed package marked "Staff" in black ink in the upper right hand corner and containing the two additional deletions marked and initialed by me in blue ink was provided for staff at the same time. Following Commission action, KB. Goehler verified that Mr. Damn, who made the staff presentation in this matter, had been provided with the conformed copy intended for "staff" prior to the hearing, and the package was observed to be in Mr. Damn's possession at that time. Because its present whereabouts are not known to the San Plego district office, I am providing you, as well as Mr. Ponder, with a copy of our conformed copy (including my two oral revisions) in the hope that this will help to facilitate a timely preparation of the adopted findings which we are requesting. Our thanks in advance for your attention in this matter. Please contact either Herbert or me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephanie Dall ATTACHMENTS oc: Mr. Bill Ponder/CCCSD Commissioners Susan Daley, Esq. I I I I I * REVISIONS PRESENTED TO CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION BY BEACH HOREOWNERS ASSOCIATION March 12, 1991 at c»UFO«Ni»- IMI msoimces *C<MCY Ctc*ot OCUKMUIAN Co^mo aff: WNP-SO teff Report: 01/17/91 earing Date: IFORNIA. COASTAL COMMISSION MlOO COASI WSTWCT :AMINO eft no soutH suite i: MOO CA «710135JO 1979740 REVISED FINDINGS Application No .- 6-90-159 Applicant: The Beach Homeowners Asioc. Agent: Robert Nathan Original Desdptlon: Construction of a 370 foot long, concrete vertical seawall wHh a crest elevation of IS feet above Mean Lower Low Water. Site: Ocean front »1de of 2305-2375 Rue Des Chateaux* Carlsbad, San Diego County (ARM 203-010-19-01 through 203-010-19-H) Date of Commission Action: September 14, 1990 Commissioners on Prevailing Side: Franco, (Diaz,) MaeE1va1ne,(pratti) Mclnnls, Gyvn.^Rynerson) Neely and Wright ' Summary of Commission Action; Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the , following revised findings in support of tha Cornnlsston'a action to epprove the project with conditions addretsing m&intenancej(l*tjltabt*a*&**p++m4*~ to the approved shoreline structure; requiring execution o( an assumption of risk; and ensuring participation in a community-wide solution to the shoreline erosion problem should such j program be initiated in the County of San Diepo/Carlsbad area) as well as the Commission's action to delete conditional language requiring the applicant to "retroactively" contribute monies as mitigation for the impacts of the vertical seawall to the ar«a sand supply* Sub.unli_v file Documents1. St"ne Protection for Beach C.'jf.Jo''>lLir".'S-lni I'.tnJ, Cjllfor'nh by MoHflU i H^nv I ,"' Lnglneprs , I v IMon,irornla. City of tnrsp-iu LCPj Hcn_/iV rr^s rifttllny'i; ] rf/Jnus coastal df / permits D"j Bl-^h. k ft') ',\ . li-IM-biN iml b-U'J-.'H. FINDINGS- t The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution- 1. Approval with Conditions. The Commission hereby grants a permit for the proposed development, subject to the conditions below, on the grounds that the development^ <t» conditioned, will be in conformity with the H>rxw4-»1of>fr"Of-c->>afi^f-8-^f-4*it-€a444orntfl-toft»ta-t-Act-of *9HT-w444-pftt-pg«$ud*6e-the-aB4-Hty-»E-tfr>-V»fra-V government-"havlnq^dopted Local Coastal juc4tdUt4eR-avef-the-aFea-tB-ppfrp»re-a-b«ea-V -Ceast»V•Program eonfornrVn^ -to W>*3-^<>v4*4<K>9--<rf--Ch*f>t-er--a--irf-4'*>«-€««4«-1-A<tT adopted Local Coastjl Program, and will not hcvg nny significant adverse Impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Ast. 11. Standard Conditions. See attached page. I I I I I I 6-90-159, Revised Findings Page 4 high bluff and below a 14 unit condominium complex, which 1s located on the parcel above and east of the proposed vertical wall, with the beach and Pacific Ocean located to the west. The project sHe lies on the south side of the entrance of 8uena Vista Lagoon, approximately 3.7 miles south of Oceanslde Harbor and north of an e*4*4i1ng public beach acxe>s stairway. The applicant ha* title to »h*«« two parc«l». Lot i includes the 14 condominium units; Lot 2 extends roughly from the toe of the bluff seaward to the now mean high tide I A* 1 --«-*-*- \ I »-onsneQ mean mgn nue i mc^. mm nm • ............ uj •• •»• M*M*w*ain LUI The proposed project 1s located at the base of the bluff entirely on Lot 1. A splash apron constructed of quarry stone 1s proposed on the landward side of the vertical wall to dissipate wave energy which will run up and overtop the wall. The wall would extend about 310 feet from an existing public access stairwell and storm drain outlet at the south end of the property to an existing private access stairwell at the north end of the property. The base of the vertical wall 1s proposed to be "keyed* Into existing slltstone. (Exhibit 2 - Project Plans.) 2 Previous Commission Actions. The project application represents the fifth application for a coastal development permit at the project site. The first application (#o-81-249/Nat1ve Sun Investment Group) was for a minor land division to three parcels and construction of 14 condominium units. This application was approved with conditions, but the project was not constructed. The second application (#6-83-51/Nat1v» Sun Investment Group) was also for a , minor subdivision of a 7.65 acre parcel Into three parcels of 2.2; 2.2, and 3.25 acres and the construction of 14 condominiums on one of the 2.2 acre parcels. The application was approved, with conditions regarding public lateral access; open space easement/habitat protection; open space easement/bluff face; waiver of liability, and resolution of Implied dedication claims of the State Lands Commission. The applicant fulfilled the conditions and subsequently built the 14 condominiums. The third application (fii&-84-627/Nat1ve Sun Investment Croup) was for the construction of a 90-foot long rock revetment at the base of the bluff. The application was denied by the Commission because the proposed project was Inconsistent with the policies of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The denial was supported by findings that the units, under construction at the time of the application, did not appear to be endangered, and that an upcoast beach nourishment program was currently underway and beach sand deposited on the upcoast beach would reach the project beach through 'transport* by the littoral cell, thus Increasing the width of the beach which In turn would the nepd for a shoreline protective device (revetment). The fourth application was for construction of a 375-foot long, 39 foot wide rock revetment. fto ppevt-euj-ty me»tl«fte4rSrtaff recommended disapproval of the rock revetment and approval of a concrete vertical wall to minimize adverse (/a Impacts on public access and recreation opportunities on this portion of the ^ shoreline} '" This application was Initially postponed at the Commission's October 1989 hearing and withdrawn at the CoirnniBslon's Hay 1990 heartna.' - 3. Public.Access The p-oposed project 1? located between the first public road and the sea. Sections 30210-30214 of the Coastal Act slate that I I I I I I'l I I I I I I I I I I I I 6-90-159, Revised Findings Page 5 maximum access and recreation opportunities be provided, consistent with, among other things, public safety, the protection of coastal resources, and the need to prevent overcrowding. PRC Section 30211 . -e^YRlopment shall not .Interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, Including but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. The proposed seawall will be constructed along the base of the bluff, adjacent to a cobble beach. The proposed shoreline protection will adversely affect public access and shoreline processes 1n several ways. The proposed seawall's alignment generally follows the contour of the bluff-face The proposed seaward face of the vertical would be located approximately 5 to 8 feet from the bluff face or appxoxlmately 5 to B feet landward from the Lot I/Lot 2 boundary. This location 1s based on discussions and recommendations from the project geotechnlcal engineers, Lelghton and Associates. The proposed 370 foot wall would span between two existing stairways. There has been documented erosion along the southern portion of the property; the applicant's coastal engineer estimates that the southern 300 feet of bluff 1s actively eroding and the remaining 70 linear feet of bluff 1s exposed to episodic storm wave events. The project design will protect the property from active and episodic erosion and will be located entirely on private property, albeit beachfront area. • The State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed and endorsed the plans for the proposed vertical seawall. However, the State Lands Commission remains concerned over the potential effect of the proposed seawall on the Immediately adjacent beach area Specifically, the SLC expressed concern that the back splash from the sea hitting the wall may cause erosion of the beach 1n the vicinity of the public access easement. The State Lands Commission suggests that the Commission consider requiring the applicant to employ a monitoring program and perform beach replenishment 1f 1t 1s subsequently determined that the seawall is the causal factor of the erosion. As discussed later 1n this report, the Commission 1s requiring the applicant to participate 1n a community-wide solution to the shoreline erosion problem 1n Corlsbad, which 1s essential to sound management of coastal resources. The condition requires district or other regional 4/ v* caacnkiai tv avunu IMOIIB^CIIICII t ui vvoavat i ^au A ^ the applicant to participate 1n an assessment [k \V*solut1on to the Shoreline erosion problem 1n shoreline prutecilvfttev^re^y et<t should one or more 'of the solutions be <?