Loading...
1993-3460 G/TE Street Address Category Serial # 3 d 4z - i CCs4tt7UIV Name Description Plan ck. # Year recdescv ' EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP "Specialists In Earth Retention Sohttions" ' November 30, 1992 o I,���Is11U� o 1 Mr Chuck Clayton FEB 241993 ' 16167 E. Whittier Blvd. Whittier, CA. 90603 ENGINEERING SERVICES ' REVISIONS: TO FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES CITY OF ENCINITAS RE. Preliminary Report, Dated September 29, 1992; Page 2 and the associated Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation ' Dated October 26, 1992; Pages 10 and 11. ' Dear Mr. Clayton: The following is to revise portions of the referenced reports. ' 1. The alternates are revised to reflect similar sea wall systems with the elimination of the proposed upper timber wall, or any upper work with the possible exception of minor landscaping. A. Alternate One: reflects a wall founded approximately 8 to 10 feet east of the original ' location, or at the base of the slope. This type of concrete wall will require a structural connection to the existing northerly wall and imported approved backfill. ' B. Alternate Two is withdrawn. ' C. Alternate Three is similar to Alternate One, with the exception of the height equal to the existing northerly wall. t D. Alternate Four is withdrawn. E. Alternate Five relates to a shotcrete (tie back ' wall), placed against the Torrey Sandstone formation to a height of approximately to 40 feet msl. The actual height is a function of the extent ' of the distress. At this date, the elevation will be on the order of 38 feet with an added portion to act as a debris wall. The upper bluff may than be ' reconstructed in such a manner as to grade the upper bluff area to its original slope. ' This design is recommended as the best and most economical solution for a permanent seawall to be constructed at your westerly (Sea Bluff) property line. 1529 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE A • SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 - (619) 471 -6351 N.C.E.E. #4170 • CA. R.C.E. #C -22096 • ARZ. R.C.E. x11971 • NEV. R.C.E. 03037 • WA. C.E. 010776 NII STRUrMIRA1 AND S0115 FNGINFFRING . GFnInGY . SURVEY . CFRTIFIFD INSPFQION . 5011 AND MATFRIAI TESTING . FFASIRIMY STUDIES . CnNTRA( MANArFAAFNT 1 To summarize, the revisions noted herein are a result of additional ' site review with representatives of the California Coastal Commission. Whereas their recommendations stressed placing the wall at the foot of the slope ( i.e. westerly limit of the ' property). The revisions (No.'s 1 and 3) also eliminates the extent of backfill required for a cast in place concrete. The shotcrete system (No.S) obviously eliminates any significant backfill requirements. ' Also be advised page 11 has been revised to reflect a minor correction, several pages are included herein for inclusion in the October 6, 1992 report. ' Sincerely, CIVI ENGINEE G CONSULTANTS QR /p Charles J. Randle, PE � 'q e, -A ' President 0 v No. C2,096 m T, ' iL 09 -30 -93 -c �f CI11.��� CC: Bob Trettin ' CR/ e 1 MYTOAFMTR I I I ?w I I I I I I j Q L I LJ W I h I I � ° x rc I I —j : ° �I I 6 I I I ~ I Q L a vo I U I L I I I I I I W I I I S �j I I I I I I I Q 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 I I I I I I I I I I I w l w I I I z I I I I z I I I I I I I z �°^. x ° I z�l I I as z l I I I o \�� -'-- I I I zzo° I I a �T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I O O co O O O O M O O O EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP ALT ERNAT E 5 1529 A Grand Avenue, San Marcos, California 92069 ' Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7572 -- - - -_ -- CL /r, ©N RESIDENCE DATE: 11 -30 -92 DWG NO.: ALTE R5.DWG /`� y� pn �c PROJECT: E0085 RE VISION: 638 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS, CA. ' Project No. E -0085 Page No. 11 ' We recommend that a pre- construction meeting be held at the subject site with all the parties involved present, including homeowner(s), design engineer, soils engineer, and contractor(s) to answer and clarify all the questions that may arise from the report prior to construction. We also ' recommend that we are contacted to answer any questions concerning the subject project. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND LIMITATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based on our ' observations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of Earth Systems Design Group. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative of this firm so that construction is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Final project drawings should also be reviewed by this office prior to construction. The recommendations contained in this report are based on our field study, laboratory tests, and our understanding of the proposed ' construction. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site which are different from those assumed in the preparation of this report, our firm should be immediately notified so that we may ' review the situation and make supplementary recommendations. In addition, if the scope of the proposed structure changes from that described in this report, our firm should also be notified. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices within the City of Encinitas area. ' Professional judgments presented herein are based partly on our evaluations of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our ' general experience in the geotechnical field. Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet current professional standards. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers ' any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP "Specialists In Earth Retention Solutions" ' GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION CLAYTON SEA BLUFF 638 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA t ' PREPARED FOR: CHUCK CLAYTON 16167 E. WHITTIER BLVD. ' WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 90603 ' OCTOBER 26, 1992 PREPARED BY: '. EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 1529 GRAND AVENUE SUITE A SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 1 1 1529 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE A • SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 • (619) 471 -6351 N.C.E.E. #4170 • CA. R.C.E. #C -22096 • ARZ. R.C.E. #11971 • NEV. R.C.E. #3037 • WA. C.E. #10776 '-n"i crui v-n io Al AKM cnu c . ( 0( . SLIRVFY . CERTIFIED INSPECTION • SOIL AND MATERIAL TES7ING • FEASIBILITY STUDIES • CONTRACT MANAGEMENT ' EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP "Specialists In Earth Retention Solutions" October 26, 1992 Mr. Chuck Clayton 16167 E. Whittier Blvd Whitier, CA 90603 ' RE: Job #EO085 SUBJECT. Geotechnical and Geological Investigation Clayton Sea Bluff, 638 Neptune Avenue ' Encinitas, CA 92024 t Dear Mr. Clayton: At your request Earth Systems Design Group has prepared a ' topographic map of your property extending from Neptune Avenue to the beach and has performed a geotechnical and geological investigation of the coastal bluff with respect to stability. Our findings and recommendations are presented herein. In summary, our observations and analysis indicates that the ' coastal bluff on your property is comprised of 2 geologic units each of which could cause a stability problem that may affect the safety and property value of your house. Additionally, these two ' units have been evaluated within the geotechnical report. If there are any questions or issues that need clarification, please feel free to contact this firm at any time in the future. 