1998-5778 G Street Address
--- — _- -- Serial erial #
Name Description
Plan ck. # Year
S G C South /and Geotechnica/ consultants
1
1
1
1
' GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
OF COASTAL BLUFF PROPERTY
PROPOSED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE
1320 NEPTUNE AVENUE
LEUCADIA AREA OF
' ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
t
Project No. 147A32 --
January 16, 1998
Prepared for:
' Adams Design Associates
' 829 -B Second Street
Encinitas, California 92024
• 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 •
!6191442 -8022 • FAX(619)442-7859
1
SGC South /and Geotechnical Consultants
1
January 16, 1998 Project No. 147A32
' To: Adams Design Associates, Inc.
829 -B 2nd Street
Encinitas, California 92024
' Attention: Mr. Andy Wilt
' Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation of Coastal Bluff Property, Proposed Single - Family
Residence, 1320 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia Area of Encinitas, California
' Introduction
_.' In accordance with your, request, Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed
a geotechnical evaluation.of the subject coastal bluff property. We understand that
a single - family residence is planned at the property. This report presents a summary
t of our field and research studies and our conclusions and recommendations, from a
geotechnical standpoint, relative to the proposed development.
Purpose and Scope
' This report presents .the results of our geotechnical evaluation of the coastal bluff
property located at, 1 -320 Neptune Avenue in the Leucadia area of Encinitas. The
purpose of our study. was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the coastal bluff
property and provide recommendations relative to the proposed construction. The
scope of our geotechnical evaluation included the following:
- Review of aerial photographs, geologic /topographic maps, and geologic
literature pertaining to the site and vicinity. A list of the items reviewed is
t presented in Appendix A.
- Geologic reconnaissance to observe the existing site conditions including the
coastal bluff and general vicinity.
- Preparation of a tape and compass profile of the bluff face.
' - Investigation of the subsurface soil conditions by manually excavating, logging
and sampling four exploratory borings in the areas of the proposed residence.
' - Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained including a computer-generated
slope stability analysis of the coastal bluff.
' • 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 •
(619)442 -8022 • FAX (619)442 -7859
' Project No. 147A32
Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our geotechnical evaluation
of the coastal bluff property. This report includes a summary of the coastal
bluff conditions and discusses the geotechnical factors affecting the proposed
' residence and provides geotechnical recommendations including allowable soil -
bearing pressure, foundation design and other design /construction
considerations.
Site Description
' The subject coastal bluff property is known as San Diego County Assessor's Parcel
Number 254 - 210 -14. The roughly rectangular property is located at 1320 Neptune
Avenue in the Leucadia area of the City of Encinitas (see Figure 1). The eastern
property line at the site is located along the westerly side of the Neptune Avenue
roadway. Single- family residential developments exist on the properties to the north
' and south of the subject property. The bluff -top area of the property is bounded on
the west by an approximately 65 -foot high coastal bluff with an overall gradient of
approximately 39 degrees (see Photos 1 and 2). The approximate elevation of the
' bluff edge is about 70 feet above sea level based on our review of the County of San
Diego 1975 orthophoto topographic map and the Limited Site Survey prepared by
Resource Development Corporation (Appendix A).
' On January 6, 1998, a SGC representative made approximate measurements of the
features located on the bluff -top area at the site. The results generally concur with
' those represented on the Limited Site Survey for the project (Appendix A) which was
used as a base map for our Figure 2. In general, the bluff -top area at the site slopes
towards the west at an overall approximate gradient of 9 degrees. A two - story,
' single - family residence occupies the southeast approximately one - quarter of the bluff -
top area. A wood - sided, single -story shed structure occupies the southwest
approximately one - quarter of the bluff -top area. The northern approximately one -half
' of the bluff -top area at the subject property consists of a grass lawn (see Figure 2).
The bluff edge on the site is obscured by vegetative growth (see Photos 3 and 4) and
its approximate location is depicted on Figure 2.
' Bluff Description
During our site visit on January 6, 1998, a tape and compass profile of the coastal
' bluff on the property was prepared. The results of our approximate measurements are
presented on Figure 3 (Coastal Bluff Profile). The approximately 65 -foot high coastal
bluff slopes at an overall gradient of approximately 39 degrees (from the base of the
' exposed seacliff to the upper bluff edge). There is an approximately 5 -foot high,
unvegetated seacliff at the base of the coastal bluff. The overlying approximately
60 vertical feet of the bluff slopes at an overall gradient of approximately 39 degrees
' 2
SGC
Project No. 147A32
' and is moderately to well vegetated with iceplant, grasses and weeds. A wooden
stairway (with landing areas) descends the coastal bluff face to the beach. The bluff
is shown on Photos 1 and 2.
Proposed Development
' Based on our review of the project plans by Adams Design Associates (Appendix A),
it is our understanding that the existing residence and shed will be razed and a new
' residence will be constructed. The new residence will be a two -story structure with
a basement level. We understand that the foundations for the proposed residence will
be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge and anticipate that building
' loads will be typical for the relatively light, residential construction.
' Subsurface Exploration
On January 6, 1998, an engineering geologist from our firm manually excavated,
' logged and sampled four exploratory borings at the approximate locations shown on
Figure 2. The borings were excavated to a maximum depth of 5 feet. Logs of the
exploratory borings are included as Figure 4. Subsequent to logging, the exploratory
' borings were backfilled.
The soil exposed in our exploratory borings consisted of silty fine sand and is similar
' to soil in the general site vicinity found to have a very low expansion potential when
tested in accordance with UBC Standard No. 29 -2.
'
Geologic Units
' Based on our review of a geologic map (Appendix A, Reference 3) and our onsite
observations, the property appears to be underlain by Eocene -aged Ardath Shale at
' depth. The Ardath Shale is overlain by Quaternary -aged terrace deposits. Surficial
deposits consisting of beach deposits and fill soils were observed during our site visit.
The approximate limits of these units, as observed in our onsite studies, are shown
' on Figure 3 and are described below.
Ardath Shale - The Eocene -aged Ardath Shale is exposed in the seacliff at the
' base of the coastal bluff and underlies the entire site at depth (below the
terrace deposits). The Ardath Shale at the site generally consists of a gray -
brown, well - consolidated, fine sandy siltstone and silty fine sandstone.
- Terrace Deposits - Quaternary -aged terrace deposits unconformably overlie the
Ardath Shale and comprise the majority of the bluff face. The terrace deposits
' 3
SGC
t Project No. 147A32
' consist of orange -brown to light brown, dense but friable, slightly silty fine- to
medium - grained sand. A thin veneer of topsoil developed on the terrace
deposits may exist locally at the site. The topsoil should not be relied upon for
' the support of structural loads.
Beach Deposits - A variable thickness of unconsolidated beach deposits occur
' on the beach at the base of the coastal bluff. During our site visits, the beach
deposits consisted of sand and cobbles. A cobble berm existed along the base
of the bluff. The beach deposits are subject to addition and removal in
' response to storm waves and currents.
Fill Soils - Fill soils exist locally on the bluff -top area and appear to be
' associated with the existing site improvements. The fill soils were encountered
in borings 1, 2 and 3 to a maximum depth of approximately 2.2 feet. Localized
deeper areas of fill may exist on site. The fill generally consisted of locally-
' derived terrace deposits with concrete and clay pipe chunks. The limits of the
relatively minor amounts of fill soils are not shown on Figure 3. These fill soils
are considered potentially compressible and should not be relied upon for the
' support of the proposed structure and other site improvements.
Geologic Structure
The Ardath Shale is exposed in the seacliff at the subject property and, near the
' subject property, is mapped as nearly flat -lying (Appendix A, Reference 3). In the
general site vicinity, bedding in the Quaternary terrace deposits can be observed as
alternating more resistant and less resistant beds. Where observed on site and in the
' general site vicinity, the terrace deposits appear to be horizontally bedded with
localized cross bedding.
' Jointing (or faulting ?) of the Ardath Shale was observed in the seacliff and did not
appear to extend into the overlying terrace deposits. The major joint pattern had an
' attitude of approximately N65- 70E/70 -75NW. The joints have the same general
attitude as and may be a part of a series of relatively minor, subparallel faults (with
down -to- the - northwest separations) mapped in the site vicinity (Appendix A,
' Reference 3). Some fracturing of the Ardath Shale was also observed, however,
major out -of -slope components adverse to deep- seated slope stability were not
observed on site. Joints, faults or fractures were not observed extending into the
' overlying terrace deposits. Indications of deep- seated landslide features were not
observed during our research studies or site visits.
' 4
SGC
' Project No. 147A32
Faulting
Our review of geologic literature (Appendix A) pertaining to the general site area
indicates that there are no known "active" faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the
site. An "active" fault is defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology
(CDMG) as one which has "had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the
' last 11,000 years)" (Appendix A, Reference 5). Indications of active faulting were not
observed in the subject coastal bluff or in nearby exposures. The nearest known
active faults are the Rose Canyon fault located offshore approximately 2 miles west
' of the site, the Coronado Bank fault located offshore approximately 18 miles west,
and the Elsinore fault located approximately 26 miles northeast of the site. The San
Andreas fault is located approximately 65 miles north - northeast of the site.
As previously mentioned, a series of relatively minor, faults have been mapped in the
site vicinity (Appendix A, Reference 3). These faults do not appear to extend into and
' displace the overlying terrace deposits and are not considered to be "active" faults as
defined by the CDMG. They are not considered to be a constraint to site
development.