//l/7C> selected for ai>p-VH>rt4<>n"tO"t-)>€-C^H-5-bad shor»Mfte-*w4»ft-p*flb3B(as,.incorporaLlon inthe City's certified Local Coastal Program. - — In many permit decisions the Commission has found that adverse Impacts to shoreline sand supply begin upon the Installation of shoreline protective devices (such as the applicant's proposed seawall) The Commission has required other projects (CDPI6-89-136G, CDPf&-89-297G} to retroactively contribute monies, established as mitigation for Impacts to sand supply from seawalls, to a comprehensive shoreline erosion program that may be established to provide a solution to Carlsbad shoreline erosion problems. In the above (1& /j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $-90-159, Revised Findings Page ft applications, the funding requirement commences (and 1s made retroactive to the structures' completion) only upon approval by the Commission of such mitigation measures as part of a comprehensive program addressing shoreline erosion 1n the context of a certified LCP. reune In this case, however, the Commission notes that any funding component, such as a retroactive payment, derived from formation of a comprehensive shoreline^" erosion program would be more appropriately addressed under the avspices of • that program, rather than b_y_ t_h_e Commission and n*t a« this *4*Ct Th«*efe*eT *?/ the Commission f*ftde ths Ur«tfeaet4v4s«»u p*ev4«i«n pFCMatuvav However, the Commission notes the appropriateness of the remainder of the language of the attached Special Condition #k± as contained JLn the Btatf Addendum d_ated (J5 1,1-) September j,2, 1990, requiring the applicant to participate in a regional to the shoreline erosion problem in Carlsbad/finalMding-aay-feastbie one or more of the solutions be selected for application to the Carisbad shoreline erosion problems. Finally, the Commission notes that the compre- hensive program must be approved by the Coastal Commission through the LCP amendment certification process. The*efe-veT (he Cem»ies4e« w*il have The project geotechnlcal consultant states that the footing of the proposed seawall would be "keyed" Into the existing slltstone subsurface. If 1t 1s determined during construction that at some locations 1t 1s not feasible to construct the "key" because the slltstone surface 1s deeper at the toe of the proposed seawall, then filter cloth and toe stone would be required. The consultant states that should toe stone be necessary, 1t could be placed without extending Into the easement and notes that the seawall's foundation would be below beach profile and therefore would not adversely Impact public access along the shoreline. However, the Commission notes that the toe stone footing, because 1t would be placed seaward of the existing wall, may encroach onto the beach during storm events and during winter beach profiles when beach sand typically erodes away and therefore has the potential to adversely Impact public access. For this reason, Special Condition 3 has been proposed to ensure that any modifications to the seawall's design or siting will be reviewed and approved by the Commission Although the applicant has submitted a geotechnlcal report Indicating a recommended seawall design and siting, the Commission 1s requiring through Special Condition No. 2 that an evaluation of the approved design be made to assure that the wall 1s adequate for storms comparable to the extraordinary 1982-83 storms. Special Conditions Nos. 1 and 3 are designed to minimize the construction Impacts associated with the proposed project and assure that construction activities will not result 1n permanent Impacts to the surrounding beach areas and that existing beach materials are not used for construction. They also limit staging areas, construction activity, and construction access so that Impacts on public beach use are minimized. Section 30251 of the Coastal Act requires that the visual quality of coastal areas be maintained The proposed vertical wall will extend well above the existing beach profile and cover a natural coastal bluff which has contributed t • 1 I " ' 6-90-159, Revised Finding* Page 7 I some form of mitigation for the visual Impacts of the project 1s warranted andI/a\the Commission finds that the above special condition fB^fequlrlng theV"J applicant to provide a strrf«fe for the vertical-wall .that matches, to the maximum degree feasible, the surrounding bluff area, 1s necessary to find the project consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. to the scenic quality of the area. Correspondingly, the vertical wall will have an adverse scenic Impact upon public views from the beach. Therefore, some form of mitigation for the visual Impacts of th« project 1s warrant the Commission finds that the above special condition fB^fequlrlng the fqASImllarly, the above Special Condtlon jfVwould require the submlttal of a 'landscaping plan that will serve a dual purpose. First, the landscaping will serve to stabilize that portion of the lot between the private block wall (located upland of the bluff face) and the landward extent of the gravel backfill required to accomodate the vertical wall's riprap splash apron. Presently this area 1s comprised of 1c« plant and bare soils. Second, the planting of the slope with the type of drought and salt tolerant species typically found on a coastal bluff will reduce the contrast between this section of the bluff and the surrounding natural area. Therefore the above actions will reduce the visual Impacts of the vertical wall to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. It 1s only with these special conditions that the Commission can find that the proposed project 1s consistent with Coastal Act Sections 30235 and 30253. As conditioned, the project 1s consistent with Section 30235 as 1t will protect existing structures and will be designed to minimize encroachment onto existing beach areas and/or public use areas. The conditioned project will also be consistent with Section 30253 1n that 1t will, through shoreline .protection, minimize risk to 11fe and property. The approved project will provide adequate shoreline protection and will not result 1n adverse Impacts to either adjacent properties or public lateral access along the shoreline. a. Indirect Affects of Shoreline Structures. In addition to the direct Interference wHh public access, there are Indirect effects from shoreline structures. Th'e shoreline processes, sand supply and beach erosion rates are affected by shoreline structures and thus alter public access and recreation opportunities. (See Section 4 - Geologic Conditions and Hazards) The precise Impact of shoreline structures on the beach 1s a persistent subject of controversy within the discipline of coastal engineering However, the Commission 1s lead to the conclusion that 1f a seawall works effectively on a retreating shoreline, 1t results 1n the loss of the beach, at least seasonally. If the shoreline continues to retreat, however slowly, the seawall will be where the beach would be (absent the seawall). This represents the loss of beach as a direct result of the seawall.