1 ' Res pectfully Submitted, T - EAR SYSTEMS DESIGN ROUE.. EARTH SYS I EMS ESIGN GROUP Charles J. Randle =% ::'•An ew Farkas MOREW President `,;= CEG #1185 v RCE #22096 :; ; CC OF CAL \ CR /am CLAY G 1529 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE A •SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 • (619) 471 -6351 N.C.E.E. #4170 CA. R.C.E. #C -22096 • ARZ. R.C.E. #11971 • NEV. R.C.E. #3037 • WA. C.E. #10776 Anon i,AATFCIAI TFSTIN( . FFASIAII RY "n lr)IFS . rnNTRACT MANAGFMFNT ' INDEX ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SCOPE 1 ' 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 2 3.1 Site Description 2 ' 3.2 Beach and Bluff Conditions 2 ' 4.0 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 3 4.1 Beach Deposits (Bd) 3 4.2 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) 3 4.3 Torrey Sandstone Formation (TO 4 4.4 Groundwater 4 ' 5.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 5 5.1 Regional Geologic Setting 5 ' 5.2 Regional and Local Faulting 5 5.3 Seismicity 6 ' 5.4 Liquefaction 6 ' 5.5 Ground Failure 6 5.6 Sea Cliff Retreat 6 ' 5.6.1 Stabilizing characteristics 7 5.6.2 Destabilizing Characteristics 7 5.7 Landsliding and Slope Stability 8 5.8 Cliff Stability and Erosion 8 5.9 Slope Stability Analysis 9 ' 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9 6.1 Conclusions 9 ' 6.2 Recommendations 9 ' 7.0 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND LIMITATIONS 1l ' APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D t ' GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION CLAYTON SEA BLUFF, 638 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 1 ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request we have performed a geotechnical and geological investigation of the sea bluff located at 638 Neptune ' Avenue in the City of Encinitas, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the hazard(s) to existing structures on top of the bluff and provide recommendations for mitigation of the hazard(s). 2.0 SCOPE ' The scope of our investigation included the following tasks: Review of the readily available published and unpublished reports and documents relative to the subject site (see References, Appendix A); Geological reconnaissance and mapping of the site and sea bluff conditions; Logging and sampling of the sea bluff face; Laboratory analysis and testing of representative ' samples; Engineering and Geologic analysis of field and ' laboratory data; Preparation of this report presenting our finding, conclusions and recommendations regarding to site 1 conditions and repair alternatives to mitigate the potential for damage to existing structures. Project No. E -0085 ' Page No. 2 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Description The site is located at 638 Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas, California, consists of a generally square, lot bounded to the east by Neptune Avenue, north and south by single family residential structures and to the west by an approximately 95 feet high steeply westerly sloping sea bluff that descents onto a randomly placed rip -rap on a sandy beach. ' A single family residential structure consisting of a two story wood frame building, is located approximately 20 to 25 feet ' from the top edge of the sea bluff. Other improvements consist of a concrete and brick driveway, brick patio and planters, jacuzzi and timber retaining system constructed on the natural bluff adjacent to the patio. The upper portion of the bluff is covered with vegetation consisting of shrubs, small trees and ice plant. ' 3.2 Beach and Bluff Conditions Some characteristic features such as jointed sandstone, seepage and sandstone blocks at the base of the bluff were observed during the investigation, that suggest an on -going erosion and bluff retreat. Additionally, erosion gullies were ' observed on the upper portion of the bluff possibly caused in part by exposure to precipitation, wind, landscape maintenance and loss of support from the lower portion of bluff. At zero ' tide, the water line of the Pacific Ocean is approximately 40 to 50 feet measured laterally from the base of the sea bluff. During periods of high tides ocean swells often impact the ' base of the bluff. This condition conducted to protect the sea bluff with a randomly placed rip -rap which acts as a wave energy dissipator. The near -shore beach environment west of the site generally consists of gently westward sloping wave- ' cut shelf of moderately to highly resistant sandstone of the Eocene -aged Torrey Sandstone. These cemented sandstones were noted to be massive, fine to medium grained, and ' competent. This unit is visible as an outcrop exposed from beneath unconsolidated sand beach deposits and extend to form a 18 to 18.5 foot high near - vertical sea cliff at the base of the bluff. This unit presents water staining and seepage ' that extend from the base of the sea bluff to the contact with the upper terrace deposits. Project No. E -0085 ' Page No. 3 Unconformably overlying the Torrey Sandstone and generally ' extending from an elevation of 22 feet to the bluff top are Quaternary -aged marine terrace deposits consisting of moderately weathered and eroded sands and sandstones. These ' materials are slightly to moderately well cemented, massive, fine to medium- grained silty sand and sandstones which are naturally weathered into slopes ranging from approximately 1z ' to 1 (horizontal to vertical), to locally almost vertical in the lower portion. The area between the wooden retaining wall and about 12 to 14 feet above the contact with the Torrey Sandstone has been protected with vegetation consisting of ' ice - plant, shrubs and scattered trees. 4.0 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS As part of our investigation. We have performed geologic mapping site reconnaissance and surface sampling on the face of the sea bluff (see Site Plan, and Cross - Section Figure 2 and 3, Sea Bluff ' Face Log Plates B -1, B -1a). The samples obtained were tested in the laboratory for Direct Shear (method ASTM: D 3080). Tests results are presented in Appendix B. Soils encountered on -site during our ' investigation consisted of soil deposits, Quaternary -aged terrace deposits and the Eocene -aged Torrey Sandstone. A brief description of each of the soils and geolegic units encountered is provided below. 4.1 Beach Deposits (Bd) ' Beach deposits were encountered overlying Torrey Sandstone materials at the base of the sea bluff. These materials consist of loosely consolidated sand and gravel - cobble deposits. These ' deposits are subject to cyclic seasonal changes in type of material and degree of slope inclination as a response to changes in wave energy during the summer calm and winter ' storm conditions. In addition, these deposits are subject to an on -going transport as a result of wave and tidal action. In the vicinity of the base of the bluff, the beach deposits are estimated to range from 3 to 5 feet in thickness. ' 4.2 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt) ' Quaternary -aged Terrace deposits are exposed in the bluff face above an approximate elevation of 22 to 22.5 feet and extend to the top of the slope. These deposits consist of ' poorly to moderately well consolidated and weakly cemented, light gray to very light brown, orange- brown, brown and gray brown silty fine to medium sands and sandstones. These sands are generally massive to thin bedded. Project No. E -0085 ' Page No. 4 No evidence that suggest, faulting, fracturing or jointing was 1 found within these deposits. 