Tsunami and Storm Waves
Tsunami are sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides or volcanic
action. Submarine earthquakes are common along the edge of the Pacific Ocean and
' coastal areas are subject to potential inundation by tsunami. Most of the 19 tsunami
recorded on the San Diego tidal gauge (between 1854 to 1872 and 1906 to 1977)
have only been a few tenths of a meter in height (Appendix A, Reference 1). The
' largest recorded San Diego area tidal gauge excursion (1 meter) was associated with
the tsunami of May 22, 1960 and was recorded at La Jolla (Scripps Pier) (Appendix A,
' Reference 13). The tsunami was generated by a Richter magnitude 8.5 earthquake
in Chile. For comparison, the diurnal range of tides at San Diego Bay is 1.7 meters.
The possibility of a destructive tsunami along the San Diego coastline is considered
' low (Appendix A, Reference 6). However, tsunami or storm waves, in conjunction
with high tides, may erode the soils that comprise the coastal bluff face but are not
anticipated to have the potential for inundation of the bluff -top building site.
Groundwater and Surface Water
' During our site visits, groundwater was observed seeping out of the coastal bluff. It
appears that the groundwater is perched on the Ardath Shale at its contact with the
overlying terrace deposits. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with the
tides, seasonal precipitation and irrigation. Groundwater is not expected to be a
constraint to construction of the proposed residence. However, our experience
' 5
I SGC
Project No. 147A32
' indicates that near - surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where no
such groundwater conditions previously existed, especially in areas where a
substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation or
' unusually heavy precipitation.
The bluff -top surface waters appear to primarily drain towards the west as sheet flow
' and over the edge of the coastal bluff. It appears that some of the surface -water flow
may have locally rilled the bluff -face soils at the property.
Historic Research Summary
' We have reviewed the literature, maps and aerial photographs of the site and general
vicinity listed in Appendix A. Following is a limited outline summary of our review
observations:
- The oldest map we found on file at the County of San Diego is an Amended
Map of the Town of Leucadia, filed in 1888. Neptune Avenue and the majority
' of the existing nearby streets are shown. Lot lines are shown on the east side
but not the west side of Neptune Avenue. The bluff along the coastline is
sketched and apparently not surveyed on this map.
' - Neptune Avenue and the majority of the existing nearby streets are shown on
the map for South Coast Park No. 4, filed in 1927. Lot lines are shown on the
east side but not the west side of Neptune Avenue. This map also shows a
"bluff line" along the coast.
- The oldest photographs we reviewed were from the 1928 -29 aerial photograph
set on file at the County of San Diego. Neptune Avenue and the majority of the
' existing nearby streets appear to be unpaved, dirt roads. No structures in the
vicinity of the subject property were observed.
' - The existing residence and shed are apparent on the 1953 photographs. A path
appears to "zig -zag" down the bluff face to the beach. Residences do not
appear to exist on the adjacent lots to the north and south of the subject
' property, however, relatively small, rectangular structures were noted near the
bluff edge on these properties (possibly storage or beehive boxes).
- On the 1960 topographic map, the perimeters of the existing residence and
shed are shown. In addition, a smaller shed( ?) structure to the north of the
shed is shown on the property.
i 6
1 sic
S Project No. 147A32
- The existing residence and shed and the smaller shed outlined on the 1960 map
are apparent on the 1964 photographs. Trees line the west side of Neptune
Avenue. The "zig -zag" path down the bluff face is apparent.
- The existing residence and the shed and the smaller shed at the subject
property are apparent on the 1967, 1970, 1975 and 1983 photographs and the
' 1975 orthophoto topographic map.
The bluff -face stairway is apparent in the 1975 photos and it appears that the
vegetation on the bluff face in 1975 photos may have been removed. A
structure occupying the majority of the bluff -top area on the lot to the north of
the site is apparent on the 1975 photos.
- On the 1983 photos, the bluff face is more heavily vegetated than in 1975. No
residence on the property to south is apparent.
Coastal Bluff Retreat
The coastline in the vicinity of the subject property is relatively straight (see Figure 1).
Mechanisms for seacliff retreat at the site include slow abrasion and undercutting by
' marine erosion (wave action) of the harder, erosion - resistant Ardath Shale bedrock
exposed in the seacliff. Storm surf and higher tides contribute to the natural process
of marine erosion. Other factors affecting the rate of retreat of a seacliff at the toe
of a coastal bluff include degree of fracturing, jointing, consolidation of sediments,
steepness of slope, groundwater and surface water conditions, vegetation or lack of,
and intensity of pedestrian and animal traffic.
In response to the landward retreat of the seacliff,
p the overlying coastal bluff becomes
' undermined and also retreats landward. During storm surf and higher tides, the base
of the terrace deposits at the site are also subject to marine erosion. Other
mechanisms contributing to bluff retreat include failure of overhanging bedrock
projections, shallow failure of oversteepened portions of the bluff -face terrace
deposits, and rilling and ravelling of the terrace deposits. Portions of coastal bluffs are
also exposed to precipitation, wind, pedestrian /animal erosion (including foot traffic
' and burrowing rodents), variations in landscape, landscape maintenance, and other
activities by humans.
During our studies, we did not observe indications of deep- seated instability, such as
ancient or active landslides, on the site and in the nearby vicinity. The terrace
deposits are friable and commonly rill and ravel in oversteepened slopes, however,
' they are not known to be prone to large, deep- seated failures.
7
SGC
Project No. 147A32
' Coastal Bluff -Edge Retreat Rates
The rate and magnitude of coastal bluff retreat at a specific site are dependent on a
' variety of factors, both natural and manmade. Many of these factors are ongoing
processes and historic documentation can be helpful in estimating general bluff -edge
retreat rates. However, there are other factors affecting coastal bluff retreat that
cannot be estimated from historic documentation. Such factors include future human
activities or possible extreme variations in regional weather patterns.
' Detrimental changes in factors affecting bluff -edge retreat, such as misdirected
drainage, water line breaks, very heavy storm surf and /or precipitation, could increase
the rate of future erosion. However, favorable changes in the factors affecting bluff-
' edge retreat could decrease the rate of future erosion. Some of these include
eliminating detrimental human activities on the bluff, proper maintenance of a bluff -
stabilizing vegetative cover, enhanced site drainage provisions and beach sand
' replenishment.
Research studies along the San Diego coast and historic photograph and map review
are components in providing an estimation of the rate of bluff -edge retreat. We
assume that the historic retreat rate may give an indication of the future retreat rate
at a particular site. However, accurate and clear photographic and map
documentation for measuring retreat is not always available or is of fairly short time
intervals so changes may not be noticeable.
' Lee and others (Appendix A, Reference 7) performed research studies of regional
historic seacliff retreat and estimated a maximum annual bluff -edge retreat rate of
0.22 to 0.33 feet per year. Over a 75 -year period (assumed to be the economic
' lifetime of the new construction), this equates to a conservative estimate of bluff -edge
retreat of a maximum of 16.5 to 24.8 feet. This maximum is based on research
studies of regional historic bluff retreat that includes coastal bluffs with generally
favorable conditions, as well as coastal bluffs that are affected by more adverse
conditions (highly fractured, sea caves, human activities, etc.). The estimated values
of maximum retreat are very conservative, and the actual rate of bluff retreat at the
subject property is expected to be less considering the site conditions and historic
bluff -edge retreat at the site.
' Sea cave formation and subsequent collapse are localized factors in the bluff retreat
process. Indications of sea cave development were not observed at the subject
' property during our site visits. The nearest offsite sea cave observed was located
approximately 40 feet south of the subject property. The sea cave is approximately
3 feet high and two feet deep. It is our opinion that if this sea cave enlarged and
' failed within the next 75 years, the collapse would not impact the proposed residence.
8
SGC
Project No. 147A32
' Our historic photograph review (Appendix A) indicates that the coastal bluff at the
subject property is generally similar in configuration in the 1929, 1953, and
subsequent photos. The location of the onsite bluff edge is also generally similar on
the photographs. The distance between the west side of the existing shed and the
bluff edge has not noticeably changed between the 1953 and subsequent (1964
through 1996) aerial photographs.
' It is very difficult to predict the future and the magnitude of bluff -edge retreat that
may occur in one year, during one storm event or over the 75 -year assumed economic
lifetime of the new construction. The rate of coastal bluff retreat over a particular
interval of time (day, year, decade, etc.) may vary from very little to several tenths of
a foot. However, severe erosion is generally episodic in nature and is dependent on
the intensity of storms and combined high tides (or man's detrimental actions). It is
probable that several feet of coastal bluff -edge retreat could occur at one time or over
a short period of time. However, it is also likely that there will be periods in the future
when erosion along the coast and bluff edge is rather insignificant and undetectable.
Erosion is a naturally- occurring process that is affected by human actions. With time,
the bluff edge will retreat landward
' It is our opinion that the residence, ro osed to be set back a minimum of 40 feet
P P
from the bluff edge, will not be endangered by coastal bluff retreat over the next
75 years. However, if improvements, such as patios, fences, etc., are built nearer to
the bluff edge within this setback zone, they may in the future become undermined
by bluff -edge retreat and may need to be removed from the site.