(For '|OJ additional Commission linlinge background, refer to Exhibit A - pages 546. attached to the 8/27/90 and incorporated herein by rejcrence^) The project has been redesTgned as a vertical" seawall In order to reduce beach encroachment. However, one of the historic concerns with shoreline protective work 1s Its potential exacerbation of erosion along the coast. Therefore, 1t 1s appropriate to require that the applicants participate 1n a regional or community-wide solution for shoreline erosion, Including any beach renourlshment efforts, should such a program be Initiated, as required by 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / 6-90-159, Revised Findings Page 8 Conditions #6 and #?. These conditions are necessary to mitigate the above described effects and bring the project Into conformance wUh the Coastal Act. b. Relationship of Project to Tidal Boundary. It 1s generally accepted that the dividing line between public tldellnes. aad,private upland relative to tidal boundary 1n California 1s the mean high water datum (MHW). From an engineering point of view, a water boundary determined by tidal definition 1$ not a fixed mark on the ground, such as a roadway or a fence, rather 1t 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. During analysis of COP #6-83-51 (Native Sun Investment Group), the State Lands Commission and the original developer (I.e.; Native Sun Investment Group) were involved 1n a legal analysis over the location of public trust lands and establishing the location of the Mean High Water Datum on Lot 2. The Implied dedication suit resulted 1n a public access/recreation easement being placed over Lot 2 1n exchange for prescriptive use claims on the blufftop property. The State Lands Commission has reviewed and approved the plans for the vertical seawall. c. Mitigation of Impacts on Public Access. Development along the shoreline which may burden public access In several respects has been approved by the Commission, but with conditions for mitigating any adverse Impacts of , the development on access. The Commission's permit history reflects the experience that development can physically Impede public access directly, through construction adjacent to the mean high tide line 1n areas of narrow beaches, or through the placement or construction of protective devices (seawalls, rip-rap, and revetments). Since physical Impediments adversely Impact public access and create private benefit for the property owners, the Commission has found in such cases (1n permit findings of #4-87-161 [Pierce Family Trust and Morgan], #6-87-371 [Van Busklrk], #5-87-576 [Miser and Cooper]) that a public benefit must arise- through mitigation conditions 1n order that the development win be consistent with the access policies of the Coastal Act as stated 1n Sections 30210, 30211, and 30212. The development proposed 1n this application 1s the construction of a vertical seawall. Shoreline structures have been shown to have adverse Impacts upon the beach and 1n order to mitigate the known adverse impacts, typically the Commission requires an offer of dedication of lateral public access 1n order to balance the burden placed on the public with a public benefit. However, an offer of dedication for public lateral access has already been made with CDPtfb-83-51 (Native Sun Investment Group). Though the proposed seawall follows the contour of the bluff, 1t will reduce lateral beach access by encroaching onto the beach and will have adverse Impacts on the natural shoreline processes. The Commission finds that the probable negative Impacts of this seawall must be weighed against the property owner's need to protect the structure b*Mrnl U. Ihc Commission recognizes I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I &-90-159, Revised F1nd;.r>?S yean, the adjacent areas wi1! bo Jeopardized *1rst, and corrective action tfinen by others i*.g the oeach iour1snment program) -nay benerit tne project area. In the five years since the results of the study, the beach nourishment program hus not been as iuccess'ul as anticipated and beaches nave continued to troce. Jaties Ouihan has w'tten A ^tttr o*' Clarif cation to the project engineers regaroipg points made in tne 1W study, stating tne following- The said byoasslng measures taken by the City of Ocea-^lde and the U.S. A^my Corps ot Engineers in recent years have rot been effective 1n n:ur1sn<ng the bear>i as anticipated at Carlsbad, and Shoreline recession at the project site has row undermined the bluff. Continued shore erosion will cause bluff tullcr*, enoangenng the housing units behind it. Personnel of Scrlpps Institution of Oceanography have documented chances 1n tne oceunograpnlc and wave climate of the area showing that 1n recent years coastal erosion has be«n more severe than in the past. Moreover, Mr. Dunham states that his preferred alternative for a shoreline protective device 1s a rock revetment Instead of a vertical seawall because a revetment prevents toe erosion and loss of beach sand, even Though the revetment encroaches on the pubMc beach. A vertical wall Increases beach eronon by scouring at the base of the wall, and the wall can be undermined and the cangpr not detected until the wall fails or the backfill behind it 1s was hud out. However, a study by Gary Crlggs, of U.C. ianta Cruz, has irdcated that scouring below a vertical seawall 1s no mere severe than securing below a revetment. It 1s imperative that a regional wide solution to the shoreline erosion problem be uddressea and soljtlons developed to protect the beaches. Combined wltn the decrease of »and suup1y 'rom coasta^ rivers and cn>e*s and armoring ot the coast., which scou-s w jt sand 1s dopfjltec on the beatnes from Below tne seawalls, beaches w1l: cc^t'nue to erode wHhcut being replenished, which 1n turn, will decrease the public's ability to access the shoreline. It would be appropriate tor the Connus^on to oe evolved 1n a rcclonal group along witf other agencies, n os the U S. Army Corps of Engineers, local Jurisdictions, 'infl shoreline prcperty owners to aodres1. tie shoreMne erosion probUrr, ana more Importarcly, t-' r^jci and Itiiplenient soljtlons ;o reintroduce beach equniftrium. Cono< tio-w /,' •*mt-V»9-requ1rejvthe applicants, or ln-ln^freot, :a purt u 1j?ate In a reg',\'nal-wiav soUtion to the erosion pres'em <r ird when such 3 pro>;rarn is initiated. The applicant's ncotechilca1 en'jipsers rpcowrerd that the proposed seaward face of tne .vdtl be located a'jout 5 to 8 feet from the b'u-'f face or cyprox'.nuti'ly 5 feet lundw^rj From the Lot 1/Lct 2 property line. This location is i^ed )n uno^r'yir.q ijbologU co.ic1tions fount ir. tie project sne In oraer to construct t.ie wal1, the we 1 1 must be placed away "on the 5lu*f face eno bacl^Ml1 p'utec tetween -.t anc the b^J'f. To fu-iner ^ncrease itab-^Ky o:' thu v,a' and -j c'j'-lpa'e wavs^waier s>T?r;y, r-ck rl? -ap n-?t oe . ^.e tas • of t e V.L'". I 1 I I I I I I APPENDIX B | BREAKING WAVE HEIGHT AND BREAKING WAVE FORCES • CALCULATIONS I I I I I I I I run ICMOL. CLIENT PROJECT C4(2.Lg 5 A p OES.GNFOR 0|J JOB NO. -2.4«f«f -0 / SHEET OF DESIGNER CHECKER DATE 3B "1 r, Vu --3 = D = OOO761 -7-4 1 5 84-) , FOP -£L_57 l o 000-76! 0 7 5 s-i 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 00 . II to 44 O. 0)•o 2! §ca 60 h I 2 ai T3 a 09 V f-t § I 60 *H Pt, ICMOl. tM«INHKS CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR ^0,J JOB NO. 2.4 T <? - SHEET 2. OF 1 DESIGNER CHECKER DATE 759 1-2. 85 -x ^ ^.5" - 8) / 02 * 1? -Tt 4 c/e re L g 32 ztr 8 Ibto 43 C-l . CSPM, L -- 1 $ 1 58 T 43 s-i 1 1 I 1—0 7-6 PMTT * ICMOL. KM«IMICHt CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR JOB no. 24-<H -<?/ SHEET OF 7 DESIGNER CHECKER DATE 5. <*• - ot 6 c, (4tr i /267. 98 i r, 0\11 t —- i J Ht 7. S-l n - o. 98 ^r)/ ICHOL. CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR 0 lO JOB NO. 24 9 9 - SHEET * OF 1 DESIGNER 5/4 5 CHECKER DATE 6 92.)U. 8$ -Pf + "J . «I7Z) (64-) (7.92) ^ - -S r, ( 5"?^ l) sxir CAi.CUL.ATf P4 PA s P, (I ' = r?6 2. (\ -, = 218.5 s-i ATT • CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR JOB NO. 2.ke(e\-t>\ SHEET 5"OF DESIGNER SMS CHECKER OATE 7 A/1/ DATE 4- . 8 M 81? (2P; ^P, y CALCULATE OF 4PPLI6/TIOAJ 4-8,163 TOTAL V 1100 (, 1 f-t TOE s-i tCMOl. CLIENT PROJECT OESICNFOR JOB NO. SHEET £ OF -7 DESIGNER CHECKER DATE DATE M ' f -7ZOO P3 -_ P/- wxbr os , -H n.jt 6>(<> * ^) 4517 FMTT ICMOU KNfiNKIHf CLIENT OU) N» E PROJECT OES.GNFO" joe NO. 2.4i<} - SHEET OF DESIGNER SMS CHECKER 7 OATE7/Z/'?I DATE s-i TOTAL ILJJ: 2. = M,N, 46 M. 4 M. 4517 54 Y 12,0(90 IB 777 'As CETN-II I I I I I r i i i i i i i i i BREAKING WAVE FORCES ON WALLS PURPOSE: To introduce the Goda method as an alternative to the Minikin method for the determination of breaking wave forces on semirigid wall structures. INTRODUCTION: Prediction of breaking wave forces on vertical walls is required for the design of wall structures in coastal waters. The Standard procedure followed by most harbor and coastal engineers in the US is the Minikin method documented in detail in the Shore Protection Manual (SPM, 1984). As the Minikin method is based on the shock pressure caused by breaking waves, the resulting forces and structure designs analyzed by using this procedure are generally considered to be conservative. The SPM cautions its users about the extremely high wave forces associated with the Minikin method. 