4.3 Torrey Sandstone Formation (Tt) ' The Eocene -aged Torrey Sandstone is exposed on -site underlying the terrace deposits in the lower portion of the ' sea bluff from beneath the beach deposits to an elevation of approximately 22.0 to 22.5 feet in a near - vertical to vertical cliff. This formation consists generally of well consolidated, moderately to well cemented, massive and cross - bedded gray ' to light brown, yellow brown and red brown clayey fine to medium grained sandstone with occasional thin layers of claystone and siltstone. Several fractures and joints were ' observed within this unit on the subject site. These features dip 80 to 87 degrees to the east and west and strike in a northerly direction (see Site Plan, Figure 2). These fractures ' and joints combined with water seepage and weathering influence to a large extent the instability of the bluff. The rate of retreat of the terrace deposits is controlled largely by the rate of retreat of the Torrey Sandstone. ' Noted during our site reconnaissance were two fault traces within the Torrey Sandstone, one visible above the rip -rap directly below the subject property (see Site Plan, Figure 2), and a second fault trace below the adjacent property to the south. The fault trends are to the northeast with dips of approximately 74 degrees towards the east (north side up) and ' 64 degrees towards the east (south side up) respectively. These fault traces display apparent offsets of several inches. No displacement of the overlying terrace deposits was ' observed. Our review of the available references indicate the existence ' of several fault traces within this formation in the properties to the north and south. These faults were described as occurring within a fault zone presenting an overall strike in a north - northeasterly direction, and dipping at angles of ' approximately 50 to 90 degrees to the east and west. No displacement of the overlying terrace deposits was reported. ' 4.4 Groundwater A relatively high moisture content was observed accumulated ' in the terrace deposits as perched water on the less permeable Torrey Sandstone, The origin of this water is most likely from landscape irrigation and other sources. Project No. E -0085 ' Page No. 5 In addition, the Torrey Sandstone present groundwater seepage that extend approximately from the contact with the terrace deposits to the base of the sea bluff (the approximate elevation of the base of the bluff is 3.8 to 4.0 feet) ' 5.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING ' 5.1 Re� Geologic Setting The subject site is located in the Peninsular Range Province, of Southern California. The Peninsular Range Province is ' characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges separated by subparallel fault zones. The mountain ranges are underlain by basement rocks consisting of Jurassic ' metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the Southern California Batholith. Later Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary sediments have been deposited to the west of mountain ranges. The upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary rocks flanking the western margin of the mountains are generally comprised ' of detrital marine, lagoonal and non - marine sediments consisting of sandstones, mudstones and conglomerates. These sedimentary formations are generally flat -lying or dip gently ' to the northwest at the site. The Peninsular Range Province is traversed by several major active faults. The Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults are the major tectonic features. Both are strike -slip faults with predominantly right - lateral movements. The major tectonic activity appears to be a result of right- lateral movements on faults within the San Andreas Fault system. 5.2 Regional and Local Faultiniz ' The principal seismic considerations for improvements in the subject site are surface rupture of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically- induced ground settlement. The potential for any or all of these hazards depends upon the recency of fault activity and proximity of the fault to the subject property. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered unlikely since no active faults are known to cross the site and no evidence of active faulting was noted during our investigation. Review of geologic literature indicates that minor fault features have been mapped within the Torrey Sandstone Formation north and south of the site. Also, our site reconnaissance indicates the presence of a minor fault trace within the subject site (see Site Plan, Figure, 2). Project No. E -0035 ' Page No. 6 These features represent a general fault zone that extends for ' several hundred feet towards the north from below the northern adjacent property. Attitudes on faults mapped in this zone suggest an overall strike of north - northeast and dips of ' 50 to 90 degrees to the east and west. The nearest major active faults are the off -shore extension of the Rose Canyon Fault, the Elsinore Fault, and the off -shore Coronado Banks Fault located approximately 4 to 10 miles west, 25 miles northeast and 15 to 20 southwest miles respectively. 5.3 Seismicity ' The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking following a large earthquake on one of the major ' active regional faults. The Rose Canyon Fault is the most likely to affect the site with ground shaking should an earthquake occur on the fault. A maximum probable event on ' the Rose Canyon Fault could produce a peak horizontal acceleration of less than about 0.458 at the site. With respect to this hazard the site is comparable to others in this general area in similar geologic settings. 5.4 Liquefaction ' Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion in response to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose near - saturated granular soils at depths shallower than about 100 feet are the most susceptible to ' liquefaction. It is our opinion that the on -site natural materials are not considered susceptible to liquefaction or sudden loss of soil strength. The unconsolidated beach sand ' deposits at the base of the bluff are generally susceptible to liquefaction. However, these shallow deposits (3 to 5 feet thick), are proposed to be removed in areas of repairs. t 5.5 Ground Failure Failure within the upper portion of the bluff (terrace ' deposits) is a distinct possibility should a significant earthquake occur along the Rose Canyon Fault or other active faults in the Southern California Region. ' 5.6 Sea Cliff Retreat A variety of factors may affect the rate of retreat of coastal ' sea cliffs composed of materials similar to those existing along the westerly project boundary. Project No. E -0085 ' Page No. 7 These factors include but are not limited to, the degree of ' induration of the sedimentary materials composing the sea bluff, frequency and intensity of wave and storm action, degree of