Slope Stability Calculations
A computer - generated slope stability analysis was performed on the coastal bluff at
the site. The slope stability was analyzed using 'Janbu's Simplified Method of Slices'
with the PCSTABL 5M computer program. Groundwater was included in our slope
stability analyses. The slope stability calculations are included in Appendix B. The soil
' strength parameters used in our analysis are presented below. These values are based
on laboratory test results, back - calculation, our past experience in this area, and our
professional judgement.
Soil Type Unit Weight Friction Angle Cohesion
Terrace Deposits 120.0 pcf 35 degrees 350 psf
Ardath Shale 120.0 pcf 30 degrees 950 psf
The results of the analyses (Appendix B) indicate that for the existing configuration,
the calculated factor of safety against deep- seated failure is in excess of 1.5 (the
generally accepted standard for the geotechnical industry).
9
SGC
Project No. 147A32
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
' Based on our eotechnical evaluation of the e coastal bluff at the site, it is our opinion
that the proposed residence (and the loading from this relatively light bluff -top
construction) will not adversely impact the existing coastal bluff. In addition, it is our
opinion that the proposed residence should not be affected by anticipated coastal bluff
' retreat processes during its economic lifetime (assumed to be 75 years).
' Slope Stability and Erosion
Our geotechnical evaluation of the present overall static stability on the subject
property indicates that the bluff is grossly stable. In its present state, the slope has
a low to moderate potential for erosion and future surficial instability. We provide the
following recommendations to help reduce erosion of the bluff and to reduce potential
for future instability of the bluff face.
Irrigation of the landscape areas on the property should be limited to the
minimum amount required to establish vegetation and maintain plant vigor. The
subject coastal bluff and the bluff edge are currently moderately to well
vegetated with iceplant, grasses and weeds. At this time, it is our opinion that
modifications to the vegetation in these areas should not be considered.
However, if landscape planting and /or plant removal on the westerly bluff -top
area is performed, it should be done without significantly disturbing the bluff-
' top soils. The surficial stability of those portions of the bluff that are not well
vegetated may be increased by planting in accordance with the
recommendations of a professional landscape company experienced with
coastal bluffs. Terracing or excavation of the bluff -face soils should be
avoided.
- Drainage at the site currently flows towards the west and over the coastal bluff
edge. As much as practicable, drainage at the site should be redirected such
' that accumulated surface waters discharge into non - erosive drainage provisions
that preferably discharge to the east (Neptune Avenue roadway). Runoff at the
site should not be directed over the bluff edge. Eave gutters should be installed
on the new residence and should be properly maintained with downspouts that
discharge into non - erosive drainage provisions. Pedestrian and animal traffic
(and burrowing, etc.) on the bluff face and bluff edge should not be allowed.
Bluff -Edge Setback
' Based on our review of the project plans, the proposed residence will be set back a
minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge. It is our opinion that the proposed setback
10
SGC
Project No. 147A32
will safeguard the proposed residence from bluff -edge retreat during the economic
lifetime of the new construction.
Seismic Considerations
' The principal considerations for most structures in southern California are surface
rupturing of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically- induced
ground settlement or liquefaction. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture
is considered minimal since no active faults are known to cross the site. It is our
opinion that the potential for liquefaction or seismically- induced ground settlement at
the site due to an earthquake is very low because of the dense nature of the
' underlying geologic units.
The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an
earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The nearest known active fault
is the Rose Canyon fault located offshore approximately 2 miles west of the site. It
is estimated that a maximum earthquake on this portion of the Rose Canyon fault
(magnitude 6.5) could produce moderate to severe ground shaking at the site.
In general, the role seismic shaking plays in bluff retreat is dependent on bluff
' conditions at the moment of shaking. It is possible that some of the bedrock
projections and oversteepened portions of the terrace deposits may undergo shallow
failure and some ravelling of the poorly indurated bluff -face terrace deposits may also
' occur during ground shaking, especially on unvegetated portions of the bluff face.
However, it is our opinion that the potential for deep- seated or severe, catastrophic
failure of the bluff due to expected seismic ground shaking is low at the site.
' Site Preparation
A shed structure and fence exist near the bluff edge at the site and we understand
' that these improvements will be removed prior to the new construction. The bluff -top
soils should not be significantly disturbed during removal activities and debris should
not be allowed to fall down or accumulate on the bluff face. Prior to construction
' activities, the proposed building area should be cleared of vegetation, demolition debris
and loose soils. Vegetation and loose debris should be properly disposed of off site.
Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions (pipes, etc.) which extend below
' finished site grades should be filled with properly compacted fill soils.
11
SGC
Project No. 147A32
Removal /Recompaction of Compressible Soils
The existing ill soils and topsoil mantling the den
9 p g se terrace deposits are considered
compressible and unsuitable for the support of structural loads in their present
condition. We anticipate that, in the area of the proposed residence, most of these
soils will be removed during excavation for the proposed basement level. However,
' we also recommend that the existing fill soils and topsoil be removed in areas planned
for other surface improvements or fill placement. As encountered in our exploratory
borings, these soils apparently underlie the site to a maximum depth of approximately
' 2 feet below the existing ground surface. Actual depths may vary and should be
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during removal of these unsuitable soils.
These soils are considered suitable for re -use as compacted, structural fill provided
they are free of organic material and deleterious debris.
Structural Fill Placement
Areas to receive fill and /or other surface improvements should be scarified to a
minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near - optimum moisture conditions, and
recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on laboratory standard
ASTM D1557. Fill soils should be brought to near - optimum moisture conditions and
' compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).
The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the
size and type of construction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in
' loose lift thicknesses not exceeding 8 inches.
' Foundation and Slab Recommendations
Based on our review of the project plans, the proposed residence will consist of a two-
' story structure with a basement level. The residence will be supported by continuous
perimeter and spread footings with basement - level, concrete slab -on -grade floors. The
' foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations
and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils
encountered during foundation excavation will consist of medium dense to dense
natural terrace deposits with a very low to low expansion potential.
The proposed structure may be supported on isolated or continuous footings bearing
at least 6 inches into firm, natural soils at a minimum depth of 18 inches beneath the
lowest adjacent grade. At this depth, footings may be designed for an allowable soil -
bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-
' third for loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces. Footings should have
a minimum width of 15 inches, and reinforcement consisting of two No. 4 rebars (one
near the top and one near the bottom of each footing).
' 12
SGC
' Project No. 147A32
Slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced at midheight in
' the slab with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way (or No. 4 rebars at
24 inches on center each way). Slabs should be underlain by a 2 -inch layer of sand
which is underlain by a 10 -mil moisture barrier. The potential for slab cracking may
be lessened by careful control of water /cement ratios. The use of low slump concrete
is recommended. Appropriate curing precautions should be taken during placement
' of concrete during hot weather. We recommend that a slipsheet or equivalent be used
if crack - sensitive flooring is planned directly on the concrete slab.
�S
' Footings and slabs founded in firm, natural soils may be designed for a passive lateral
bearing pressure of 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of
friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.4 may be assumed. These
values may be increased by one -third when considering loads of short duration, such
as wind or seismic forces.
Lateral Resistance and Retaining Wall Design Pressures
Lateral loads can be resisted by assuming a passive pressure of 350 psf per foot of
depth and a coefficient of friction of 0.35 between concrete and soil. The lateral
resistance may be taken as the sum of the passive and frictional resistance, provided
' the passive resistance does not exceed two - thirds of the total resistance.
Cantilever (yielding) retaining walls, with horizontal backfill, may be designed for an
' "active" equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. Rigid (non - yielding) walls may be
designed for an "at- rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf. These values assume
horizontal, nonexpansive, granular backfill and free - draining conditions. If walls are
surcharged by adjacent structures, the wall design should take into account the
surcharge load. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the
previous foundation recommendations.
I We reco mend that retaining walls be provided with appropriate draina a provisions.
m 9 P 9 P
' Figure 5 contains a typical detail for drainage of retaining walls. The walls should be
appropriately waterproofed. Appropriate waterproofing treatments and alternative,
suitable wall drainage products are available commercially. Design of waterproofing
' and its protection during construction should be performed by the project architect.
Retaining wall backfill soils should be brought to near - optimum moisture conditions
and compacted in uniform lifts by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative
compaction (ASTM D1557). As an alternative, retaining walls may be backfilled with
gravel (see Figure 5). Care should be taken when using compaction equipment in
close proximity to retaining walls so that the walls are not damaged by excessive
loading.
' 13
SGC
Project No. 147A32
Construction Observation and Testing
The interpolated subsurface soil conditions should be checked in the field during
construction. Foundation excavation observation and field density testing of
compacted fill (including retaining wall backfill) should also be performed by the
geotechnical consultant to check that construction is in accordance with the
' recommendations of this report and subsequent addenda.
' Other Considerations
Figures 2 and 3 have been adapted from project plans (Appendix A) and compiled
' from approximate measurements made during our site visits and they should not be
relied on for site development. If needed, a licensed land surveyor should be retained
to prepare a site topographic plan that accurately delineates the property boundaries
' and bluff edge. A site drainage study may also be conducted to develop a site -
specific drainage plan for the proposed development. Please note that the
recommendations contained herein may be revised based on modified and /or additional
information regarding the structure and improvements planned at the site. A qualified
consultant should be retained to review site conditions and assess potential site
impacts if significant erosion events or major changes in the bluff configuration are
' noticed.
Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions
This geotechnical evaluation report addresses the coastal bluff conditions at the
' subject property and is based on our understanding that the proposed development
consists of demolition of the existing structures and the design and construction of
a new single - family residence. The recommendations provided in this report are based
on our understanding that a single - family residence (with its relatively light loading)
is planned at the site and the foundations for this structure will be set back a minimum
' of 40 feet from the bluff edge. The foundations for the new construction will be set
back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge.
This report is based on our document /photograph review and our observations of the
geologic conditions exposed in our exploratory borings and in the coastal bluff at the
site and general vicinity. This report assumes that the geologic /soils conditions do not
1 deviate appreciably from those observed. The recommendations of this report pertain
only to the coastal bluff property evaluated and the development as proposed. We
have not performed an evaluation of the presence of hazardous materials/
' contamination at the site.
14
SGC
' Project No. 147A32
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in conditions of a
' property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to
natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition,
changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, from legislation or the
' broadening of knowledge in the fields of geotechnical engineering or geology. Hence,
the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our
control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years
without a review by us.
' If there are questions regarding the information contained herein, we should be
contacted. We will not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the
information herein. Our services consist of professional consultation and no warranty
1 of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with
the work performed by us.
' 15
SGC
' Project No. 147A32
If you have any questions regarding our report, please call. We appreciate this
' opportunity to be of service.
1 Sincerely,
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
-4 e.
Susan E. Tanges, CE 1386 Steven �Norf 2
Managing Principal/ - Geologist Project Engineer
E . 0
1 0.
NO. 1385 em u' y c;
CERTIFIED 8
'¢ ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST
GE CALF CFCA
t
Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location Map
' Figure 2 - Site Plan
Figure 3 - Coastal Bluff Profile
Figure 4 - Logs of Exploratory Borings
' Figure 5 - Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
Photographs 1 through 4
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Slope Stability Calculations
' Distribution: (3) Addressee
16
sic
era � ��;� 1, �,� •�; � ,�
a Ac „
Y p F
4
'fir I
y r
r� ' - r
• M
�.t
85.5 T -
4r
4 �s
t T I
N SITE LOCATION MAP
' Project No. 147A32
1320 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia Area of Encinitas
Scale (approximate): 1 inch = 200 feet
' Base Map:
County of San Diego
Orthophoto Topographic Map 330 -1671
dated 17 Sep 1975 FIGURE* 1
SGC
rr rr ri r� rr rr it �r �r r� �r r� r r■� ri rr rr
r �r
2 m �n0
c 0 0 *;, °
T -<� N
O � � m
m
•
n • V igt\Ce
°
•
•
i 0-0 `P L
3 - 01 X
3
CL 0 : p n O
-I
2 m ° o' N
Co cn =. cn i G7 0, m
Z p, 4 Z m
O c 9 \
I c o cn w \
D 1% :t . %. = N
m 40
m a C i
D 6 0 • ;
a.0 O O \
d � 9
3
O o t�
• ° m
• 3
g \ • m 3 3 1
' \ • to .+ —0 O
to
3 - 4 \ O
< Apr O O 1 ( A \ G:
iv a' - a W '' k \ \ 0
01 0 3 1 • \ y.
CL w
3-0 CD s Qw
• !� cn O O; O CL
oaQ n \ : o
' \ i
i
U-1.
- N
cn
D 2
T
X cn i
O O 00 O " x, 1 m •
�o 3 1 z
CD \ m
m C i
1
\
• \
-+ \
\
\ 4 1 \
o . .
CD
Z O�
c w . C. t
y N'o w �vs •
O 0 V� ,
D
D L it ,,.
m CD
0 D
c
2. y ,
_T t�q
O
C4
C
m O
N
m
T
n
2
I D C1
Iz �
W
r
1 m
n
m
r 3 a
( I H
O
y
C)
i II
0 C D II
N � '
O o ,
k
.�. o
CD
�mD D
70 � 13
D o
m C x
m ,, a
1 ° 3
o co
M CD
N A
cn
O
v, o3�c� �,
m
T ° � 03 �' ° — — - «D
mcD G "' ov
c �<v Q 3�
m c"o�k o vX
N cO o 4 3
00 m � °:
° am°, �CD
v a i m m
o o
W to n ,
�. d o 4
m c 3 0
m m3 a y
o
� N l o w
I
I �
O' a D O
N n
m d
3 < of cn
co �;
X. m
A o 3 �
o N
� v
0
n o y I z
O o 0
o n m m
O CL I
V D
�w
w '
N az
�c r
D� W
D
> >
0 'O
o• m �
0) — —
m CO) O z
C) I m
m R1 c
w D
' Project No. 147A32
' LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
' BORING NO. DEPTH DESCRIPTION
' Boring 1 0 -2' Fill - Brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense, silty fine
sand (SM); friable, roots, clay pipe fragments
' 2 -3.3' Terrace Deposits (weathered) - Brown, damp to slightly moist,
dense, silty fine sand (SM); friable, roots
Total depth = 3.3 feet
' No ground water encountered
Excavated and backfilled 01 -06 -98
---------------- - - - - --
Boring 2 0 -2.2' Fill - Brown, dry to slightly damp, loose to medium dense, silty
' fine sand (SM); friable, roots, broken concrete chunks
Total depth = 2.2 feet (refusal on concrete chunks)
No ground water encountered
' Excavated and backfilled 01 -06 -98
' Boring 3 0 -1.5' Fill - Brown, dry to slightly damp, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand (SM); friable, roots
1.5 -5' Terrace Deposits (weathered) - Brown to orange- brown,
medium dense to dense, silty fine sand (SM); friable, increasing
density with depth, more orange and more sand with increasing
' depth
Total depth = 5 feet
' No ground water encountered
Excavated and backfilled 01 -06 -98
----------------------
' Boring 4 0 -0.2' Fill /Disturbed Topsoil - Brown, dry to slightly damp, loose to
medium dense, silty fine sand (SM); friable, roots
0.2 -4' Terrace Deposits (weathered) - Brown to orange- brown,
medium dense to dense, silty fine sand (SM); friable, increasing
' density with depth, more orange and more sand with increasing
depth
Total depth = 4 feet
No ground water encountered
Excavated and backfilled 01 -06 -98 FIGURE 4
WC
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION
- ----------
RETAINING WALL --- -------
o 6 - MIN.
WALL WATERPROOFING OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
PER ARCHITECT'S o 0 0 (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
SPECIFICATIONS EQUIVALENT)
o 0 •
1' MIN. 3/4 0 -1-112" CLEAN GRAVEL
FINISH GRADE 0
4' (MON.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
0
0
PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
' -_ - -_ EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
------- -- -- ----------- MINIMUM I PERCENT GRADIENT
= COMPACTED FILL- ------
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
WALL FOOTING f 1= f
-U-51- 1 - 1 — '= -Ll 3 MIN.
NOT TO SCALE COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CONSULTANT
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard * BASED ON ASTM D1557
Sieve Size % Passin
111 100 * IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
3/411 90-100 (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) 13 USED IN PLACE OF
3/8' 40-100 3/4'-1-1/2 GRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
No. 4 25-40 DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
No. 8 18-33 MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90
No. 30 5-15 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3 NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN
Sand Equivalent>75 !OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
CLASS Z INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS.
SGC
FIGURE 5
1 SITE
w•r
PHOTO 1 t Coastal bluff at 1320 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia (6 Jan 1998)
1
' PHOTO 2 t View northerly along coastal bluff, 1320 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia (28 Oct 1997)
SGC
ax �.
i
5. r�
A �
x�
�
PHOTO 3—
View north along bluff edge
1320 Neptune Avenue
Leucadia (6 Jan 1998)
f,r: `,•S,t,ts, � i
PHOTO 4t View south along bluff edge, 1320 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia (6 Jan 1998)
SGC
i
i
i
a
�1
APPENDIX A
1
�i
. S
' Project No. 147A32
' APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. Agnew, D.C., 1979, Tsunami history of San Diego, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott,
W.J., eds. Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field
' trip guidebook.
2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault activity map of California
' and adjacent areas: CDMG Geologic Data Map No. 6.
3. Eisenberg, L., 1983, Pleistocene and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and
Rancho Santa Fe quadrangles, in, Abbott, P.L., ed., 1985, On the manner of
deposition of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County: San Diego
Association of Geologists, fieldtrip guidebook.
' 4. Flick, R.E., ed., 1994, Shoreline erosion assessment and atlas of the San Diego
region: California Department of Boating and Waterways and the San Diego
' Association of Governments publication, dated December (two volumes).
5. Hart, E.W., 1994, Fault- rupture hazard zones in California: California Division
' of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised.
6. Lee, L.J., 1977, Potential foundation problems associated with earthquakes in
' San Diego, in Abbott, P.L., and Victoria, J.K., eds. Geologic Hazards in San
Diego, Earthquakes, Landslides, and Floods: San Diego Society of Natural
History John Porter Dexter Memorial Publication.
' 7. Lee L. Pinckney, C., and Bemis, C., 1976, Sea bluff erosion: American Society
' of Civil Engineers, National Water Resources and Ocean Engineering Convention
Preprint No. 2708.
' 8. Legg, M.R., Agnew, D.C., and Simons, R.S., 1978, Earthquake history and
seismicity of coastal San Diego County, California, 1800 -1976 (unpublished).
' 9. Southland Geotechnical Consultants, in -house geologic information.