4 less conservative method recommended by Goda (1974) is an alternative procedure for breaking wave force determination. The Technical Standards for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan (1980) has adopted the Goda method but cautions that this method may underestimate the wave force. A factor of safety of 1.2 is recommended for structure design against sliding and overturning. The rationale of using the Goda method for design analysis is that the duration of the impulsive breaking force is relatively brief, on the order of tenth or hundredth of a second, and the effect of this force on the stability of massive concrete wall structures, particularly those with rubble mound bases, may be rather insignificant. In design practice, conditions that cause the occurrence of impulsive wave loading on structures should be avoided (Goda, 1985). For sensitive coastal structures, physical modeling may be required to ascertain the avoidance of impulsive breaking wave conditions. U. S. Army Engineer Waterwayi Experiment Station. Coastal Engineering Rewarch Center P. O. Box 631, VfclHburg, Mitsiuippi 3J180 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I SWL Breaking Wave Pressures on a Vertical Wall CODA'S FORMULAS; The above figure shows the structure configuration for which the Goda method is applied and illustrates the linear pressure distribution on the wall face due to wave impact. The key components of the pressure diagram are: where /?- 1 .5- #„ a,-0.6+0.5(4/r£>/I/sinh(4/r£>/I)); - l/cosh(2/r/?/!))-h. fi-o ^- to = specific weight of water //, = highest of the random waves breaking at a distance of 5H« seaward of the wall; H* is the significant wave height of the design sea state h = water depth at where Hb is determined mm (a. fa) = smaller of a and b L = wavelength calculated by linear wave theory at the wall According to Goda (1985), the above equations are applicable to either breaking or nonbreaking wave conditions. I I I I I i I WAVE FORCE AND MOMENT: The integration of pressure distribution on th wall yields the force per unit length of the structure, F, I I where he is the centroid of the pressure prism defined by Pi and P4 above the mean water level. The overturning moment, M due to waves is A/ = F-hc1 where he' is the centroid of pressure prism above the wall base. APPLICATION PROCEDURE; The Goda method is developed for the design of caisson type breakwaters with rubble foundations. The following procedures are recommended for the design analysis. a. Select a design sea state and identify the significant wave height, H«, and significant wave period, T«. b. Determine h by ft=0*5 m //„ where m is the bottom slope. c. Calculate the breaking wave height, Hb, at h. Note that if Ht> is greater than the maximum wave height of the design sea state, there will be no breaking wave force exerted on the wall. In that case, use the maximum wave height for the wave force analysis or use methods described in the SPM (1984). The maximum wave height may be estimated as 1.8 tiroes H« according to Godaf 1985). d. Calculate wavelength L for depth D using the significant wave period of the design sea state and the linear wave theory or Tables C-l and C-2 of Appendix C of the SPM. | e. Calculate the wave force and moment using Goda equations provided in • this note. • EXAMPLE: Given a vertical wall, 4.3 m (14 ft.) high sited in sea water with ds = 2.5 m (8.2 ft.). The wall is built on a bottom slope of 1:20 (m = 0.05). f Reasonable wave periods range from 6 to 10 seconds. Find the maximum pressure, horizontal force, and overturning moment about the toe of the wall. I Since there is no rubble mound base, the water depth D = ds = 2.5 m. For T I ' fi . =10 seconds, find by using Figure 7-4 of the SPM, the design breaking wave ^ "3 -. height, Hb = 3.2 m. Without knowledge of significant wave height, Ht, the /"* / ** breaking depth, h, is determined directly by using Figure 7-2, which yields h»'G = 3.07 m. The wave breaks at a distance of 11.4 m ( =(3.07 - 2.5J/.05) from C the wall. Using Table C-l of Appendix C, SPM or computer program SINWAVES, wave length, L at D = 2.5 m is determined to be 48.7 m. Then, r, ai.a3.anda3 are calculated to be 1.036, 0.101, and 0.950, respectively. • Furthermore, "^ , R = 1.5 Hb = 4.8 m > 1.8 m (overtopping) C- The pressure components are calculated as (, I I I I I I I I I r i i i i i i i i i />, = (a, - aa) w -36 -Utf/m2 -34 6 P4 -?, 3.0/4.8 The total horizontal force due to breaking wave is f -.5.J»P.1. 8^.5 (/>-/>• 2.5 = 142 kN/m The overturning moment about the toe excluding moments due to uplift and hydrostatic forces is M = 289 kN-m/m Similar procedures are used to calculate the peak pressure, force and moment on the wall due to the 6 second wave. This example is the same as EXAMPLE PROBLEM 34 of Page 7-182 of SPM. The comparison with results based on the Minikin method are summarized in the following table. Coda Method j Minikin Method Wave Period (sec) 6 10 6 10 P, (kN/m2)/ i 26.6 36.4 | 336/ 176 F M (kN-m/m) 204 289 194 772 ~"r 485 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: For additional information contact the CERC Coastal Design Branch, (601) 634-2067. REFERENCES; God a, Y. 1974. "New Wave Pressure Formulae for Composite Breakwater," Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Coastal Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark. Goda, Y. 1985. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures. University of Tokyo Press, Toyko, Japan. Shore Protection Manual. 4th ed., 1984. Coastal Engineering Research Center, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Technical Standards for Port and Harbor Facilities in Japan. 1980. The Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan. I I I I i i i i • APPENDIX C | WAVE RUNUP AND OVERTOPPING • CALCULATIONS I I I I I I I I PFATT ICMOL. IM«INHRS CLIENT PROJECT .4 ,2 (. £ <* At?Pp.? DESIGN FOR JOB MO. 2 4^ - SHEET OF DESIGNER SMS CHECKER DATE DATE ~ 1 91 8 5,-c. 01 -, I fc5 TL i I frS" H, I '8 s-i I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 — and 0.75 (T = 10 s) for a given deepwater direction of wave approach (see Ch. 2, Sec. Ill, WAVE REFRACTION). 00004 00006 0001 0002 0003 0004 Hb 0006 001 002 003 (after Goda. 1970a) Figure 7-5. Breaker height index H,/H versus H^/gT^ . 7-12 (HJjdfrATT • pWlCMOL. IMtlMIKHS CLIENT MOMgOUjAJ^^.J PROJECT C^-A 12. [C A A O f o ^ P^ ^ DESIGN FOR £<JiJ vJ P JOB NO. 1-4^1 - O I SHEET 7, OF DESIGNER 5H 5 CHECKER DATE DATE S-l n T' p. >• 11 .. II H.' Z 8 P - i c -2 r - +• r 3 L\ * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o o o tD If) «3" o ro o CO t~- ID 10 V oo o o o o TO O CM O CM H 00 co in 0) w E O) Q. S § o. o <u i -a-i—i I s 00 •H 7-25 ICMOL. CLIENT PROJECT OES16N FOR JOB NO.-<3 ( SHEET OF DESIGNER CHECKER DATE DATE I Ig A.JP H.' . 3T r O -J-2.4- FCPH 3 - 7 £ <~ •' *\ I ~ , "' o. s-i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 04 00001 Figure 7-24. Overtopping parameters a and Q (smooth vertical wall on a 1:10 nearshore slope). 7-45 (ftdPPATT ft TjJhwNOL, CNCINCCRS T CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR 0\/££ToPPt/J$ JOB NO. SHEET OF DESIGNER CHECKER DATE DATE S-l p/ .' r ^ 8 O -f- (z y, ICMOt. CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR JOB NO. 2-4 SHEET OF DESIGNER CHECKER DATE F ' d - 8 M; - 3 T '-IS L. * (- r . , N _, , L-1 M H.1 4- ir 60 4- L i lo /«? '2 S-l 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 i 3 < ( t \ -A • -i \- '. 1 - 1 — . -p-;-i- — — -• _ •-=^, —,~ :. — - 'TT":I -- -=-• \ ----: \ ,\ ! \---X — ~: .7 -" ~—^— -— 1 T ~ r _ —' t •• _ ..... "~'~ - — a c o cn « D C - i •• : , .. • , t"~ \ r' _H 1 i " j\: -_ • \ — \ \ \ - :-..- - _: '-- . .1 — -— - - IT-TTTTL * .. .--* .. _T: ;; ^ : - l^<~~ /s • , - "-71. ..n -T ' t TITT.™... — _ : . . i •t r-*-» - * . - i '=r ~- •> cc > c :> 1r> < 3 < , i • -^. • - rr~- — ."r^".{— — i-t-i 4""^"*"-i-l-i-i- \ i\. ... y -pi_4-: . — . T. ' .r — --— .^- r i _ -• _. :-- : —:'.— ,_-_-.-- "^Ns•-i — — -., 7~i::r l-r , -". ,-ri- •• :.• • i — •_ ---. ' --_• • > i^ > C n D 3 - -. -! - \s -— ! - - L-— . J_ — ^.^ -1- T & CVJ - ) <( ( -• .._.( r v "% .._ ---• " S,, ro-^ f n> u c o 1 u 3 x> 3 - -' - V - (- - s. 5 > •1 1 , u f « 1 I — •• - -• -J - s • - .: " • . s^.- 1 . - r if C <M_ 2-5 ? = T*> n 3 - LL i fj « Tl -^s TH: .."^^•3 _- • * i — -- — . „.' - - ) ) * 1 -f 3 S < ( ( -- fO ' J. -:.. ! ± I ] s, s. i ^ C D *w 3 = - -' ' "1 - -r N .. ,. s«_ • t > ui < - ...j . - -. :. . i ^^ i - _-- ^ " ., K C 0 < 0 ( D < I-—" " — — , .. ..... N: /^v- -. N . _4 . . •I-pH- S^ — r A^ ^\ '.: . -• > c\ ) C 3 u O u 3 e . - - - - . ..: I. .- -t — y ^k -. -^^. ••• \> \\ \s -• . . . - J - ) C r> cr> i 3 < ; -. t -.. „ .. . L- . — — -:.._„ .. _. .i [ H ;~ ' ~ ~J" • 1 - - — ..A.- . '•\ _ \ _ \ "~ — VTIi\ \ I 1 L \ \ 4\ II \ T\ T \ T \ _ 1 \_ 1 \ f 1 1 C ) • ro •0 Dn f) DO § ^. o — •-< o> + ~. ^ • >« «^ "*^^ * *~* 9f * O ^*<i ^^ A o a O ~v. u ^^ ^^ c V § Q> *O O -Oo ccd o*> — l[ c 03 0 CM ^™ ^ c 0) 3 CiJ •° COc. •H ° 0 CO CM 9 PO CSJ 0)u - 30 «, fc ^ T(N)ICHOL. ENGINEERS T CLIENT \\0rt'&0^'^£ Pf PROJECT cAr2.L5a/\0 Co^Oo 5 DESIGN FOR f_ ^.fc, -T" H 6^ 1 6 klT JOB NO. 24-^3-0 SHEET 2. OF DESIGNER 5(^S CHECKER DATE «f.