orientation of fracturing, amount of uncontrolled ' drainage runoff from adjoining up -slope areas and other sources etc. Studies performed for similar bluffs and environments (Reference 1), have indicated that a conservative bluff retreat rate of 0.2 -0.3 feet per year. or 10 -15 feet in ' about 50 years may be applicable for the subject project This rate is supported by aerial photographic records. Given the poorly cemented nature of the terrace deposits, unprotected ' bluffs composed of this material may retreat relatively- faster than protected bluffs or more cemented formations. It is important to mention that bluff retreat is episodic, site- ' specific and strongly related to meteorological conditions, geologic conditions and erosional agents. Field reconnaissance of the sea bluff in the subject site suggest the following stabilizing and destabilizing characteristics in the current condition: 5.6.1 Stabilizing characteristics ' The lower 22 feet of the sea cliff is composed of ' moderately cemented and competent Torrey Sandstone materials; * The Torrey Sandstone appears jointed and ' fractured only in localized areas on the subject site; ' * Landscape and slope vegetation irrigation is localized and minimal. existing runoff from the building pads is directed away from slope areas. ' * The lower portion of the sea bluff is somewhat protected from the direct wave action with energy dissipator (rip -rap) ' 5.6.2 Destabilizing Characteristics * The number and degree of jointing and fracturing that occur in the areas presenting this condition; The strike and steep dip angle of the joints and fractures of the Torrey Sandstone; ' Project No. E -0085 Page No. 8 * Erosion and undermining of the lower portion of ' the Torrey Sandstone by wave action, water seepage and weathering creating an unstable condition of the areas presenting jointing and t fracturing. Failure of these materials could create a hazard condition to the beach -going public below and possibly result in loss or undermining of foundational soils from beneath the up -slope ' structures. * The Torrey Sandstone typically fails in the form ' of large blocks that separate from the near - vertical cliff often leaving the overlying poorly cemented and poorly consolidated terrace deposits with no down -slope support thus creating a landslide condition and a hazard to the public down below and to the up -slope structures; * The inadequacy of erosion protection either natural or artificial of the exposed portion of the sea bluff subject to weathering from the ' environment such climatic changes, rain runoff, water seepage, animal burrowing and from human activity such as up -slope landscape watering, non- planned construction, thus eroding and /or weakening the natural condition of the materials on the face of the sea bluff. 5.7 Landslidin�- and Slope Stability Based on our review of pertinent documents and our site reconnaissance there are no indications of deep seated landsliding on or adjacent to the subject site. However, several shallow slope failures are known to have occurred ' previously within the upper portion of the bluff. Studies performed by others (Reference 2), suggest that similar conditions were present on the nearby property to the south of the subject site at the time of their investigation. Our site ' observation, reconnaissance and present evidence of failures within the upper portion of the sea bluff in the subject site, suggest that these failures are related largely to loss of support caused by failures within the Torrey Sandstone. 5.8 Cliff Stability and Erosion Future sea bluff retreat at the subject site with the present conditions will largely depend on the rate of retreat of the Torrey Sandstone. t t Project No. E -0085 Page No. 9 It is our opinion that the erosion of the base of the sea cliff caused by wave action, water seepage, weathering and human activity, creates a constantly growing potential for slope instability. The potential for erosion and slope instability is ' considered high. 5.9 Slope Stability Analysis ' A slope stability analysis was performed on a typical section using test results from relatively undisturbed samples obtained on the face of the bluff (see Appendix B and Slope Stability Analysis, Appendix D). The analysis was performed using the STBL4 program, based on the simplified Janbu Method of Slices assuming a rotational type failure. The program calculates 100 potential failure surfaces using 10 origination and 10 termination points at the base and top of the section calculated respectively. The analysis shows a critical value of factor of safety ranging from 1.051 to 1.087 (see Slope Stability Analysis, Appendix D), which indicates that the slope is marginally stable and unless some method of stabilization is provided, continued erosion, weathering, ' fracturing and /or jointing may result in slope failure. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' 6.1 Conclusions Based on our investigation, it is our professional opinion that ' the slope failures occurred in the lower and upper portions of the sea bluff, present a continuing demonstrable hazard to the up -slope existing residential structure and improvements as ' well as to the beach -going public below. We therefore conclude that protection of the lower portion of the sea bluff and repair /protection of the upper portion will be required to reduce the sea bluff retreat as well as to mitigate the hazard that the present condition constitutes to the up -slope structures and the beach -going public. ' The initiating cause for the present state of slope condition, was in our opinion, the localized failures of the Torrey Sandstone caused by the conditions discussed previously. 6.2 Recommendations Based upon our investigation, we recommend that repairs to the subject bluff be performed immediately. It is our opinion that the base of the bluff requires protection to reduce additional erosion and loss of support to the bluff and soils above. Project No. E -0085 Page No. 10 We also consider that the existing vegetation is not sufficient to protect against surface failure. The following represent alternates to protect the base of the ' bluff, the upper portion of the bluff would be protected in the future if remedial work is deemed necessary. It is our opinion that the existing upper wall may not be adequate to ' protect the up slope residential structure and improvements from the hazards of a slope failure or to meet the requirements of some of our alternatives presented below. ' Alternative 1. Consists of a 30 foot high shotcrete seawall in line with the wall to the north. Backfill with drains would be placed behind the wall. The ' upper wall would be designed now, and constructed as soon as practical (See Figure 4). Alternative 2. Consists of a 20 foot high timber wall with a ' concrete energy absorber to elevation 7. Backfill and upper walls would be as in alternative 1. As a future alternative this system could be ' constructed with shotcrete (See Figure 5). Alternative 3. Consists of a 37 foot high concrete wall matching ' the abutting wall to the north. This higher wall would preclude the necessity for a future upper wall, as the slope above the wall will adequately serve to support the upper bluff (See Figure 6). Alternative 4. Consists of a timber wall 18 foot high. These vertical timbers would be set into a 5' deep ' concrete trench and wave energy would be dissipated with rip -rap 8 foot high in front of the wall (See Figure 7). ' In our opinion alternative 3 would provide the best protection to the bluff at the subject site and it is the most appropriate design to match the existing neighboring structure. In addition, we consider that a well planned construction schedule is not likely to affect the stability of the adjacent properties. If construction is to be performed we recommend ' that the contractor provide this office with a work plan prior to the construction initiation for our review and approval. ' Project No. E -0085 Page No. 11 ' We recommend that a re- construction meeting be held at the P g' ' subject site with all the parties involved present, including homeowner(s), design engineer, soils engineer, and contractor(s) to answer and clarify all the questions that may arise from the report prior to construction. We also ' recommend that we are contacted to answer any questions concerning the subject project. ' 7.0 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND LIMITATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based on our ' observations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of Earth Systems Design Group. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative t ' of this firm so that construction is performed in accordance with the j recommendations of this report. Final project drawings should also be reviewed by this office prior to construction. ' The recommendations contained in this report are based on our field study, laboratory tests, and our understanding of the proposed t construction. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site which are different from those assumed in the preparation of this report, our firm should be immediately notified so that we may ' review the situation and make supplementary recommendations. In addition, if the scope of the proposed structure changes from that described in this report, our firm should also be notified. This ' report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices within the City of Encinitas area. ' Professional judgments presented herein are based partly on our evaluations of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our ' general experience in the geotechnical field. Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet current professional standards. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers ' any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. 1 APPENDIX A ' REFERENCES 1. Artim, E.R., 1985, "Erosion and Retreat of Sea Cliffs, San Diego ' County ", published research excerpt from California's Battered Coast, Proceedings from a Conference on Coastal Erosion, San Diego, California ", edited by Jim Mcgrath, dated September, 1955. "Preliminary Geotechnical Excavation, Bradley Residence, Lot Adjacent to 560 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California ", prepared by Buchanan - Rahilly, Inc., dated October 27, 1986 3. "Geotechnical and Geological Study, Bradley Property 560 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California ", prepared by Owen ' Consultants, dated June 30, 1989. 4. Eisenberg, L.I., 198 "Pleistocene Marine Terrace and Eocene Geology, Encinitas, and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles, San Diego County, California ", Master of Science Thesis, SDSU, dated September 20, 1983. ' 5. Weber, F.H., 1982, "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and related Geology of the North - Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California ", CDMG Open File Report 82 -12 LA, dated ' July 1, 198?. 6. Abbot, P.L., (Editor) 1985, "On the Manner of Deposition of the ' Eocene Strata in the Northern San Diego County, California, ", San Diego Association of Geologists Publication, dated April 13, 1985. ' 7. Tan, S.S., 1986, "Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California ", California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report. Kuhn, G.G. and F.P. Shepard, 1983, "Coastal Erosion in San Diego County, California ", in Guidebook to Selected Geologic Features, ' Coastal Area of Southern San Diego County, SDAG /AEG October, 1983, G.T. Farrand Editor. 9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984, Shore Protection Manual, ' Volumens I and II. 10. Kuhn, G.G. and F.P. Shepard, 1984, "Sea Cliffs, Beaches and Coastal Valleys of San Diego, California ", Univ. Calif. Press. t 11. Kern, K.R., 1983, Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego:, Pickle ' Press, San Diego California. 12. Ziony, J.I., Wentworth, C.M., Buchanan - Banks, J.M. and H.C. Wagner, 1974, "Preliminary Map Showing Recency of Faulting in Coastal Southern California ", U.S. Geological Survey Map MAI - 585, Scale: 1:250,000. 13. "County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheet 326 - 1677, scale: 1 inch equals 200 feet, dated September 17, 1975 ". 14. "Earth Systems Design Topographic Survey, scale: 1 inch equals 40 feet, dated June 1992 ". 15. "Earth Systems Design Group aerial photographs scale 1 inch equals 300' flown June 8, 1992 ". 16. "Gootechnical and Geologic Investigation Neptune II Project, 470 through 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California ", ' prepared by Earth Systems Design Group, November, 1992. _ I SUNRICI 400 GC 3TCUS NI N� LN (n 2 a r: u r Q �• y 3 }UPS 0 SS o s vo 2 � r N - PO r" i z OWN PSD D 1'. O 1 S 1 91 0 in 3 f3RITATA Z NY ono / OP -1 -p IIy� o C DIA _ $ ✓q co �N m 0 0 :. �o O S GP C S Q D ':Y C E CA PK a L�UCADIA v o o BLVD r i - C s Du J!1 C � S� Mr'D Pr Do 2 D rn O m S 1 �- l g 0 0 0 r 15 01 /_ Z p D i m LAI, < ° o 1 DPP 1•.0 o��t CF`14O I (n cr s < 2 EZEE ST St ` �T CS NION a STI UNION EN ` 1 CINITAS BEAC W o 700 COUNTY PARK r — UNION ;�i• z H LCYON y 4T ST /\ :•Z RD J Q t G S y v O Q 4 ALVISO I ((1 a - 5 y W.. SEASIDE A 5 I.. 9 o ACA O 1 COUNT PARK v �j , Z- �P L P � C N� ••�` S vL ➢� < C� I� y � QUAIL li0TA1 M P FLORI -\P I� z 'WL ITA S' ► !� a 200 $T �� •..° � o Ocr =I A y o o� I oc o o - oc cc a I J �L B ST. t q��a S9 EN C) v 0 .' :` :;: 1q° l —.VI T T C::. ST ° i; ;,� c� qS m ooNLIGH 1 SATE BEACH •? ' o ` +�-!ko ST Q �o n ° F5 . _ 1� ���OT —� v 1 F 1 1529 A Crond Avonue Son Marcos, CoIiforniq 92069 - (619) 471-7572 N—A II 0 ON RESIDENCE 0 A1E: 10- -07 - 0wc Nn r,3YPrr r�wc 638 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS, CA. PROJECT: F0085 REVISION. G� o v? 3nN3Ae 3N 1 t 00 a n1d3N \ \ I \ J I / X 00 ao x I 2 0 I I (� — a o it gp_ x co r 1 1 1 1 I I I I I IIII \ I- I _ L �� I 1 I I F- - -- I I o � I a Q I I 1 III )oC I L— i I LL I I, <o d w� oN I r I I = ° l r — m III ) Co J L � — J I !n � I o I n J I I Wa I —� - - ( I 1`I j I I11 IIII LLJ 1 ^ I r -- l — _ -- V L. / LLJ Li > I cn 0 0 �r lg 31 I� CY a l g O Z O I U O W Ll Z W Cr T W o U o z o bH... z o rz D fl- F W W g � � � a � � _ J ¢ <C J V 7 O Q (b l!1 b° / J d Q d & I SCAt& H 3 I FIG. 2 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CROUP SITE PLAN 1529 A Grand Avenue, Son Marcos, California 92069 Phone ( 619) 471-6351 Fax (619) 471-7572 — CLAY RESIDENCE ESI©([�I� IICE DATE: 10 -07 -92 DWG. NO.. 638REP.DWG � u tl � A 638 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS, CA. PROJECT: E0085 REVISION: 1 z f- I I I I I I I I I rr I I I I I I I I I ' W U Z I I I I I I I I I I I V) D W W I I I I I I I I I I f 1 I I I I I I I 1 0 0 O Z cn w3:: I I I I I I I I I I I cf)Z QW� (/7 U (n Q O ?