10. Tan, S.S., 1986, Landslide hazards in the Encinitas quadrangle, San Diego
' County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open -file
Report 86 -8LA.
11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal
Waves Study, Shoreline Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican
Border (1852 -1982) (CCSTWS 85 -10), dated December.
SGC
' Project No. 147A32
' APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
' (continued)
12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal
' Waves Study, Coastal Cliff Sediments, San Diego Region (CCSTWS 87 -2),
dated June.
' 13. Van Dorn, W.G., 1979, Theoretical aspects of tsunamis along the San Diego
coastline, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds. Earthquakes and Other Perils:
Geological Society of America field trip guidebook.
REVIEWED REPORTS ON FILE AT CITY OF ENCINITAS
' Allied Geotechnical Engineers, 1987, Geologic reconnaissance stud ro osed
y, p p single -
family residential building site, west side of Neptune Avenue, between Jason Street
and Jupiter Street, Leucadia, San Diego County, California, dated September 1.
OWEN Consultants, 1990, Third -party review of preliminary geotechnical studies,
' proposed residence, 1320 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated March 16.
Southern California Soil and Testing, 1989, Report of geotechnical investigation,
' proposed residence, 1320 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated June 8.
Southern California Soil and Testing, 1990, Response to third -party review of
' preliminary geotechnical studies, proposed residence, 1320 Neptune Avenue,
Encinitas, California, dated April 23.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
' City of Encinitas Engineering Services, 1994, Photograph by Lenska Aerial Images,
dated April 19 (color, vertical, not stereoscopic).
County of San Diego, 1928 -9, Photos 37F1 and 37F2 (vertical, stereoscopic).
' County of San Diego, 1967, Series GS -VBTA, Flight Line 1, Photos 1 -140 and 1 -141,
dated May 8 (vertical, stereoscopic).
' County of San Diego, 1970, Series SDCO, Flight Line 3, Photos 3 -1 (016) and 3 -2
(017), dated October 9 (color, vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1:24,000.
' County of San Diego, 1975, Flight SDPD, Flight Line 34, Photos 34 -5 (045) and 34 -6
(044), dated January 20 (color, vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1 inch = 1,000 feet.
SGC
' Project No. 147A32
' APPENDIX A
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
' (continued)
County of San Diego, 1983, Flight C1 1 109 83059, Photos 247 (014) and 248 (015),
' dated November 19 (vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1 inch = 2,000 feet.
County of San Diego, 1989, Series WAC -89A, Photo 3 -3, dated April 7 (vertical, not
' stereoscopic).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1953, Series AXN, Flight Line 8M, Photos 96 and 97,
' dated April 11 (vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1:20,000.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1964, Series AXN, Flight Line 4DD, Photos 1 and 2,
' dated April 9 (vertical, stereoscopic).
' MAPS
Adams Design Associates, Inc., 1997, Project plans for the Marabella Residence,
' 1320 Neptune Ave., Leucadia, seven sheets, undated.
County of San Diego, 1975, Orthophoto Topographic Map 330 -1671, dated
' September 17, scale 1 " = 200'.
County of San Diego, Assessor's Map Book, page 210 -21.
' County of San Diego, 1888 Amended
9 Map of the Town of Leucadia, San Diego Co.,
Cal., Map No. 570, filed October 23.
I '
County of San Diego, 1918, Leucadia Acres, San Diego County, Cal., Map No. 1704,
filed June 5.
' Count of San n Diego, 1927, South Coast Park No. 4, Map No. 2049, filed July 19.
Resource Development Corporation, 1997, Limited Site Survey, Marabella Residence,
1320 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, dated July 23.
1
SGC
APPENDIX B
P1
3 -
M
d
Y
S G
** PCSTABLSM **
by
Purdue University
- -Slope Stability Analysis --
' Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
' Run Date: January 16, 1998
Time of Run: 1:00 pm
Run By: GC /SN
Input Data Filename: 1320.in
' Output Filename: 1320.out
Plotted Output Filename: 1320.plt
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: STABILITY ANALYSES
1320 Neptune Avenue
Encinitas, California
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
' 16 Top Boundaries
17 Total Boundaries
' Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd
' 1 .00 13.80 13.80 13.80 1
2 13.80 13.80 20.00 21.00 1
3 20.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 1
4 21.00 21.00 23.80 23.80 1
5 23.80 23.80 28.80 25.00 1
6 28.80 25.00 31.30 31.30 1
7 31.30 31.30 45.00 45.00 2
' 8 45.00 45.00 62.50 60.00 2
9 62.50 60.00 68.80 62.50 2
10 68.80 62.50 73.80 67.50 2
' 11 73.80 67.50 81.30 71.30 2
12 81.30 71.30 100.00 85.00 2
13 100.00 85.00 105.00 86.00 2
14 105.00 86.00 126.30 90.00 2
' 15 126.30 90.00 185.00 97.50 2
16 185.00 97.50 220.00 102.50 2
17 31.30 31.30 220.00 31.30 1
i
' ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
2 Type(s) of Soil
' Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
' 1 120.0 135.0 950.0 30.0 .00 .0 0
2 120.0 135.0 350.0 35.0 .00 .0 0
' 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40
' Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points
' Point X -Water Y -Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 31.30 31.30
' 2 220.00 31.30
BOUNDARY LOAD(S)
' 1 Load(s) Specified
t Load X -Left X -Right Intensity Deflection
No. (ft) (ft) (lb /sqft) (deg)
1 140.00 141.00 1000.0 .0
' NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed
Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface.
' A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Usin g A Random
Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified.
' 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
' 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along
The Ground Surface Between X = .00 ft. and X = 60.00 ft.
' Each Surface Terminates Between X = 70.00 ft. an =
d X 220.00 ft.
' Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft.
' 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
ii
' Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical
First.
' * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method
' Failure Surface Specified By 31 Coordinate Points
t Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 3.16 13.80
' 2 8.03 12.67
3 12.96 11.82
4 1 11.25
' 5 22.92 10.97
6 27.92 10.98
7 32.91 11.27
8 37.87 11.85
9 42.80 12.71
10 47.67 13.85
11 52.46 15.26
12 57.17 16.95
' 13 61.77 18.91
14 66.25 21.12
15 70.60 23.59
' 16 74.80 26.30
17 78.84 29.25
18 82.70 32.42
19 86.38 35.82
' 20 89.85 39.41
21 93.12 43.20
22 96.16 47.17
t 23 98.97 51.30
24 101.54 55.59
25 103.85 60.02
26 105.92 64.58
' 27 107.71 69.24
28 109.24 74.01
29 110.49 78.85
30 111.47 83.75
' 31 111.96 87.31
' * ** 1.545 * **
1
Individual data on the 44 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
1 4.9 371.5 5318.8 5636.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
! 2 4.9 1034.1 5380.6 5945.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
3 .8 230.9 921.2 1034.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
4 4.1 2619.6 5957.5 5131.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
! 5 2.1 2409.5 2283.8 2608.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
6 1.0 1335.2 642.7 1261.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
7 1.9 2827.8 1579.8 2428.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
8 .9 1477.3 619.3 1120.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
' 9 4.1 7400.4 1850.7 5220.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
10 .9 1656.9 363.3 1121.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
11 2.5 5753.2 1332.3 3156.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
! 12 1.6 4513.0 .0 2017.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
13 5.0 15675.2 .0 6159.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
14 4.9 17991.6 .0 5935.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
15 2.2 8771.9 .0 2585.2 .0 .0 . 0 . 0 .0
! 16 2.7 11153.4 .0 3038.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
17 4.8 21222.2 .0 5224.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
18 4.7 22142.1 .0 4740.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
19 4.6 22722.5 .0 4171.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
' 20 .7 3681.5 .0 619.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
21 3.8 18894.7 .0 2902.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
22 2.5 12626.6 .0 1727.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
! 23 1.8 8945.9 .0 1063.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
24 3.2 16157.9 .0 1586.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
25 1.0 5108.1 .0 396.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
26 4.0 20204.5 .0 1099.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
27 2.5 11964.1 .0 206.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
28 .0 168.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
29 1.4 6564.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