^.«Sf| DATE 13 H is, 6 +S s-i COASTAL DESIGN INFORMATION FOR SHORE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT THE BEACH CONDOMINIUMS Prepared for THE BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 2335 Rue Des Chateaux Carlsbad, California 92008 and CITY OF CARLSBAD Engineering Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4959 Prepared by MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS 250 W. Wardlow Road Long Beach, California 90807 M&NFile: 2499-01 September 1991 I I I I I I I I " APPENDIX D I SEAWALL STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS 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 A\ OF X14 CONCRETE RETAININQ WALL STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA 1. Applicable Codes & References: UBC LA City Cal trans Spec Cal trans Std. Pins ACI 318 NAVFAC DM 7.2 Sliding Check 0/T Check Stem Design Footing Design Crack Control [/] 2. Geotechnical Report: By: Dated: 3. Stability Checks: Assumptions: HE.LEAI SCHMIDT 7-23-31 1. Ignore passive pressure from soil in front of wall above footing for sliding check. 2. Allow soil friction on vertical plane above heel of footing for overturning check. 3. Allow soil/soil friction in front of base key and soil/concrete friction behind base key (for non-piled bases only). Factors of Safety: Sliding:1.5 (Service Loads) 1.15 (DL + Earth Pressure + EQ) Overturning: 2.0 (Service Loads) 1.5 (DL + Earth Pressure + EQ) 1 1• 1 1 1 1 1 1 4. 5. Bulk Sat. Sub. Case5 -W'J.^ated (COMS^E*. W&T CRITICAL c/^es possnue a. Service Loads without Water Pressures. b. Service Loads with Water Pressures. c. DL + Earth Pressure + EQ. d. DL + Earth Pressure + Water Pressure + EQ. e. Case b\ with Wave Forces. Soil Pressures: Given By Geotech Consultant Density, "bulk (pcf) A Density, "sat (pcf) Density "sub (pcf) Retained Slope, p or SEE PA&ES F7, F8 Earth Surcharge (ft) Friction Angle, $ 1 1 1 Soil Wall Friction, 8 Coeffs. K. & K, — r Kt for checking heel pressures \F Base Friction: Soil /soil : Soil /cone. Additional Dynamic Component due 1 1 1 1 1 to 6. Earthquake Concrete Design Criteria: a. Service Load (or Working Stress) design method b. f = 4,000 ps1 (for seawalls) = 3,250 psi (for all other walls) c. f, • 24,000 psi for ASTM A 615 Grade 60 bars A2 OF • d. For design of heel cantilever, neglect upward soil pressure I e. For design of toe cantilever, neglect downward soil pressure on toe • f. Temperature and shrinkage reinforcement per ACI 318, Chapter 14 g. Crack control checks per ACI 318, Section 10.6 • h. Spacing of joints not-to-exceed (per Caltrans Section 5) 30 ft for contraction joints • 90 ft for expansion joints 1. Provide drainage of retained material per Caltrans Section 5 and _ Standard Plans. • 7. Pile Design Criteria: • Per Caltrans Standard Plans B2-3, B2-5, B2-8 as appropriate. Strands: 7 Wire Strand, ASTM A 415, fp(l = 270 ks1 . Spirals: ASTM A 82, fy = 70 ks1 I I I I I I I CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR LT L(iL*>llt£> JOB NO. SHEET DESIGNER CHECKER - Ol OF DATE DATE \.^1 / VJC.YC* tb U> b,'Cov. 4. TV y ,r ,\K v 6>TAKJ HtU,/JSMt-\iOT ou 1/23 /n I\ 15 V 0 VJ ^AS/jJUU 8-1 M)ICHOL. CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR AT JOB NO. SHEET DESIGNER CHECKER OF DATE DATE Q $<jwf ro o 1 4- E EQ- r S-l FFATT ft M^ICMOL. CNQINCCRS CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR JOB NO.- o { SHEET OF DESIGNER , CHECKER T-r DATE DATE H Control S-l NjICMOL. ENGINEERS CLIENT PROJECT LS6/VD DESIGN FOR JOB NO. SHEET 33 OF ^23 DESIGNER CHECKER -T "T DATE KT "S ^u- ol IB- 15 4 3 -Zrr fc-Z To ?H <^n ear 15-15 -4 3 -2. ^ 1-0 1-3 .5 - S-l JOB NO. 2493-01 Z ^ ^ 51 ; 5x3 S-l CLIENT PROJECT LOM/A//W/HS CM' !4FT\ JOB NO. 24 39- 0| SHEET 55" OF 323 DESIGNER -p_ CHECKER DATE 8/31 DATE ) 2 3 4 -5" 6 7 8 W /,0> /4,0 x /SO /4 x 0,50 /0,5x/50 12.x /5 >/5o ^5x/,5?/5o 2 100 60^ 2700 8.^6x4,^0,51^30 = 2271,4 ^.5Uo,i4x3.^os)],;50= 4233.83 0,^4* 1065x130x0,5- 304,53 AW 3,o 6,0 0,75 8,04 775 ^•» /•* ^o ^3 , M .1 ( AfcO^T POiNt 0 ) 6300.0 IGZOO.O 4AJ,88 88 60. U 3265866 t IJr.04 OVE.F Fj 4^0.64 ^75 e/ &66.2 '3,27 £ f.3 5,03 (/ 23752.52,950, M I8GI5-3I enter . — . 1.59 5382,63 OIL .2,0 4 2-4-75, 64 S-l (H)6FMTT a . ENGINEERS CLIENT PROJECT CARLS &Ab DESIGN FOR JOB NO. SHEET £,£ OF 52-3 DESIGNER Tr CHECKER DATE oc —/6S306.G -42475,64 2^752,32 -5.3 ^& - Me I 52... 25752.52x0,8x6 - 2-771.\. 0/c ^7.^3 < 2000 P5I c/!se 21 - 5^82.85+ (//,7*/4*)- 53^2,33 + 22^3.2 ^ 8276.03 AM*0 /^/Hof' I S-l FFATT a hi)lCMOL. ENGINEERS CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR 5^ WALL t£ S | 6 N CH< 14FTN JOB NO. .2,439-01 SHEET £7 OF 2-3 DESIGNER -T--J- CHECKER DATE 6/31 DATE S-l 41.475. 64 t > 1.5 17 6,32 23752,52 = 4 34 U6 < M X . 52. _ 2y| 1-2. = -_ 3621,26 < 4000 PSF (=3030x ^333 < 4-OOO Psf e ro NICMOL. CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR SEAWALL b£5l&M (HM4 FT) JOB NO. 2439-0) SHEET £ g OF £, 23 DESIGNER TT CHECKER DATE (S/9| DATE 7675.54-2846 ^ 5027.54 - 2.2.752, s-i . ENGINEERS CLIENT PROJECT DES.GNFOR JOB NO. 14 39-0 SHEET OF £ 23 DESIGNER TT CHECKER DATE 6/31 DATE PA, ft.4)4. 66.4S 3Z2G.5 13,26 11.33 11.03 6,0 977.7 9 353.0 0 47369.86 RATIO : 168264• ^_ , 3 55 ") 2,0 502.7,54 G. ^J__ 2_ - 5.03 2__ 0.9) 22752,52- - £37S2,52.*0,9/ v 144 660 3OOO PSF < 3000 S-l wrr CLIENT PROJECT COA/&OM'«/UM5 DCSIONFOR /APT) JOB NO. SHEET DESIGNER TT CHECKER MTS II777. 26* r ae^ s-t MTT CLIENT PROJECT ArT DESIGN FOR JOB NO. SHEET or B> 23 CHECKER : ..:..L L.1.J i I : • !—• • •••-*•—r—i—i f-l CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR "•NO.-ol SHEET £23 DESIGNER CHECKER D*TE 0»TE , Ed •T < -T "} r : 4 ^._ „ 4 ^ Ibo r~r : - -; - i -i -i - 1.Q r ,- K UL w ToTfcu ^ z 0.5 To So; Nio i 12,5' (or 2:1 iffi» x u.nn .-s. o*. . 4.55 4:-. $-1 CLIENT PROJECT /^T /£AfcL<>£]iXD DESIGN POM SHEET £>;2>0r B 23 DESIGNER CHECKER I" *T DATE D»TE J...J. •-r y "' T - ' t ' ....,..._ j j 6.00 0..75 _i /6 x 115 x./?0: 226.5 x C 35,7* z r S-l EMINKKN* CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN PON JOiNO.-01 5HKT 0/4. Of oestenER CNCCKCR MTE _j__4.' T l .1? T i " ".FSV. -} — -j I ' ' ._ .. 4-; > ' 5 =, 17.x I «• r..- «i. r\ $-1 MTT IICMOt. KM«IMK*« CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR SHEET Alfi OF 23 DESIGNER CHECKER <5 M TT 7M I DATE S/3/ r»vrC.^J! I H ____________ 4..-. __ r ____ , — f_., * ^4 * [sit _ 4 -J.^i-= ; i... :...;... ><^ (_LJ»P OJ>-K. A>\ Vis S-l --!— be r *U _____ SECT J> tO MTT tCMOL. CN4INCCKS CLIENT PROJECT .g, FT £> JOB NO. 2439-O! SHEET OESICNEA CHECKCM DATE : 3.5 FT WALL . &ECTIOM S-l ICMOl. tN«INKKMi CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR 3.5f7 2433 -OI »MEET OF ^ 23 DESIGNER CHECKER DATE g/31 DATE -.6' S-l ATT * CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR S.5FT SfeCT-ON JOB NO. J2<O9-O\ SHEET 3/0 or J323 DESIGNER -i-|- CHECKER OATC 0/3 1 8 0,2& *6,/5x/3o 1(0,5 285 562.5 4477,2 ! I 16,0 2384,0 ) 03.34 [286(3.14 2,0 3,64 0,75 5.7 655 . 55 .M. 2650,0. 751,4. 81*8.13 4*1,68 7303,6 16412,0 292.07 61666.32. Jbue •#. -42.0.64 1229,23 3, 55 M e 7o $ ,97 15127.3 31353* 3/55:3 » I»G/ >/,5 OK* 1512.7,30 $-1 lCMOL. CLIENT MOJECT GOfJbOMlfJlUMS DESIGN FOR S6AWALU jot HO. SHEET DESICNCft CHECKER 323 MTE 0*Ti 14 e s -li. S A * I 300O 3000 PS| 0<> - 1055,$31 3/55-3 OF, THE f S-l ICMOL. CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR SEAWALL . S.gFT JOBNO. SHEET 3 2.Q DESIGNER CHECKER DATE DATE 4251.2 OVERTIJRNIA16 RATIO ^66.32.^.1,3-QIC - Z2730 1 1666. r 3.03 6,5 - 3.03. f.22. <s 1,4.2. = 2817-1 < 3000 OK. 3t>00. s-i CLIENT PROJECT COA4bOf/WJfJM5 DESIGN FOB , H'f)5PT JOB NO. SHEET OESICNEH TT CHECKER DATE 6/91 -. -t s-i MTT ICMOl. tM«IMHK8 CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR 9.5 FT JOB MO. SHEET £22. DESIGNER TT CHECKER £23 DATE "f 1- - '5146.46* due /o; 420,64 414,56 66,5 1613.25 931.5 8,77 6,63 <S,55 3,75 3,0 3^30,77 £8.31,44 573. 6.049. 2 734. 5 15346,08 ftAT/0 Si 4-6,46 . 2.43 > 1,5 — - 3~ G I G Sfe.^2.— 1 5^4 6 . 06,12.866,14 p. ^ » .z 2250.86 > 776.46 8-1 s-i lCHOL. tNCINtCRt CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR &T JOB NO. SHEET £ } OF £-7 DESIGNER CHECKER "pf owe proQnfl.»vN •flu "to "Hl£. To ^[ TV*. OfO Q lt>r 0 Vc/ii \\' Ji S-l I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I C2 DESCRIPTION » H:\HOKE\TT\2499\RETAIN1.RCW SC1L DATA ALLOWABLE BEARING = 3,060 psf ACTIV: LATERAL = 0.0 pcf MAX ^RESS. = 0.0 " SLOPE PRESS. = 70.1 " BACKFILL SLUPE = 2 :1 (nor12:vert,0=1 eve!) fAlSIVf- PRCSG. = 0 " SOIL DENSITY = 135 pcf SOIL .-II OVER TOE = 0 in - — VERTICAL LGADS AXIAL DL ON STEK • AXIAL LL ON STEh ...£CC(Toward Toe='+')= 0 plf 0 plf 0 in 0 psf Y Y y/r- y/n SURCHARGE OVER TOE * SURUARGE OV£R HEEL *usfc HEEL SUR,.-:ARGE TO RESIST OVERTURNING ? USE 1/3 VERT. CCKPNT ? - LATERAL LOADS — ADJACENT FOOTING: 8 psf VERTICAL LOAD * FOOTING WIDTH ftm'L LATEK/V. LOAD - 2293.? p'.f FTG. CL ;o *ALL « TiV OF 5--T& "O S1ART - 7.SU ft VERT. POSITION OF FTG. 