- 0_ u z i I I I I I I I I I I a- W of Q O I I I I I I I I I I Wa�Wf — W I I I I I i I I I a I I � oml -zc�I- O O Q Q I I I I I I I I I I Z pF— >- U11 U I I I I I I I I I Q I I I I I I I I I I I z l 1 Q�QULJ� WTI I I I i I I I I O I I W Q0YU W �_ �W00' -1 1 I I I I I I I I W C). I UF— F— JW 1 W W I O L�J Q Q ml-- OCD�3 ' II II II II 11 II 1 I I J I I I I I I 1 0 1 I 1 � ��� Lc) Z1 P d C, 1 cn c1 I I i I IN I I u) I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 p1 H I I I I I I 1 � I I I sal I I I I IV) I I I �1 gal I I I I I I I I � • I I I I I I xo I I I I I I C I I I I I 1 I I I I I g l I - I I I I I I I I i E "I II m a I I 1 I I I I I 1 WTI � I I I I i I I I I I i I a I I I I 1 I I t I I I W I I I t I I I t I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o 0 0 a ao m �n n ' FIG. 3 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CROUP GROSS SECTION 1529 A Grand Avenue, San Marcos, Cali fornio 92069 ' Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7572 CLAYTON RjESIDENCE DATE: 10 -07 -92 DWG. NO.: 638REP.DWG RESIDENCE PROJECT: E0085 REVISION: 638 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS, CA. I i I I I I I I I I ?w l I I I I I I I I -Z LLJ I X° z < I 0-i I Q I I I r I I I I I I W �� I I IZ I 1 I I I I > >� I I w Im wI I I I I I 1 �0p.° I I I i� I I i I I I z w N I N IA I I I I I I LJ >- I I I 1 I I I w 5 U I I— ~ Z I I ) I I I I I I J 0 I Q I I i I I I I I I I I z I I I I I o I I I I I u lz p N I I I I I I I I zz D I I I I I I I I�� un I I I I I I I \♦ I t o I I V� I a. I N S NU I a I I I I I I I I I x wz" I I I I I 0" I I \ I I I I I I I I F r °o° a. I I I I I I I I l 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 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I 1 I I I I I I W I I I I I I I I I I I Ka I I I I I I I I I I I I Z¢ I I I I I I I I I I I ein I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0) 00 t\ (0 U ' SIG. 4 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CROUP ALTE 1529 A Grand Avenue, San Marcos, Cc' lH ornio 92069 Phone (619) 47i -6.151 Fax (619) 471 -7572 CL g\ �j ON RESIDENCE DATE: 10 -09 -92 DWG. NO ALTERN.DWG G� 0 U L�L���I PROJECT: E0085 REVISION: 638 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS, CA. I I I I I I 1 1 I I �r I I I I I I I I I I V I I I I I I I I I O I IJ �� I I 31 I I I I I I LJJ 3 I I I $I I I I I I i >° I IM � 0 I I I (m 931 { I I I I I f Q rJl I Q I I 0 I I I I I 1 z W d n' I I` I I I I I I I O' m w I w S Ln 1 1 I I I I I I I I J I Q I I I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I 1 Q I I I R I I I I I I I rc I I� I I n I I I I 1 I I I I I I a I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I o f I I I t o I I I U I 0 1 txzR� I I I I I LO I I I I I o�WK I I n I I I I I I I I I I .1 °oo I I I I I IJ1Z2 I I 1 I I �� I I I I I I Li 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I — f — I I I I I I I I I I I LI I I I I I I I I I I V I I I I I I 1 I I l a .�3 1 a I I I I I I I I I I I I `-' v- 0 p Q O O Q Q O O U p S? rn ao n (o rn -t r-) rlI FIG. 5 FAR77-1 srs7•r415 DESIGN CROUP ALTERNATIVE 2 15. A Crand Avenue. Son Mor COS. Cal l for nio 92069 ('han (f 19) A71 fi351 far (f 191 471 1 X17 - ' - — NC DA1L. 1 90 09 -' OW('. NO AI T( RH DW( -- _ -- _ -- - - - - -- -- - -- 638 (NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS, CA. f'1 O if C r. F0085 RE V19ON I I I I I I I I 1 W I xw I I I I I I Z Q I w w I �•� I I I I I I F— � I O I I I I I I I I I w w I I I I I I I I I I I >0� I I W I a. w I w Z I I I I W3 I I I I I I I � I v I I I o I I I I I I I I I I z I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I z I I I I I I I I I I I w 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z � I W I I I I I I I I I i I o I N I I I I I I I o f t I z� I N I I y OBI I I I I I N I I, I ^D t o I I a vml I 1 I °ol I I I I I I I I I I wZl I I I I I I Xzzoa I I I I I ` I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I I I z� 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 00 O O O O O O O O O O ' O) 00 I- (O (fl r) N FIG. 6 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CROUP �� �������� 1529 A Grand Avenue, San Marcos, Californio 92069 ' Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7572 - -- p CL p1 /�„ RESIDENCE DATE: 10 -09 -92 DWG. NO.: ALTERN.DWG L � u U ®n n �f u V I PROJEC EoosS REV1sION 638 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS, CA. �w I I i t I I I I 1 Q I : i 0 I I I I I I I I I lL J I I I QI I I I I I W O I I� I I I I 1 > J ° i I w wD �pw." I I I� °I I I I I I I m w I /I I I N J I I I I I I I Z w 1Z m I I I I I I I I I I L�J � Q I I i I I I I I I I I F ~ m I 1 I I I I I J I I I I I I I Q d I I I \ I I I w I I I I I I I I I \ I 1 I I I l t o I I I z I I I I I Q ( 1:3 l I o wv�� I w l z x� I I I I I zft: W� I I I I I vFOxo I I I I 15 z0 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I l 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I i I Nl I I I I I I I I I I azl I� I I I I I I I I I w�I Iwz I I 1 I I I I I I I t o 0 I I I I I I I I I la< I I I I I I i I I I lam I ' ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° rn c r LO u ' FIG. 7 EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP ALTERNATIVE 4 1529 A Grand Avenue, San Marcos, California 92069 (�� ' Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7572 _ CLA YTON RESIDENCE DATE: 10 -09 -92 DWG. NO.: ALTERN.DWG PROJECT: E0085 REVISION: 638 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS. CA. � , TT ' 1'S7'EA1 DESIGN GROUP EAR �� Cal�forn�a 92069 (,rnncl Avenue, Scan Marcos, Phc,nc i %19> 471 -6351 (-cix ((,19) 471 - 7572 1;1_ tJ 1: -' _H' F A C. - t .1-C --IN Unll: I_I13>1_RVI_0 1- -18 =92 P1Cll II.U) UI" DRILLING NA f_I_[ I_[ 97.5 — WOIRI< ORDER NO. F -0085 - 61 ry 1 � »cscrIJD rlr_IN A ND RE I 5- CI 11 Cn J IV. -• m ii m 1.1 7 _ 1 0 0 - ±10 ft. TIMBER RETAINING WALL 5 .. ' @ 10.0 ft. QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt.): l0 light brown to tan and reddish brown SM silty sand, fine to medium grained, ' moist, medium dense with thin layers 15- of reddish brown silty sandstone cemented in iron oxide, moderately ' -- - to well indurated, massive to thin bedded. 25 ' @ 20.0 ft. Becomes slightly silty sand,damp to 30 moist, friable, poorly indurated. - 35_ ' @ 38.0 ft. Becomes light brown to tan sand,fin -40 -- to medium grained, loose. - 50— - - - -- -- PLATE B -1 EARTH STSTEMS DESIGN GROUP 15p9 A Grand Avenue, Son Marcos, California 92069 Phone (619) 471-6351 Fox (619) 471-7572 S JLA-; A 1 1_ U I'Y 1- 'A C - U - I-"- Ca L 1-113S1YV1- "- 1111 Ul DRILLING NA LUGGED 1: f WORK ORDER NO. E-0089 m r1 ry IRE M AIR K S DF-SCRIP - r1F—IN AND i t n. it L I I "I n @ 60.0 ft. Thin layers of dark gray to black —1to ---- sand. 65 @ 73.0 ft. Becomes red brown to light brown slightly silty sand, fine to coarse grained, friable, poorly indurated, -70-- very moist. -75 @ 74.0 ft. Becomes very moist to wet. ' ___ SM TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt): Light gray to light gray brown, slightly clayey silty sand, fine to medium grained, very wet to saturated, very dense, moderately 85 -_ well to well indurated, massive, water seeps, joints and fractures --- striking in a northerly direction, with dips of 80 to 84 degrees towards the west. The surface is SM covered with algae type organics. J @ 93.5 ft. BEACH SAND DEPOSITS: Gray brown to dark gray brown sand, fine to meditts ' -- - grained, wet, moderately dense, unconsolidated. 