30 3.7 17442.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
' 31 3.5 16129.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
32 3.3 14668.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
33 3.0 13098.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
! 34 2.8 11455.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
35 1.0 4020.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
36 1.5 5684.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
37 2.3 7715.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
! 38 1.1 3381.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
39 .9 2474.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
40 1.8 4190.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
! 41 1.5 2754.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
42 1.3 1576.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
43 1.0 680.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
44 .5 103.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
' iv
' Failure Surface Specified By 30 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
' No. (ft) (ft)
1 9.47 13.80
2 14.31 12.54
3 19.22 11.59
4 24.18 10.95
5 29.17 10.62
' 6 34.17 10.61
7 39.16 10.90
8 44.12 11.51
9 49.04 12.43
' 10 53.89 13.66
11 58.65 15.18
12 63.30 17.00
13 67.84 19.11
' 14 72.23 21.50
15 76.46 24.16
16 80.52 27.08
' 17 84.39 30.25
18 88.05 33.66
19 91.49 37.28
20 94.70 41.12
' 21 97.66 45.15
22 100.36 49.36
23 102.79 53.72
' 24 104.95 58.24
25 106.82 62.87
26 108.39 67.62
27 109.66 72.46
' 28 110.63 77.36
29 111.29 82.32
30 111.63 87.25
* ** 1.548 * **
' Failure Surface Specified B 33 Coordinate Points
s
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
' 1 9.47 13.80
2 14.36 12.75
3 19.30 11.95
' 4 24.27 11.41
5 29.26 11.12
6 34.26 11.09
7 39.26 11.31
8 44.23 11.79
9 49.18 12.52
10 54.08 13.51
v
' 11 58.93 14.74
12 63.70 16.22
13 68.40 17.94
14 73.00 19.90
' 15 77.49 22.10
16 81.86 24.52
17 86.11 27.16
' 18 90.22 30.01
19 94.17 33.07
20 97.96 36.33
21 101.58 39.78
22 105.02 43.41
23 108.27 47.21
24 111.32 51.17
25 114.16 55.29
26 116.79 59.54
27 119.20 63.92
28 121.38 68.42
' 29 123.32 73.03
30 125.03 77.73
31 126.50 82.51
32 127.72 87.35
' 33 128.29 90.25
* ** 1.563 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 29 Coordinate Points
' Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
' 1 6.32 13.80
2 11.16 12.55
' 3 16.07 11.63
4 21.04 11.03
5 26.03 10.77
6 31.03 10.84
7 36.01 11.24
8 40.96 11.97
9 45.85 13.03
10 50.65 14.41
' 11 55.36 16.10
12 59.94 18.11
13 64.37 20.41
14 68.65 23.01
15 72.74 25.88
16 76.63 29.02
17 80.31 32.40
18 83.75 36.03
19 86.95 39.88
20 89.88 43.93
21 92.54 48.16
22 94.90 52.57
23 96.98 57.12
24 98.74 61.80
A
' 25 100.19 66.58
26 101.32 71.45
27 102.12 76.39
28 102.60 81.36
' 29 102.71 85.54
* ** 1.568 * **
' Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points
' Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
' 1 .00 13.80
2 4.78 12.33
3 9.64 11.16
4 14.56 10.28
1 5 19.53 9.70
6 24.52 9.43
7 29.52 9.46
8 34.51 9.79
' 9 39.47 10.43
10 44.38 11.36
11 49.23 12.60
' 12 53.99 14.12
13 58.65 15.93
14 63.19 18.03
15 67.59 20.39
' 16 71.85 23.02
17 75.93 25.90
18 79.84 29.03
19 83.54 32.38
20 87.04 35.96
21 90.31 39.74
22 93.34 43.71
23 96.13 47.86
24 98.66 52.18
25 100.93 56.63
26 102.92 61.22
27 104.62 65.92
28 106.04 70.72
29 107.16 75.59
' 30 107.99 80.52
31 108.51 85.49
32 108.56 86.67
* ** 1.569 * **
vii
' Failure Surface Specified By 30 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
' No. (ft) (ft)
1 .00 13.80
2 4.83 12.50
3 9.73 11.51
4 14.68 10.83
5 19.67 10.46
6 24.67 10.40
7 29.66 10.66
8 34.63 11.22
9 39.55 12.10
1 10 44.41 13.29
11 49.18 14.78
12 53.85 16.56
' 13 58.40 18.64
14 62.81 20.99
15 67.07 23.62
16 71.15 26.51
17 75.04 29.65
18 78.72 33.03
1 9 82.19 36.63
20 85.43 40.44
' 21 88.42 44.45
22 91.15 48.64
23 93.61 52.99
24 95.80 57.49
25 97.70 62.11
26 99.31 66.85
27 100.61 71.67
28 101.61 76.57
29 102.30 81.52
30 102.61 85.52
' * ** 1.586 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 23 Coordinate Points
' Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 22.11 22.11
' 2 26.97 23.26
3 31.78 24.62
4 36.54 26.17
5 41.22 27.91
6 45.83 29.85
7 50.36 31.98
8 54.79 34.29
viii
9 59.13 36.78
10 63.35 39.45
11 67.47 42.29
12 71.46 45.29
' 13 75.33 48.46
14 79.06 51.•79
15 82.66 55.27
' 16 86.10 58.89
17 89.40 62.65
18 92.54 66.54
19 95.51 70.56
' 20 98.32 74.70
21 100.95 78.95
22 103.40 83.31
' 23 104.75 85.95
* ** 1.618 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 3.16 13.80
' 2 8.05 12.74
3 12.99 12.02
4 17.98 11.64
5 22.98 11.60
6 27.97 11.89
7 32.93 12.53
8 37.83 13.51
' 9 42.66 14.81
10 47.38 16.45
11 51.99 18.40
12 56.45 20.66
13 60.74 23.21
14 64.86 26.06
15 68.76 29.18
' 16 72.45 32.56
17 75.90 36.18
18 79.09 40.03
19 82.02 44.08
' 20 84.66 48.33
21 87.00 52.74
22 89.04 57.31
23 90.76 62.00
' 24 92.16 66.80
25 93.23 71.69
26 93.96 76.63
' 27 94.29 80.82
* ** 1.625 * **
ix
' Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points
' Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
' 1 25.26 24.15
2 30.22 23.51
3 35.21 23.17
4 40.21 23.13
' 5 45.20 23.40
6 50.17 23.98
7 55.09 24.85
8 59.95 26.03
9 64.73 27.50
10 69.41 29.26
11 73.97 31.31
' 12 78.40 33.62
13 82.68 36.21
14 86.80 39.05
15 90.73 42.14
' 16 94.47 45.46
17 98.00 49.00
1 8 101.30 52.75
' 1 9 104.37 56.70
20 107.19 60.83
21 109.76 65.12
22 112.06 69.56
' 23 114.08 74.13
24 115.82 78.82
25 117.27 83.61
26 118.42 88.47
' 27 118.43 88.52
* ** 1.627 * **
' Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
' 1 .00 13.80
2 4.78 12.34
3 9.65 11.21
4 14.59 10.43
' 5 19.57 10.00
6 24.57 9.92
7 29.57 10.20
' 8 34.53 10.83
9 39.43 11.80
10 44.25 13.11
11 48.97 14.77
' x
12 53.56 16.75
13 58.00 19.05
14 62.27 21.65
15 66.34 24.55
' 16 70.20 27.73
17 73.83 31.17
18 77.20 34.86
' 19 80.31 38.78
20 83.13 42.91
21 85.66 47.23
22 87.87 51.71
' 23 89.76 56.34
24 91.33 61.09
25 92.55 65.93
26 93.43 70.86
' 27 93.97 75.83
28 94.14 80.71
' * ** 1.651 * **
' xi
Y A X I S F T
.00 27.50 55.00 82.50 110.00 137.50
X.00 +----*----+---------+---------
' = 51
.51
.1 *.
..1...*
' - 51... **
27.50 +..51. .7*
- ...18 ... 7.*
- ...18..9.7.
' .21..9.7..
... .
218..9.7. ...
....218.9..7......
A 55.00 .....21.89.
32189. .7.
......24189...7.......*
....... 2 4108...7....... *.
•.•.••• 324168...7.7......*
32.168.8. .7.
X 82.50 .........322140.8.8.7.....*
3.219460.8.7.
' ...........3..191.460.077.8...
.33.22194.4.6..7788.
. .....••......3...21154.4.4.474*
' 3....2115 55 7*
I 110.00 .3.3. .912121151
- . ..................3.3....9.9...
- . .....................3.3....9.9
.3.3*
- . ...............................
' S 137.50 + ..............................
. ...............................
- . ..............................
• ............................
165.00 +
......................
.. .......................
. ......................*
' F 192.50 + . ......................
- . . .................
_ ... ..........
T 220.00 +
' 1
xii
' A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Irregular Surfaces, Has Been Specified.
200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
t 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = .00 ft.
and X = 50.00 ft.
' Each Surface Terminates Between X = 60.00 ft.
and X = 220.00 ft.
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft.
5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
' Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
' By The Following 20 Coordinate Points
' Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 10.53 13.80
' 2 14.63 10.94
3 19.42 9.52
4 24.20 8.05
5 29.02 6.70
6 34.01 6.92
7 38.95 7.71
8 43.78 8.98
' 9 47.45 12.38
10 51.49 15.32
11 55.79 17.88
12 59.08 21.64
13 59.17 26.64
14 59.50 31.63
15 60.26 36.57
' 16 60.39 41.57
17 60.49 46.57
18 60.96 51.55
19 61.93 56.45
20 62.58 60.03
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 3.330
' xiii
' Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
' By The Following 12 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 39.47 39.47
' 2 43.17 36.10
3 46.80 32.66
4 51.61 31.30
5 56.45 32.52
6 61.00 34.59
7 64.54 38.13
8 65.18 43.09
9 65.32 48.09
10 65.38 53.09
11 65.51 58.09
12 65.71 61.27
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 5.627
Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
' The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The 'Following 14 Coordinate Points
' Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 42.11 42.11
2 45.82 38.76
3 50.16 36.27
' 4 54.65 34.08
5 59.65 34.02
6 64.23 36.02
7 68.75 38.16
' 8 73.04 40.74
9 75.89 44.85
10 76.12 49.85
' 11 76.14 54.85
12 76.27 59.84
13 76.35 64.84
14 76.37 68.80
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 4.993
' xiv
' Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The Following 14 Coordinate Points
' Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 47.37 47.03
2 51.08 43.68
3 54.78 40.32
4 59.42 38.44
5 64.34 37.57
' 6 69.28 36.82
7 73.99 38.50
8 76.47 42.84
' 9 76.77 47.84
10 77.13 52.82
11 77.22 57.82
12 77.42 62.82
13 77.70 67.81
14 77.76 69.50
' Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 7.198
' Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical
First.
' * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method
' Failure Surface Specified By 30 Coordinate Points
' Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
' 1 2.63 13.80
2 6.35 10.46
3 10.82 8.22
4 15.82 8.08
5 20.77 7.34
6 25.37 5.39
7 30.18 6.74
8 35.18 6.82
' 9 40.08 5.82
10 44.98 6.82
11 49.34 9.26
' 12 53.73 11.65
13 58.57 12.93
14 61.87 16.68
15 64.83 20.71
' xv
1
i 16 68.75 23.81
17 73.17 26.15
18 75.81 30.40
' 19 78.77 34.43
20 81.19 38.80
21 83.20 43.38
22 85.93 47.58
23 87.97 52.14
24 89.05 57.02
25 91.51 61.37
26 92.91 66.17
27 95.73 70.30
28 97.08 75.12
29 97.42 80.10
i 30 98.03 83.56
* ** 1.691 * **
i
i Individual data on the 41 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
1 3.7 838.9 4062.0 5981.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
2 4.5 2692.2 4880.8 6852.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
3 3.0 2261.3 3252.5 4299.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
i 4 2.0 1872.0 3153.3 2924.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
5 4.2 6097.6 5088.0 6205.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
6 .8 1405.2 491.9 1153.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
7 .2 434.1 150.8 382.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
i 8 2.8. 5954.2 2199.1 4681.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
9 1.6 3861.4 734.7 2716.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
10 3.4 8678.6 1479.3 5662.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
11 1.4 3756.0 1064.0 2211.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
12 1.1 3504.1 268.3 1718.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
13 3.9 13732.8 .0 5931.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
14 4.9 20242.7 .0 7793.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
i 15 4.9 23124.9 .0 7793.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
16 .0 114.8 .0 40.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
17 4.3 21741.4 .0 7217.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
18 4.4 22532.7 .0 6505.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
i 19 4.8 25887.8 .0 5931.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
20 3.3 17953.0 .0 5145.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
21 .6 3363.4 .0 942.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
22 2.3 11996.8 .0 2989.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
23 3.9 19085.2 .0 2819.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
24 .0 223.8 .0 24.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
25 4.4 21238.9 .0 1945.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
26 .6 3095.4 .0 344.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
27 2.0 9559.2 .0 599.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
28 .7 3005.3 .0 31.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
29 2.3 10067.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
xvi
' 30 2.4 9895.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 p
31 .1 412.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
32 1.9 7028.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
33 2.7 9218.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
' 34 2.0 6269.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
35 1.1 2852.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
36 2.5 5526.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
' 37 1.4 2594.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
38 2.8 4274.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
39 1.3 1555.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
40 .3 222.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
' 41 .6 111.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Failure Surface Specified By 34 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
' 1 13.16 13.80
2 16.78 10.35
3 20.57 7.09
4 25.45 5.99
5 30.44 6.24
6 35.44 6.16
' 7 40.17 4.54
8 45.02 5.75
9 49.78 7.28
10 54.78 7.16
t 11 59.59 5.79
12 64.46 6.94
13 69.39 7.75
14 74.14 9.31
' 15 78.50 11.76
16 83.17 13.56
17 87.30 16.36
' 18 89.86 20.66
19 93.77 23.78
20 96.21 28.14
21 100.16 31.21
' 22 102.43 35.67
23 102.94 40.64
24 104.06 45.51
25 105.66 50.25
26 108.27 54.52
27 109.49 59.37
28 112.13 63.61
' 29 115.62 67.19
30 118.39 71.35
31 118.60 76.35
32 119.79 81.21
33 122.17 85.61
34 124.30 89.62
* ** 1.798 * **
xvii
' Failure Surface Specified By 29 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
' No. (ft) (ft)
1 7.90 13.80
' 2 11.68 10.53
3 15.75 7.63
4 20.51 6.10
5 25.07 8.15
' 6 29.35 10.74
7 33.98 12.61
8 38.37 15.02
' 9 43.28 15.95
10 47.47 18.67
11 51.70 21.34
12 56.65 22.05
13 60.89 24.70
14 65.15 27.32
15 67.31 31.83
16 70.49 35.69
' 17 73.89 39.35
18 75.04 44.22
19 77.14 48.75
' 20 80.10 52.78
21 84.14 55.73
22 85.31 60.59
23 88.38 64.54
' 24 92.63 67.17
25 97.34 68.86
26 101.00 72.27
' 27 101.48 77.24
28 103.37 81.88
29 105.81 86.15
* ** 1.799 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 41 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 18.42 19.17
2 22.15 15.84
3 26.03 12.68
4 30.64 10.74
5 34.48 7.54
6 39.13 5.70
7 44.05 4.81
' 8 48.73 3.07
9 53.68 2.34
10 58.53 1.12
11 63.36 2.42
' xviii
' 12 68.35 2.77
13 72.28 5.86
14 76.84 7.91
15 80.91 10.82
' 16 84.72 14.06
17 87.07 18.47
18 90.56 22.05
19 94.92 24.50
20 97.24 28.93
21 99.93 33.14
22 103.26 36.87
' 23 107.30 39.82
24 111.56 42.43
25 115.11 45.95
26 116.57 50.73
27 119.03 55.09
28 122.54 58.65
29 124.56 63.22
30 127.50 67.27
31 128.85 72.08
32 131.56 76.28
33 134.83 80.07
' 34 138.83 83.07
35 143.54 84.74
36 148.50 85.36
37 153.17 87.14
38 158.16 87.47
39 161.69 91.02
40 165.06 94.71
' 41 165.21 94.97
* ** 1.820 * **
' Failure Surface Specified By 29 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
' No. (ft) (ft)
1 5.26 13.80
' 2 9.60 11.31
3 13.30 7.95
4 16.83 4.41
5 21.67 3.15
' 6 26.01 .66
7 30.87 1.82
8 35.52 3.65
9 40.09 5.69
' 10 45.00 6.65
11 47.97 10.67
12 49.12 15.54
' 13 51.34 20.02
14 54.85 23.58
15 59.24 25.97
16 62.81 29.47
' xix
' 17 67.01 32.18
18 70.50 35.76
19 74.05 39.29
20 77.71 42.69
21 81.32 46.15
22 83.32 50.73
23 86.58 54.52
24 89.36 58.68
25 89.81 63.66
26 90.88 68.55
27 91.45 73.51
' 28 92.90 78.30
29 94.04 80.63
' * ** 1.871 * **
' Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points
' Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
' 1 15.79 16.11
2 20.11 13.59
3 25.05 12.80
' 4 29.87 14.13
5 34.11 16.77
6 38.91 18.19
7 43.27 20.63
' 8 47.99 22.27
9 52.93 23.04
10 56.79 26.23
' 11 61.11 28.75
12 64.03 32.80
13 67.58 36.33
14 68.94 41.14
' 15 71.14 45.63
16 73.20 50.19
17 76.13 54.24
' 18 76.20 59.23
19 77.35 64.10
20 78.46 68.98
21 78.69 69.98
' * ** 1.873 * **
' xx
' Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
' No. (ft) (ft)
1 23.68 23.68
' 2 27.31 20.24
3 32.31 20.21
4 37.17 21.37
5 39.95 25.53
' 6 44.01 28.45
7 48.35 30.93
8 52.55 33.65
9 57.42 34.78
10 62.35 35.61
11 65.90 39.13
12 67.21 43.96
' 13 69.83 48.21
14 73.53 51.58
15 78.06 53.70
16 82.41 56.16
' 17 87.01 58.12
18 91.34 60.62
19 95.55 63.31
' 20 98.52 67.34
21 102.09 70.84
22 106.55 73.11
23 109.81 76.90
' 24 113.59 80.17
25 118.03 82.47
26 122.85 83.81
27 125.86 87.80
' 28 127.57 90.16
' * ** 1.884 * **
t Failure Surface Specified By 33 Coordinate Points
' Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
' 1 15.79 16.11
2 20.53 14.53
3 24.62 11.65
4 29.39 10.14
' 5 33.60 7.45
6 37.77 4.70
7 42.77 4.50
' 8 47.53 6.03
9 52.53 6.16
10 57.49 6.75
11 62.40 7.70
' xxi
' 12 67.39 7.28
13 72.34 7.97
14 76.74 10.33
15 80.53 13.60
' 16 82.69 18.11
17 83.34 23.07
18 85.44 27.60
' 19 87.86 31.98
20 90.90 35.95
21 91.63 40.89
22 92.64 45.79
' 23 95.06 50.17
24 97.73 54.39
25 100.30 58.69
26 103.24 62.73
' 27 106.85 66.19
28 110.59 69.50
29 111.91 74.33
' 30 113.80 78.95
31 116.71 83.02
32 118.61 87.65
33 118.70 88.57
* ** 1.903 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
' 1 39.47 39.47
2 44.41 38.66
' 3 49.39 39.09
4 54.06 40.87
5 58.08 43.85
6 62.03 46.91
7 65.36 50.64
8 68.62 54.43
9 71.59 58.45
' 10 74.42 62.58
11 76.72 67.02
12 77.91 69.58
' * ** 1.926 * **
1
' xxii
' Failure Surface Specified By 29 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 10.53 13.80
2 14.37 10.61
3 19.36 10.94
4 24.06 12.65
5 29.04 13.14
' 6 33.79 11.57
7 38.75 10.96
8 43.75 11.08
' 9 47.69 14.16
10 49.48 18.83
11 51.17 23.53
12 53.96 27.68
' 13 56.21 32.15
14 60.16 35.22
15 63.13 39.24
16 65.25 43.77
' 17 67.04 48.44
18 70.85 51.67
19 75.75 52.69
' 20 80.10 55.15
21 82.91 59.29
22 85.80 63.36
23 88.89 67.30
24 92.61 70.64
25 97.44 71.93
26 100.29 76.04
27 104.47 78.79
28 106.68 83.27
29 108.59 86.67
* ** 1.926 * **
t
' xxiii
1 ' A X I S F T
.00 27.50 55.00 82.50 110.00 137.50
X.00 +---- *---------------------------------------------
- 11
..153
.