'j-- Uh F Fu TO END = S.9B ft . ..Above/Below: [+/-J* 8 ft SPREAD FOOTING ? Y y/n WALL * FOOTING DATA - • LAT:I\/,L LOAD ACTJIVG ON SIL'-'. AI.CVE iOIL -S Ibs 0 fta ft \F;> HEIGHI WAul hi. ABOVE SOIL * 14 ft B ft v C V uj ' HI !-• >ev u:sr 'TO Prrssure p Pressure ? Al lowaile fee. of rt frft' 'Jnesr wax bne^r TOE loe nee") Press . cultrnt f? Toe ? neel = s 2 1 i JL 32 IS ,180 ,588 3.05 8.76 in in ft . CMOU pst 11 in psi TOE WIDTH HEEL WIDTH Total Hdth THICKNESS 2.5 ft 9.5 ft 12.40 ft 18 in Factors of Safety: Overturning Sliding 3.W 18. 87 —» Slicing Unstable ! Allow. Ftg Shear = 107.52 psi CHECK F1G/SOIL FRICTION • SOIL TO fjEGlcCT factor of Safety = 8 in 0.87 Lateral Pressure - 10,7i<i - Passive Pressure = 0 - Friction = 9,282 Soil Press. Mult. By ACI Fq. 9-1 psf «u - Jpward ft-l psv Add'l Force Required * 1,432 I hu - Design Or c -ic,'fty Shear: Actual Allowable Cover over Rebar in= 'o' "= Ru - !<u/Do"2 TOP — — hefl- 3,852 2,363 9,387 78,796 984 139,496 - f'c = 4,080 psi Fy = 60,068 psi Kin. As Percent s 0.0833 OMIT SP JNDER HEEL? N y/n Ot 1VO 18.8 107.5 3.1JG 15.00 41.5 >OW, /li-J. ; 31.1 107.5 3.J30 15. 2B 299.8 # 4 § # 5 § 068 « 7 § ft 8 & # 9 §n« @#11 § Keoar t,f — Toe -- 4.Z4 in ( 6.26 8.39 12.12 15.96 23.2SI 25.66 31.52 ^oites --- — Heel — >.c. 2.55 3.95 5.60 7.64 10.05 12.73 16.16 19.85 c? 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 • I 1 • 1 • __ _____________________ CTCLl IMTCTflvl ________________________________ ujAi 1 TVPF 3: Mas ,2: Cone, 3: Not Used : k.Si&N HHtrlT ABOVE FT&. RfSAR: 8:Cntr,l:Ed9e ? 'c1 FOK DESIGN .OEG'GN [.'ATA THICKNESS (non-inal) fit ,AR SIZE # Vf[',AR SPACING = r*t-rrf"' ,.o«io t Section = i>-n .fit. . . . ActUd'l = •' o,i.cnt. . , . A! low. = Sn<?cir. . • • .Actual = .... Interaction Result - Vs' t<»eij!-,t - n . \oriular Ret 10 = h'. u*r En.bec Length - .f,A:.'iA'Y S'ttt ('ATA t'lB F. Ai L CtLLS CPO, TcD ? k.'SE ' .'F'lAL If^P. ? Lo^c' .)u otion Factor = ,r'/ ,sF.r c^t*. Jft-jft • » _ f r = 22222 14 10.5 7 3.5 0 ft 11111 8.50 10.25 12.00 13.75 15.58 12 13.75 15.5 J.7.25 19 in 88888^. 18 18 18 12 6 in £f 0 730 6,474 18,124 15.231 ft f 0 852 33,789 46,489 8?f35T3># 18,918 23,065 27,213 46,120 99TT5STt-# 0.0 3.4 39.6 53.1 70.8 psi 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 psi 0.880 0.851 8.459 0.915 0.902 150.0 171.9 1P3.8 215.6 237.5 psf 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 32.36 32.86 32.86 32.86 32.86 ir, 1,588 ^1,580 1,588 i,58_ 1,500 psi N"" "N" V ' V '"N y/n N N N tf M y/n ..80 1.08 1.80 l.'?8 1.00 in 3,10.8 3,308 3,_i?8 3,828 3,.i5_ psi ^0,6f:_i 66,8.'? 60,8itt" 68,888 68, £32 p« i <-Overturrnng Koments-x- Resisting Moments -> 0. "jin of Fo-ce: * ft ft-* * ft ft-* Active Soil Press. = &<,?0.8 Stil over Keel = '.oil ever Toe = 8.® Sluffc! Soil f rieel = Ar'JAcent Ftg. Loao = 0.0 Su c'-arge Over Keel = Sui cnc.rge over Toe = 8.8 A/ '. c, Load on mall = _o^d ? Froj. fca'i 1 = if.0 /•veraged Stem Wts. = Ae.-.ed Lateral Loed = 2293.2 ftg & Key Wcigf.t - 1/3 Active Pressure = Totals = 18713.9 'f'' Multipl ier = 7S3 Center 'c1 Kodifier= 1 Edge 'c5( Kocifier - 1 5.57 43587. — 14962.5 8.04 120323 8.50 (f 0.0 0.08 0 — 2115.2 9.36 19880. 8.88 8 0.0 8. £8 0 0.3 0.88 8 8.0. 0 0.8 0.88 6 8 0.8 2.00 0 0.30 0 -- 2865.6 3.1<5 9147.1 9,90 22702. 3262.5 5.09 Ib621. -- 2834.1 12.80 33649. 66289. 23205.8 199542 \ /— _ __ ^x Wall Kt. Multiplier = 1 Should Retain Ht be modified for slope ? N y/n I I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i DESCRIPTION » H:\HOKE\TT\2499\RETAIN2.RCW C4 OF C7 — SOIL DATA ALLOWABLE BEARING ACTIVE LATERAL MAX PRESS. SLOPE PRESS. 3,880 psf 0.8) pcf 0.0 " 69.6 " VERTICAL LOADS AXIAL DL 0« STEM AXIAL LL OK STEM ...£CC(Toward 0 plf 1 plf 0 in >fiCK-ILl S ( iOri2:vert,0=Lcvfl) PASSIVE -'RESS. Sf • DENSITY bCJi of OVtK IJE •.AT1 RAI. LOAD ACTlNf. ON :.TE'. AbC^t SOIL ADO : . rj. OF A ."AD = '0 STJRT - C-'' OP fG 1C- END : c'MN. •; ,-;nt.'.7 a *A.L hi. ABCv'L SOIL «• 2 :1 Su<?ChARGE OVER TOE * SURCHARGE OVfcR -.fcEL * 0 " USE HEEL SURCHAR-oC TO 4 pcf RCSIST OVERTURNING ? 8 in USE 1/3 VtftT. CjKt>NT ? LATERAL LOADS - • ADJACcNT FOOTING: 0 psf VERTICAL LGAH FOOTING *IDT« "fi.13 r'-t FTt.. Cl T0 WALL 7.f3 tt Vc.:T. POSITION Or HS. 8.28 ft ...Above/Below:[+/-]« SPRcAD FOOTING ? -- WALL X FOOTING DATA 12.5 ft ICE WIDTH 8 ft HEEL WIDTH « psf 0 " Y Y y/n y/n 0 .bs 0 fte ft 0 ft Y y/n 2.^ ft 9.5 ft 30 -n'' ».. KEY o.ST ,'0 0£ v' »* e <• n i r <•» t? *"".-»r**»»*i^» i O C Total Wictsi THICKNESS = i2.«e ft 18 ir.= fc.iBS ft 'Jl'fcr.ARY - 1,645 psrr Factors of Safety: ! - l,9tf " Overtiming - 3.73 1 Pirss. = 3,i80 " Sliding = (8.99 | tec. :f -tSiltarit = -.,.?// in ) » Sliding jnstiole ' - ii.f-S psi Allow. Ftg Srear ~ 227.52 psi | = -20.15 psi .IDIr,. CrfFCK ii. F^ctor of Safety 8 in 9.99 Lateral Pressure a 8,653 - Passive Pressure = 0 - F» iction » 8,563 Soil Press. Mult. By ACI Eq. 9-1 psf= hu - Upward ft-jfs .*IL< - Downward " = Xv1 - tcs .gn " - \ e-Kay Shear: Actual psis Al o^'oj'ie " * Cover over Rebar ins Ru = hi./bd*2 psij — FOOTING --Toe— '-heel 2,303 2,692 7,282 79,184 984 126,894 fi ^'37 13.9 167.5 3.08 15.80 31.1 Add'1 Force 90 IF — f'c «in. OKIT 28.1 107.5 3.88 15. 35.6 #48# s e # 6 * 7 tf 8 @# 9 enia e#11 P .- Psi= 60,0w0 psi As Percent » 0.0833 SP UNDER KEEL? N Choices — Heel — in o.c, y/n e -- Toe 4.84 6.26 3.89 12.12 15.96 20.20 25.66 31.52 3 5. 7. .27 .87 .20 9.82 12.93 16.37 20.79 75.53 1 1i i i i i i • C5 QF•-——————••— — — '•••-—••-——*- — •* ™""* *~ STtn DuSIoN ——————••••••»••— ~— ———•»•• — — — — v *^*r fcALL TYPE l:K,ass2:Conc,3:Not Used : DESIGN HEIGHT ABOVE FTG. RESAR: 3:Cntr,l:Fdge ? 'd1 FOR DESIGN .DESICN DATA "fi-lJCiAcSS (non. iiio" ; = ( » ' i * •»/ j \ i n -i'.f-f << K .Nb = : , tc i .D' i. Cod £ Sect ion =vtjii<. nt . . . . ML Lija i = l« t7..-',t . . . .A! 'cv,. = tier Allow. = ... l.iteractio'- fcts^t - wall tfc;-;,ht = .. : tfodular Ratio = fe" 'j? L,r ->?ri ' cngtT = . f ^ £.UNftV SI tM . A 1 A "IT A!' ^L" GPO.TF;; ? USt S. tCJ'u iKSr"1. ? t or-d [)• --ft ion fart GI - ...\CKtH c,1fh [)ATA •"> - C IwVAOV n^ COLy'LC fr hrfik. 22222 12.5 9.375 6.25 3.125 0 ft 11111 8.56 10.13 11.69 13.25 14.81 12 13.563 15.J25 16.663 18.25 in 77777 18 ,8 18 12 6 in 0 578 5,146 8.836 12,083 # 0 602 8,359 28i655 59,791 ft-# 14,765 17,518 20,330 34,183 73,616 ft-K 0.0 2.5 32.0 43.3 58.2 psi 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 psi 0.008 0.846 0.434 0.872 0.857 150.0 169.5 169.1 288.6 228.1 psf 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 28.76 28.76 28.76 28.76 28.76 in 3,533 1,580 1,588 1.T88 1.5'iS psi 24.I6P8 24,280 24,?£8 2*,di0 2^,858 psi N r. N N N y/n N N N N N y/n 1.88 1.88 1.24 1.68 l.W in \888 3,888 3, £08 3,888 3,8,^8 psi 68,8? 2 fjiS,8i?' 60, if Si 6&,®ii b£,3fci psi T <-Dverturning Koments-><- Resisting Moments -> Oi -ic ,r. o' force: d Active Soli Pre:s. = 682^.7 Coi f'Vt r He e ! = Soil over loe = 8.8 Slrpe-d Soil g Hi- el = Apparent Ftc. i csd = 8.8 CjU'^^argp 0\?r ^.C'> 1 = Svirc'i^-gt over Toe = 8.8 Ax -a! Load on Wa'i 1 - Load £ Proj. Wall = 6 i? Averaged Stem Wis. = Added Lalera1 Load = 1828.1 Ftc, S Key height = 1/3 Af. tive Pressure = Totals = 8652.85 'N1 Multiplier = 750 Center 'd1 Kodifier= 1 Edoe 'd' Kodifier = 1 ft ft-# # ft ft-# 4.67 31848. - 13C04.7 8. PI 108178 0.58 0 tf.0 0.88 0 -- 2155.1 9.34 28129. 0.08 8 8.0 8.80 8 ?.0 3.80 & 8.88 0 8.8 C.?>8 0 0 8.0 8.00 8 6.80 0 — 24B5.4 3.1? 7880.5 9.08 16453. -- 3262.5 5.09 16521. — 2272.6 12.88 27271. 48301. 21407.7 188082 Wall Wt. Multiplier = 1 Should Retain Ht be ir.odified for £.'opc ? N y/n Titlp 1 11 1^v 1^•w 1^^v 1 ^^ 1 ^^v |^^v I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 Line 5 Sc°Pe : ^ ^ *Number C & OP C7 Misc ' Dsngr 16-Aug-91 RETAINING WALL DESIGN Page DESCRIPTION » H:\HOME\TT\2499\RETAIN3.RCW i»UiL i>A i A — ALLGA'AJIE dCARING = ACTIVE LATERAL KAX PRESS. = ILOPE PRtSS. = &ACKr.'Ll SLOPE (r-ori?:vert ,8-Lev.rl PASSIVE PRESS. S.-.II DtNSlTY SOiL h" OVFR TOE ..AfF.RAL LOAD ACTING ON SUM ABGV? SOU A'.'J'L LA*'RAL LOnD = TO'" OF C1G TO i'ART = TOf Of fTG TC cNO REJAJfaJ ;-'EK-.HT = *ALL r1]. ABCVE SOIL = KEY O:PTH KEY WKiTh Hcf OiST 10 TOE Pressure £ Toe s Pn s^urp f '.eel - Ai^vwab'ie Press. = Ccr. of resultant = \f>y. Shear P Toe - •Va> I>-"-3;" ? "'£• FTG/SOIi. FUClIOf. -SOIL TO ^£;:^:cT Factor of Safety - Soil Press. Kult. By ACI Eq. 9-1 psf" Mu - Upward ft-#- Mu - Downwat o " = PU - Design " = One -Way Shear: Actual psi- Al'owable " = 3,2£0 71.9 2 ) 137 j /I J&C* c ^'T* b.'?6 WAu 9.5 33 J8 l,88b 1 ," CS3,ke 3.67 3.05 - i 4 . 