1 ' - - -- @ 94.0 ft. END OF LOG. PLATE EA1 S S EAJS DESIGN GROUP 1529 A r 1 ro[)d Avenue, San Marcos, Californio 92069 471 Fax (619) 471-7572 ' 4.n 5.0 v 3.0 LJ In 0 Ln -,n 3.11 4.0 5.0 6.0 NUPMAL PRESURE (1 SAMPI-F 11KA1111H CI-1111 (psF) FRICTION REMARKS ANGLE S-4 @ 78' 1600 psF 45.5' x S-5 @ 87' 1075 psF 40.5 A ppnjf,( f NI'l. E-0085 Clayton Residence I�'1� 1 %'II , ` } -� " �'L'II�I � ' ILL ,� IGN GROUP n�,, (i,ll( nr nla 9.2 Ho ( 'J, I'), - -- - - -- -- - - -- - -- ' 4.0 5.0 6.0 r.IIlhMnl- I`f- 'f.SIJk'E ! "I'SI '; i r11t111 -A111 1 11(.f I II II I (,I II II - SIUhI ((� .(�i ANG(E (" i ' T3 - S1 @ 10' 0 34.5° 0 and S2 @ 20' I ' I x S3 @ 42' 500 21.5" A - - -- -- --- - - - - -- -- rr l Ill, i i u I. E0085 I Clayton Res idence APPENDIX C ' GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL -The-'se guidelines present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork including preparation of areas to be ' filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are a part of the earthwork and grading ' specifications and should supersede the provisions contained herein in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. II. EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING ' Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechinical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. The consultant is to provide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the wort: was ' accomplished as specified. It should be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that the consultant may ' schedule his personnel accordingly. The contractor is to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes ' or agency ordinances, these_ specifications, and the approved grading plans. If. in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions are resulting in a quality of work ' Less than required in these specifications, the consultant may re,Ject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. ' Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method ASTM: D 1557 -78. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 1. C learing and GrubbinK All brush, vegetation, and debris should be removed and otherwise disposed of. Processinz The existing ground which is evaluated to be satisfactory for support of fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not ' satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the 1 ' following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or ' clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. ' 3. Overexcavation Soft, dry, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground, approved by the consultant. 4. Moisture Conditioning Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried -back, blended, and /or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near ' optimum. 5. Recompaction Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture - conditioned should ' be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. ' G. Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground should be benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, and at least 2 feet deep, expose ' firm material, and be approved by the consultant. Other benches should be excavated in firm material for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be ' benched or otherwise overexcavated when considered necessary by the consultant. ' 7. Ap rov : All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe -of -fill benches should be approved by the consultant prior to fill placement. ' IV. FILL, MATERIAL, 1. General Material to be placed as fill should be free of ' organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be approved by the consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed in areas designated by the consultant or mixed ' with other soil: until :suitable to serve as satisfactory fill material. Oversize Oversize material defined as rock, or other Irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fill, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed ' within 1.0 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the consultant. ' 3. Import If importing of fill material is necessary for grading, the import material should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. V. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ' 1. Fill Lifts Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near- horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The ' consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and should ' be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. Fill Moisture Fill layers alL a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or blended with drier ' material. Moisture- conditioning and mixing of fill layers should continue until the fill material is at a uniform moisture content at or near optimum. Compaction of Fill After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture - conditioned, and mixed, it should be ' uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently ' achieve the specified degree of compaction. 4. Fill Slopes Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, In addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the ' completion of grating, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent. ' G. Compaction TestinZ Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests ' should be at the consultant's discretion. In general, the tests should be taken at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and /or 1,000 cubic yards of embankment. ' VI. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain systems, if required, should be installed in approved ground to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or as shown herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade, or material. All subdrains should be surveyed for line and grade after installation and sufficient time allowed for the ' surveys, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. VII. EXCAVATIO Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading. I£ directed by the consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, ' and /or remedial grading of cut slopes performed. Where fill - over -cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be made and approved by the consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of ' the fill portion of the slope. 1 1 Q) 1n c c: O 0 _ ° a 0 ' r -- r -- �� - - � -- I --- I - - - I — — I--- I - -1 - -1 cv a) v) r - -r- �I--- I--- I--- I--- I--- I-- ry-- -I - --1 0 u o >, U I I II I I I I I I I I 0 0-c r - -�- I------ I--- I--- I - - -I -- 7 - -, -- m O L F- U 3 0 a W c L { - - -I-- .r-------- I--- I- - -I - -I I - - - -� W a 0".� 0 I - HIV I I I I I I I° 0 0 0 -- -- -- - c�v �rar - -I- I- I- I - - -I -- - - -�_ 0 N cy z I� Flo �� I I I I I I I O U (n o I xN -, ar To fr- -1 - -- I- I --- I - - - -- -- - --12 t 0 o -r1 - r- - -� -- I Qa- I -- - - -r �?l Ln I w I d I OF I- I I, - I_ _ I - _ I_ _ e l O C I O r7 f. I I I _i_ LLI n u p - ' I I 74I I� I I I - II G' '6 I O J ---- I --- - - - - 0 cn In �I y I I I 0 N -- I_-- I - -_I -- _I __I-- II -- to H => I I -1 I I I I to I I I rn Ln po I I I I ° I I I I I-- I "? ` j 11 a 1 1- _TI_� -1 ��_� _Jo I I I I I I 1- I I X v l I Y 00 1 ' I- J ° O I I I I I I I N I N I I I I I I 1 I 61 I I O O L - L- - I- - - I--------- I- - -I --� J - -J- I I I I I I I I I I I -- I--- I--- I--- I--- I--- I--- I - --I- --ate- a ° W I I I I I I I 1 1 X 1 O I I I I I I I I I I w I U WO - - L-- L-- I--- I--- I --- I --- I - -J - --i - o U ° 0' W 01. W Q (n LL ' EARTH SYSTEMS DESIGN GROUP I 1529 A Gr and Avenue, San Mar cos, Co I i f or n i o 92069 �� ®�� ���pp�((I U�1 ���u 0 ' ������ ' Phone (619) 471 -6351 Fax (619) 471 -7572 CL A C 9 ®NV ESDENCE DATE: 11 -20 -92 DWG. NO.: D638REP.DWG PROJECT: E0085 REVISION: 638 NEPTUNE AVE. ENCINITAS, CA. 1 PROF IL CLAY2 638NEPTUNF LQWE-R--M-lJF-E---E-R.ODED -4' -- AND --- SMALI-' -- �sL-TDE --- PFT.-RRE - AK - OF-- - SLOPE ,, 7 6 49. 23. 47. 38. 2 47. 38. 70. 57.5 2 70. 57.5 102. 81, 2 102. 81. 126. 98. 1 126. 98. 140. 98. 1 140. 98. 200. 98. 1 FS 102. 81, 200. 81. 2 SOIL 2 113,1 113"1 0* 34*5 0, 0" 1 105. 105. SOO. 21.5 0., 0. 2 EQUAKE .0 .0 .0 CIRCLE 10 10 42. 47. 135. 165. 2. 14. 30. 0. PROFIL. C LA Y 2 638NEPTUNF CLAYTON 7 6 42. 23,. 47. 38. 2 47. 38. 70. 57.5 2 70. 57.5 1012'. 81. 2 102. 81. 126. 98, 1 126. 98. 140. 98. 1 140. 98. 200, 98, 1 102. 81. 200. 81. 2 SOIL 2 113.1 113.1 0, 34.5 0. 0. 1 105. 105. 500. 21.5 0. 0. 2 EQUAKE .0 .0 .0 CIRCLE 10 10 42 " 47, 135, 165 ,, 2 , 14 " 30 , 0 " Design Professionals Management Systems Kirkland. Washington -------------------- STABL-4 -- Slope - Stability ---------------------- IBM PC & 8086/8088 MS-DOS Version Revision 4.1 - 03/03/86 ' * �** �*: K�c���c* �c�c�c: k*: k*= k: K* � * *�c * *�c�� *= k�c� *= k= K� *� * * * *�c* SLOPE STABILTTY ANALYSIS-- SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD OF SLICES OR SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PROBLEM DESCRIPTION CLAY2 638NEPTUNE CLAYTON 8()UNDARY COC-IRDTNATE!:�, 6 TOP BOUNDARIES 7 TOTAL BOUNDARIES BOUNDARY X-LEFT Y-LEFT X-RIGHT Y-RIGHT SOIL TYPE NO. (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) BELOW BND 1 42.00 23.00 47.00 38.00 2 2 47.00 38.00 70.00 57.50 2 3 70.00 57.50 102.00 81.00 2 4 102.00 81.00 126.00 98.00 1 5 126.00 98.00 140.00 98.00 1 6 140.00 98.00 200.00 98.00 1 7 102.00 81.00 200.00 81.00 2 ' ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 TYPE(S) OF SOIL, SOIL TOTAL SATURATED COHESION FRICTION PORE PRESSURE PIE: ' OMETRIC TYPE UNIT WT. UNIT WT. INTERCEPT ANGLE PRESSURE CONSTANT St RFACE NO . ( PCF ) ( PCF ) ( PSF ) (DEG) PARAMETER ( PSF ) ' N0. 1 113.1 113.1 0.0 34.5 0.00 0.0 ' 1 2 105.0 105.0 500.0 21.5 0.00 0.0 2 A HORIZONTAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT OFO.000 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED A VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE LOADING COEFFICIENT ' OFO.000 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED CAVITATION PRESSURE = 0.0 PSF ' A CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD, USING A RANDOM TECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING CIRCULAR SURFACES, HAS BEEN SPECIFIED. 100 TRIAL SURFACES HAVE BEEN GENERATED. ' 10 SURFACES INITIATE FROM EACH OF 10 POINTS EQUALLY SPACED ALONG THE GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN X = 42.00 FT. AND X = 47.00 FT. EACH SURFACE TERMINATES BETWEEN X = 135.00 FT. AND X = 165.00 FT. 1 UNLESS FURTHER LIMITATIONS WERE IMPOSED, THE MINIMUM ELEVATION AT WHICH A SURFACE EXTENDS IS Y = 2.00 FT. 14.00 FT. LINE SEGMENTS DEFINE EACH TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE. RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE ANGLE OF INITIATION. ' THE ANGLE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED BETWEEN THE ANGLES OF 0.0 AND 30.0 DEC 1 1 ' FOLLOWING ARE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIAL FAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICAL t FIRST. * * * SAFETY FACTORS ARE CALCULATED BY THE MODIFIED JANBU METHOD FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 11 COORDINATE POINTS ' POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) ( FT ) ' 1 42.56 24.67 2 56.45 26.42 3 70.05 2.9.75 ' 4 83.18 34.59 5 95.68 40.90 6 107.38 48.59 7 118.13 57.56 8 127.79 67.69 9 136.23 78.86 10 143.36 90.91 ' 1.1 146.52 98.00 *:k* 1.020 * ** ' FAILl1RE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 12 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF N0. (FT) (FT) 1 42.00 23.00 2 55.83 25.20 3 69.38 28.69 4 82.55 3? .46 5 95.20 - 39.45 1 P-1 107.2 4 K; 61 7 1.18.52 54.87 ' 8 1.28 .98 6zi .20 9 138.51 74.46 10 147.02 85.57 11. 154.44 97.44 ' 1? 154.71 98.00 1.028 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 11 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF Y-SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 42.56 24.67 2 56.49 26.05 3 70.17 29.02 4 83.43 33.52 5 96.08 39.51 6 107.97 46.90 7 118.94 55.60 8 128.85 65.49 9 137.56 76.45 10 144.97 88.33 11 149.56 98.00 '* 1.031 *** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 12 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X-SURF Y-SURF No. (FT) (FT) 1 42.00 23.00 2 55.89 24.77 69.54 27.90 4 82.81 '32.34 5 95.59 39.06 6 107.74 45.01 7 11.9.16 53.11 8 129.73 62.29 139.35 72.47 10 147.92 83.53 11 155.38 95.38 12 156.68 98.00 ' * ** 1.038 FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 10 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF M0. (FT) (FT) ' 1 43.67 28.00 2 57.56 29.70 ' 3 71.12 33.19 4 84.11 38.41. 5 96.32 45.27 ' 6 107.53 53.65 7 117.56 63.42 8 126.23 74.41 k? 133.41 86.43 ' 10 138.41 98.00 ' *:* 1.042 * ** ' FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 12 COORDINATE POINTS ' POINT X --SURF Y -SURF N0. (FT) (FT) 1 42.00 23.00 55.85 25.04 3 69.45 28.35 4 82.70 32.89 5 95..47 38.63 6 107.65 45.52 7 119.16 53.50 ' 8 12' .88 6 .50 9 139.73 72 .46 1. 0 148 .62 8 ..27 ' 1. l ".1.56 .48 94,85 1.2 158.21 98.00 ' * ** 1.043 * ** 1 1 FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 11 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF ' NO . (FT) (FT) 1 42.00 23.00 ?_. S5.30 27.38 ' 3 68.31 32.55 4 80.98 38.50 5 93.28 45.18 ' 6 105.1.6 52.60 7 116.57 60.71 8 127.48 69.49 9 1.37.84 78.90 10 147.61 88.92 11 155.47 98.00 ' 1.045 * ** FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 11 COORDINATE POINTS POINT X -SURF Y -SURF NO. (FT) (FT) 1 43.67 28.00 2 57.66 28.26 ' 3 71.46 30.64 4 84.73 35.09 5 97.18 41.51 6 108.50 49.75 ' 7 118.43 59.61 8 1.26.75 70.87 9 133.26 83.26 ' 10 137.81 96.50 11 138.08 98.00 1..050 1 1 FAILURE SURFACE SPECIFIED BY 10 COORDINATE POINTS - POINT X-SURF Y-SURF NO (FT) (FT) w� 1 43'11 26'33 2 56'46 30.57 3 69'38 35'96 4 81'78 42'45 5 99'57 50.01 6 104'65 58.56 N� 7 114'94 68.05 8 124.37 78'40 9 132'95 89.54 N� lO 138.19 98.00 1'052 *** -- N� FAILURE SURFACE SPE[TFIED BY 11 COORDINATE POINTS N� POINT X-SURF Y-VURF N0' ( FT ) (FT) 1 43'67 28'00 N� 2 S7.67 28.23 3 71'48 30.47 4 84'83 34.69 N� 5 97.44 40'79 6 109'03 48.64 7 119'36 58'08 8 128'23 68.92 N� g 135.44 80.92 10 140.84 93'84 11 141.91 98'00 1.054 Y A X I S F T 0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125'00 X O'OO +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ _ �� _ 25.00 - A 50.00 + - .27. 31.5.. \ - 7.. - .2159...... X 75.00 + ..... - 7 - .21.5.x 7 9. - .41.85....... ' I 100.00 + 7 9 - ..4185.. ' M . 2175.9... .430....... S 125.00 + .......8.59'. 4217... L8 59 - .42_31. - 6..x...1.0' 150.00 + ..!4.... - .....4� _ ...64 t F 175.00 - ' T 200.00 + ------------------------------------------- Execution comr.Dlete, time = 22.95 seconds -------------------------------------------