65 0.40 0.93 psf pcf »t ffl tt PCf in LATERAL psf ?1f Tt L 8 F001 ft ft in in ft SUMMARY psf n in psi psi in •-- FOOTING DES --Toe — —Heel- 2,527 2,784 354 ?,430 3,1 107.5 1,630 28,699 50,552 (21,851) 14.6 107.5 AXIAL DL ON STEM = AXIAL LL ON STEM = ...ECUToward Toe=' + ') = SURCHARGE OVER TOE SURCHARGE OVER HEEL = USf HEEL SURChARGE TO RESIST OVERTURNING ? USE 1/3 VERT. COMPNT ? LUAUo ADJACENT FOOTING: VERTICAL LOAD FOOTING WIDTH FTG. CL TO WALL;ERT. POSITION OF FTG. . . .Above/Below: [•*•/-]=• SPREAD FOOTING ? T .if* Pi AT A _ TOE WIDTH = HEEL WIDTH Total Width THICKNESS__________ Factors of Safety: Overturning = Sliding = — » Sliding Unstable Y Y Y 1.5 7 8.5ie 18 3.11 0.93 ; Allow. Ftg Snear = 187.5? Lateral Pressure = - Passive Pressure s - Friction = Add'l Force Required = JbN ----"-•—'----------- - f'c Fy =6 Min. As Percent = 0 5,4»6 5,849 357 4,000 0,000 .0033 OMIT SP UNDER HEEL? N Rebar Choice — Toe — #4@ 4.04 in o.c. « 5 ? 6.26 - Heel 4.04 6.26 plf Plfin psfft y/n y/n ibs ft ft <£ +1 L y/n ft ft ft in psi tf # psi psi y/n — I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line A Line 5 Title : Scope : Number: Misc : Dsngr : 07 OP C7 16-Aug-91 RETAINING WALL DESIGN Page Cover•d' Ru = over Mu/bd' Rebar in="= K2 psi= 3.00 15.00 12.0 3. 15. 107 00 00 .9 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 #10 #11 e gg ee 8. 12. 15. 20. 25. 31. 89 12 96 20 66 52 8 12 15 20 25 31 .89 .12 .96 .20 .66 .52 WALL TYPE 3:Ms?,2:Conr,3:Not Used DESIGN HEIGHT ABOVE FTG. REBAR: Z:Cntr,l:Edge 'd' F::R DESIGN .DESIGN DATA 1-ICKNESS (nominal) R.-BAR SIZE REBAR SPACING Lateral Load £ Section Moment....Actual Moment....Allow. SKear.....Actual Snear Al low. . ...Ir.trraclion Result fcali Weight r- s Hollar Rc.tio Re^ar Embed Length .hAS&NRY ^fcH D/-TA f'B Fs ALL U:E STEM DESIGN < Stem Sections > Top Bottom 2 2 9.5 7.125 1 1 8.63 9.82 2 4.75 1 31.03 2 2.375 1 12.19 1 13.38 ft 12 13.19 #66 18 38 345 273 = 11,884 12,575 1.3 = 93.1 93.1 0.031 « 150.0 164.9= 9.29 9.29= 24.65 24.65 3, 3, 14.38 6 18 ,816 ,738 14,146 19.2 93.1 0.282 179.89.2974.65 15.56 6 18 4,739 12,811 15,703 26.8 93.1 0.841 194.59.2924.65 16.75 in 6 9 in 7,152 # 26,796 ft-# 33,787 ft-# 37.0 psi 93.1 psi 0.826 209.4 psf 9.2924.65 in CELLS GROJ1ED SPFTIAL INSP. Lor.i Deration Frctor .CONCRETE HE*. DATA... f'c Fy = 1,500 1,500 - 2^,£80 24,080 ? N N ? N N = 1.78 3.00 24.J130 N N 1,500 1,500 psi 24,000 24,000 psi N N y/n N N y/r. 1.00 1.00 in 3,000 -- 60,003 60,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 psi 60,000 60,000 60,000 psi SUMMARY OF FORCES & MOMENTS <-Overturnin9 Moments-><- Resisting foments -> Origin of Force: Active Soil Pres?. = 4350.0 Soil over Keel = Soil over Toe = Sloped Soil § Heel = Adjacent Ftg. Load = Surcharge Over Hee'i = Surcharge over Toe = Axial Load on Wall = Load § Proj. Wall Averaged Stem Wts. * Added Lateral Load = 105S.0 Ftg S Key Weight 1/3 Active Pressure = ft ft-f 3.67 15949. 0.50 ft ft-| 72S3.8 11575.7 5.70 41559. 6.63 7133.8 7.20 7603.2 1777.7 2.13 3784.0 2475.0 1448.5 3.45 8549.9 8.50 12312. Totals 5405.95 23553. 12622.2 73339. 'N1 Multiplier Center 'd1 Modifier* Edge 'd1 Modifier * 750 1 1 Wall Wt. Multiplier = Should Retain ",t be modified for slope ?y/n I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 M*TT ICHOL. ENGINEERS CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR JOB NO. SHEET OP DESIGNER CHECKER DATE DATE REIWFORCEMEWT S-l CLIENT PROJECT »VT DESIGN FOR JOB NO. SHE"£2,OF OES.ONER CHECKER om s-t WfeU. uve u 4-00 x x>i(Kunr "55 4^ c tz lCHOL. CLIENT MWECT feT CA<O&6AD DESIGN FOR JOB NO.- O ( SHEET OF DESIGNER CHECKER om S-l \ ' j i •" 1.4A4UL 20 1, 5X0 ^. As ~I f.*. ib. 6 37 < oic . : i CLIENT PROJECT AT OMION JOB HO. SHEET or DESIGNER CHECKER TT DATE • •• -r — fr 1 "" " ] t ! t—j- i —T- - -f- - i fl # H Cscr vice.) r JO * 13-3 P< C - 10» - -so - 13,3" I.Z Her ^ 12. x 9-1 lCHOL. ENGINEERS CLIENT PROJECT VT DESIGN FOR JOtNO. J.444.0J SHEET ft £ Of DES.CNE* CHECKER Mi OWE H . ...... :. :..„! J ..... i 2251 777 6xl-S ROCK.S 126 - I, HO 3 4 ressure s H <"«sYV,K,J5tr c> Ir •~j 10^ loo^^^^ *I^«««B s-i CLIENT PIK>JKTS1££»J*-U_ fct DESIGN FOR JOB NO. »M"T DESIGNER (-1 CHECKER WTf 42.lu.ctL . l-tflcr ""T S-I MTT tCHOU CLIENT PROJECT 4-7 DESIGN FOR NO. SHEET DESIGNER CHECKER MTC Jer.42. : _4 <.-;--;. j ;...: j .1 <fc' AT). » 5/ « ,4 i ) * J. .- ^z. I J H ,,.,-j CLIENT DESIGN FOR JOB NO. OCSIGMEN CHECKER TT —!• •* -j. _ . Sec UjtD A * 2 6 s: S-l ATT • CLIENT PROJECT DESIGN FOR JOB NO. •HEET £3 OF DESIGNER CHECKER - -------- -j J-. -r ' Ilkfe^ i ' ;—r— S-S x yJlo -'Z3U6 •c M-tS < 5.61 r IS UJU 27 it. $-1 CLIENT PROJECT AT DESIGN FOR JOB NO. SHEET Of DESIGNER CHECKER -r -T DATE DATE rfo ! ! ___i _ : , \ _ . .. -"-^ */ "* .4- . 4,21 ..... irffvn ^ ; 5, .1-J- 1,i'i ^^ 4- Sk*^ X lQ3> ^ IL tf-'/^J^V v) .... ..' '-* • \f.r/-.^/J V 1 16' 0 i .IS. _£>&._£>.. -» > ' ' I- ' i S-l mHOL. t*«IMEt*» CLIENT HUMECT DESIGN FOR SHEET OEStCMEK CHECKER DATE MTC &. .... 4.. 33 ttr <L> 4 ' f*-*£&-. .r -00^5' S-l . CNCINCKMS CLIENT DESIGN FOR JOB NO.- 0 \ SHEET DESIGNER CHECKER £J1 »*« .,45 ?& - v1* f - 14,00^9 A A . O/./o S-l c: 52, ^ 32 1,1.to, S-l lCMOI.. CNtlNCCftS CLIENT fcT DESIGN FOR MB NO. SHEET DESIGNER CHECKER "T""7"OTTI 1 4' -4 It •?.5*io.b5vl^o= SB'. I [ll. is i / x "L ? U S-l -, 10 A^s. UO dcr ^.-bfe A* , .-6/6 -I/ f . * 75 so O. f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC Gflotachniccn 0nd August 29,1991 Project No. 8880700-02 To: Attention: Subject: Moffat and Nichol Engineers 250 West Warlow Road P.O. Box 7707 Long Beach, California 90807 Mr. Alan Alcora Review of Draft Seawall Plans and Specifications "The Beach" Subdivision, Carlsbad, California In response to your letter dated August 22, 1991, we have reviewed the subject plans and specifications. We have also responded to the list of items provided in your tetter. Our comments are provided below. 1. Construction excavations in the bluff materials may be performed at a slope of 3/4 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) provided that the geotechnical consultant observes the excavations before workers are permitted to work adjacent to these side slopes. If unfavorable geologic conditions are encountered, shoring on a flatter inclination may be recommended. 2. The top of the excavation should be maintained no closer than 10 feet from the existing block wall 3. The surface elevation of the borings as indicated on the boring logs were estimated in the field based on the horizontal location of the borings and the base map we were provided entitled Pointe San Malo Grading Plan dated July 2,1984. Borings were not surveyed. We estimate that the actual elevations of the borings (and the bedrock contact) may vary plus or minus 2 feet The minimum footing embedment into undisturbed formational soils is 2 feet for footings and 4 feet for foundation keys. 4. Backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent based on ASTM D1557-78. Backfill unit weights have been assumed as 120 pcf (moist) and 130 psf (saturated). 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAQ SUITE B205, SAN DIEGQ CALIFORNIA 92123 (619) 292-8030 • (800) 447-2626 FAX (619) 292-0771 I * . 888070MB 5. The pressure diagrams to be utilized for wall design are attached. 6. Reference to the sofl report in Section 1.14 of the supplementary conditions of the specifications • should refer to the date of the'most recent report (July 18, 1968 • Revised August 11, 1969). 1 7. Provision fat contractor dewatering has not been included in the specifications. It may be desirable to indicate that •dewatering if necessary shall be provided by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner." 8. Sections for walls shown on page 2 of the project plans should indicate a minimum key _ embedment of 4 feet below the sfltstone contact 9. Section A of sheet 2 is unclear as to the 2 foot minimum dimension. The 2 foot minimum should • be measured from the sfltstone contact to the base of the footing. It may be desirable to indicate • "typical" under this dimension so that it may be implied on Sections B, C, D, and F. I If you have any questions regarding our letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. • Respectfully submitted, LOGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC I Stan Helenschmidt, GE 2064 (Exp. 6/30/92) Managing Principal, San Diego Region _ SRH/mw Attachments: Pressure Diagrams I Distribution: (1) Addressee (1) The Beach Homeowners Association Attention: Mr. David Copley I I I I I rf I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEIQHTON and ASSOCIATES Project No. D.U 7 Enflln««r/Q«olOQi«t Draftlng By LEIQHTON and ASSOCIATES Projtct u* Dat. En9ln*«r/Q«ologlst Drifting By 02/06/1992 14 02 L&A SAN DIEGO 619 292 0771 P 02 LEIGHTON AUD ASSOCIATES, INC. Ceoteebnlcol and Environmental Engineering Consuhanlt February 6, 1992 Project No. 8880700-04 To. Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers P.O. Box 7707 Long Beach, California 90807 Attention: Mr. Alan Alcorn Subject: Review of Seawall Detail, The Beach" Condominiums, Carlsbad, California In response to your request and review comments provided by Esgil Corporation, we have prepared this letter. Specific items that require geotechnical comment are the appropriateness of the sliding coefficient used in the design, active earth pressure and the adequacy of the wall backdrain. It is our opinion that the coefficient of friction of 04 utilized in the design is appropriate provided the buoyant weight of any submerged soil and concrete is utilized for design calculations. The attached detail indicates "pervious backfill" behind the wall (Note B). Backfill should consist of 3/4 to 1-1/2-inch washed gravel enclosei in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). Burlap sacks may be utilized to facilitate construction, but should not be used in lieu of filter fabric. Filter cloth or appropriately sized screen should be provided on the back side of weep holes to prevent contamination of gravel with fines. We understand that a 2-foot differential water level between the back and front of the wall has been utilized for design. The proposed wall backdrain design (with above modifications) is considered adequate from a geotechnical standpoint to dissipate an excess head of 2 feet above the lowest row or weep holes. Please note that the undisturbed bedrock soils beneath the proposed foundation will have relatively low permeability and will act as an impediment to percolation. Therefore, a hydrostatic surface at the level of the lower weep holes should be assumed If surf were to over-top the wall in a severe storm, the ability to dissipate excess water in the backdrain will be dependent on the Dow capacity of the weep holes. The analysis of the probability of such an occurrence and the resulting hydrostatic condition behind the wall is outside our area of expertise. Active earth pressures for static loading were delineated in 2 diagrams provided in a letter report from this office dated August 29,1991. These diagrams are attached for your convenience and may be utilized for design with appropriated modification for water pressures as discussed above. 3934 MURPHV CANWN ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92)23 (619) 292-8030* (800) 447-26;'6 FAX (619) 292-07 71 V L V. 02/06/1992 14 03 LS.fi SAN DIEGO 619 292 0771 P. 03 8880700-04 We appreciate this opportunity to te of service. If we can be of further assistance, please call Respectfully submitted, LEIOHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC Stan Helenschmidt, GE 2064 (Exp. 6/30/92) Managing Principal, San Diego Region SRH/lk Attachments: Typical Wall Section and Detail Pressure Diagrams (Saturated and Unsaturated) Distribution: (2) Addressee (1) Beach H.O.A, Attention: Mr. David Copely 02/06''1992 14-03 LS.R SflN DIEGO 619 292 0771 P 04 sh ili O P CJ UJ CO i u 02/06/1992 14 04 L8.fi SPIN DIEGO 619 292 0771 P 05 _- — 4"$ PVC DKAIM . 57A'o 35KED (TYf?) * .... V-- * -I— J • _ JL _ ! *j L. 1 -TCPEL:, ST WALL F* EL. t 1,0 FOOT1M3 iT£ U o N by fr 02--06'1992 14-04 L£fl SflN DIEGO 619 292 0771 P 06 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES itt-l-b: Eneln«er/Q»ologl8t DraftlrtQ By 02/06/1992 14 05 L&fl SfiN DIEGO 619 292 0771 P.07 LEIQHTON and ASSOCIATES irfefiSAd rl^u ±l'iA _t tSts^oftie v A rra';rr-•rr A64aj"Vij 3 ~r ^^ r XL- *A *20 $fT, fe^fi"* Ltkek —:— t.«..j,_j— ..._LJ,L.. it jT ^ •Pfc" 33E _1_. =n- -«i -hr--i.-i-. rt.SL Ui r x X :±tr !-vr-i f- -i_ ~r", —i i rw8 JyJ ..4- Project No. &n0in«*r/Q«oiogltt OrAftlng By LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC Geotechnicol and Environmental Engineering Consultants August 29, 1991 Project No. 8880700-02 To: Attention: Subject: Moffat and Nichol Engineers 250 West Warlow Road P.O. Box 7707 Long Beach, California 90807 Mr. Alan Alcorn Review of Draft Seawall Plans and Specifications The Beach" Subdivision, Carlsbad, California In response to your letter dated August 22, 1991, we have reviewed the subject plans and specifications. We have also responded to the list of items provided in your letter. Our comments are provided below. 1. Construction excavations in the bluff materials may be performed at a slope of 3/4 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) provided that the geotechnical consultant observes the excavations before workers are permitted to work adjacent to these side slopes. If unfavorable geologic conditions are encountered, shonng on a flatter inclination may be recommended. 2. The top of the excavation should be maintained no closer than 10 feet from the existing block wall. 3. The surface elevation of the borings as indicated on the boring logs were estimated in the field based on the horizontal location of the borings and the base map we were provided entitled Pomte San Malo Grading Plan dated July 2,1984. Bonngs were not surveyed. We estimate that the actual elevations of the borings (and the bedrock contact) may vary plus or minus 2 feet. The minimum footing embedment into undisturbed formational soils is 2 feet for footings and 4 feet for foundation keys. 4. Backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent based on ASTM D1557-78 Backfill unit weights have been assumed as 120 pcf (moist) and 130 psf (saturated). 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 (619) 292-8030 • (800) 447-2626 FAX (619) 292-0771 8880700-02 5. The pressure diagrams to be utilized for wall design are attached. 6. Reference to the soil report in Section 1.14 of the supplementary conditions of the specifications should refer to the date of the'most recent report (July 18,1988 - Revised August 11,1989). 7. Provision for contractor dewatenng has not been included in the specifications. It may be desirable to indicate that "dewatenng if necessary shall be provided by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner." 8. Sections for walls shown on page 2 of the project plans should indicate a minimum key embedment of 4 feet below the siltstone contact 9. Section A of sheet 2 is unclear as to the 2 foot minimum dimension. The 2 foot minimum should be measured from the siltstone contact to the base of the footing. It may be desirable to indicate "typical" under this dimension so that it may be implied on Sections B, C, D, and F. If you have any questions regarding our letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC Stan Helenschmidt, GE 2064 (Exp. 6/30/92) Managing Principal, San Diego Region SRH/mw Attachments: Pressure Diagrams Distribution: (1) Addressee (1) The Beach Homeowners Association Attention: Mr. David Copley -2- LEIQHTON and ASSOCIATES Engineer/Geologist Drafting By LEIQHTON and ASSOCIATES Project Date 7- Engineer/Geologist Drafting By MOFFATT&NICHOL, ENGINEERS December 5, 1991 City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad. CA 92009-4959 Attn: Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer Subj: Point San Malo Seawall CT 81-35/CP182 M&N File: 2499-01 Dear Mr. Kubbs: The proposed seawall Improvements at Point San Malo have been designed to meet standards Imposed within the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions and FEMA guidelines. The CCC permit specifically requires certification that the design of the proposed shore protection improvements be Intended to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83. The propose^Improvements under present conditions will fulfill this requirement. This should not be construed that the Improvements will eliminate all coastal hazards associated with storm waves and beach erosion. The seawall crest Is designed to an elevation of 15 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW), with a splash apron providing additional'protection to 20 feet above MLLW. The still water elevation for a recurrence Interval of 100 years 1s 7.7 feet above MLLW. The seawall provides 12.3 feet above the 100 year still water level. Thus, this meets the criteria In FEMA publications for providing 2 feet of freeboard above the 100 year water elevation. The details of the California Coastal Commission permit conditions and coastal design Information are contained 1n the permit and report provided to the City In September 1991. Additional copies nay be provided 1f required. Sincerely, MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS L-& Alan Alcorn Coastal Engineer AA/mlr 25O WEST WARDLOW ROAD • POBOX77O7 • LONG BEACH • CALIFORNIA • 9OBO7 • (213)4269551 FAX (213) 424 7469 Cost Estisates for Point San Malo Seawall 09-0ct-91 Sea Wall Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Mobilization 1 LS $11,000 HI, 00ft Excavation 4,000 CY $5 $20,000 Excavation (Hand) 150 CY $25 $3,800 Backfill 2,000 CY $10 $20,OUU Backfill (Loose) 1,000 CY $2 $2,000 Concrete (footing) 250 CY $275 $68,800 Concrete (wall) 200 CY $550 $110,000 Reinforcement 67,500 LB $0.50 $33,800 Drainage 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Armor Stone (1 ton) 1,200 Tons $35 $42,000 Underlayer (Gravel) 750 Tons $25 $18,800 Filter Cloth 525 SY $2.50 $1,300 Renove and Replace Fence 1 LS $1,000 $1, Storn Drain Protection 1 LS $4,000 $4, Total $338,500