..13 *6
..3226 4*
.5.1864. **
27.50 5.1.34.7.*
.5184367... *.
.51403.67.....
:
.1...3.67....9.
1.50.36.7. .9.*
.481..5530.77.9....
A 55.00 .4.21...356.0..9....
4.2..11..36..7..9......
.4.2....1.35677.099...*
.4.2.....1..33.67.709.. *.
..42......1...3.3667.9.9.*
' ...42......1.1..5.336.6696.
X 82.50 ..42.88.....1.155.3.0... *.
- ....24..8.8....1.151330....
:::::
.22...8.8.8....1515055.
.424......8.8..77311.11
.......242.2.....8....3.3..*
44..22....88..7.03*
' I 110.00 +. ..4....2.22.8.87...0
. .•
44. .2. 78.
..4.....2.2.2.8
' ... . 4....
.. ...... .. .
.4.4.
44....
S 137.50 .. ..... ..... 4..
t .4 . .. ..... . .... .. ... ....
.. .... ......
' . . ... . ..
165.00 + ..
.44
.... ....... ......
.. ... ..... . .. ...
' F 192.50 + •. •, •..
T 220.00 +
xxiv
Lf?
N
' 3 N
N
C�
1~ Ln
Ln
i
.,� W
rA
m
m I
•N �
4N
� rl
In
3L Lr)
N
t
N m Ln N
�+ I C CA
Ln
N
N
LM
' 3
f �
E
ti
t
1 �
.� < Ln X
• cy ,
� z
Ln
L I
Ln w Ln Ln m
N
N CD N Ln N
1
ZN o PG ✓ v
.....; ....:..:.....:..:...
November
...__.: _......• _._._ ._..... 30,1998
:.... -- ...... ra . .....:::::::::::::::::::::..... 1 of
r .0 . age 5
4r.-,: • r sir i ::
..:.:...:.:.:.
Hydrology Calculations and Drainage Design By:
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Brian Donald, RCE 26175
License Expires 3/31/02
joB 9 - 7
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP. SHEET NO. Z OF
531 Encinitas Blvd. #201
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 CALCULATED BY CIS DATE LiAF/A
(760) 942 -1106 FAX (760) 942 -2514
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
Hydrology alculations
Proposed Single Family_ Residence
The Design of'the Site'. Drainage system for the proposed Marabella
Residence is based on the criteria established by the 0ty of;Encinitas that
no Site Runoff shall be allowed to flow over the C-oastal Bluff portion of the
property'. In order to achieve this, a sump pump will be constructed at the
westerly low end of the property above the bluff that will pump all of the
collected runoff from the Easterly 110 feet of the site up to Neptune Avenue
The runoff_ deposited' in Neptune Avenue flows by surface flow to Highway 101
whereat will not produce seepage through the bluffs or surface flow over the
bluffs.
The following page is a calculation of the 100 year surface runoff
quantity to the sump pump location and a calculatio showing the adequacy of
n
a 6" PVG pipe to carry the 100 year quantity to the, sump pump: The sump
pump 6ystem; should have two pumps that Opewate alternately at low flows (to
keep them each operating occasionally) and to operate simultaneously at the
full 100 year flow for the required .capacity. R schematic of this system is
shown on the grading plan in profile and the pump system requirements are
stated on the plan. A planter Is shown On the plan at the NorthE st corner
of the site to provide a location for the backflow prevention check valve and
to get the outlet from thesump pump slightly above the street grade.
PRODUCT 201 1(SiNg, Shw,) 205- 1(Nd&d)
jOB 9 7 —z v5
`�
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP SHEET NO, OF
531 Encinitas Blvd. #201 � —
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 CALCULATED BY 7� DATE O
(760) 942 -1106 FAX (760) 942 -2514
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
30- Nov -98
HYDROLOGY, CALCULATION
Q100 =C *I *A
A =' . 0.13 Acres 5500 sq ft from Neptune Avenue to Earth Berm
C = 0.80 Almost Entire Site Area Roof and Patio
inches/hour (Max intensity.. for Tc.< 10 minutes)
Q100 0.51 CFS
PIPE CAPACITY CALCULATION
Maximum Capacity of PVC Pipe Flowing Just Full
Qmax = ((1486) *(A) *(R* *.66671 *(S ** 5 )) /(N)
For 6" PVC Pipe at 2 % Min
r - 0.25 ft
A = 3.14 *(r* *2) = 0.20 sq ft
R AIP = 0.125 ft
S = 0.02
N = 0.012
Qmax = 0.86 CFS > .51 cfs OK
6" PVC @ 2% MIN GOOD ANYWHERE ON PROJECT SITE
IN GAUMIN Q100 = 0.51 *(7.48 gallminr(60 sec/min) 227 gpm
reomtcr 2a r ismgk sereisi cos i 1radlm
JOB
r RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP. �'—`{�
SHEET NO. • _ OF
531 Encinitas Blvd. #201 'j�
�
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 CALCULATED BY_ - `-" DATE
(760) 942 -1106 FAX (760) 942 -2514
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
y
� 2
.dc i M'AyNn . 11"n Fo�motca)
r - ,o,otZ (-! 'PVG ,�e,�
L l ow'
- j — c7tCi 4e4A to =- 4�njr, i t e-te-v SCE 2 I. S = "1 ?. 4
i 1 Q ( Z -D) C&Z.� -) ?
S So 5
.zs �►L
PRODUCT 204 .1 Me* Snreh1 M 1 (Padded) x
JOB ��'•� C.iV
_RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP SHEET NO. OF
531 Encinitas Blvd. #201
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 CALCULATED BY DATE 8
(760) 942 -1106 FAX (760) 942 -2514
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
Ci
-r. z --p+
1 t Lc, ws - . Z t 2t •s
Co _Z 7_5 )66:17- 4 )(Zo."i
"557
C;NAek 1p tie- +0 e.e', CA,,
F L/ V I .;
PACOUCT 201- 1(Single Sheeh) 2D5- 1(P*ed)
STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS
FOR
1320 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, CA
Shoring
PREPARED FOR:
Anderson Drilling
PREPARED BY.•
FLORES, LUND & MOBAYED
6362 FERRIS SQUARE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 546 -1626 * FAX (619) 453 -3296
PROJECT NO.: 98200
DATE ISSUED: 12 -10-98
REVISION DATES:
FLM
♦PARTNERS
JOB
O° L M FLORES, LUND & MOBAYED SHEET NO. ( OF
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
+PARTNERS 6362 Ferris Square CALCULATED BY DATE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 CHECKED BY DATE
(619) 546 -1626 FAX (619) 453 -3296
SCALE
M
t•�-� : Z 176 1 3 1 �.
Zt� �
s
ti� •
rr� '. la l 6 ,� �v �
-7
3 �D x (o AT
2,t x w x ? XI ?
t-.7xlL�x2�xZxl.2�� o'+L
78�
A
PRODUCT 2117 -1 (Single Sheets) 205 (Padded)
JOB
F M FLORES, LUND & MOBAYED SHEET NO. �- OF
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
+PARTNERS 6362 Ferris Square CALCULATED BY DATE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121
(619) 546 -1626 FAX (619) 453 -3296 CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
cp
i 7.Z.X
351�Qt.34!
w tb �2� • , =loo �F
f, zs'x zjSo r
S
".UCT203ll&1Q1e Sh&11l205 iP,tadmi
I
N
1
4 1
W 16X26 ° I
I
�+ W Ibx40 I I
I
r y 13'-0' ( MAX)
14'
s� W Ibx40
I
V � I
\ \
cnax.,
I I
1
m \
�� y�` \iR
w 14x30 a
\ I W 1430 I ( -
v i
- -- I -t
-- W 1430
1 -
X2
I
H
W Ibx40 0
1
A 11 -m• � 1
I
8 .. W 16X40 1
I
PROPERi7 LINE r- _ _ PROPERTY LINE _
- - W 16x40
I � �
I �l
y J I I
I 70'91
I6x2b
r� m
D
`
ANDER DRILLING FL- FLORF8 LUND 8 MOBAYED unarm
ee re n -3 b7 �Co ®GvJg3��"VGrI�J® O= G�J ® GG`90 -��� QPIAB®
y n z �i • PAPTHM CAO.aFBRNIA 92921 iL 1A01 e
linninaat'1110 Contractor I LIC. ISO. 8382 FERRIS S _SAi9 p�GO,e
X
D Z � e
iP �Q (1 II
T-
to 70 O
` DA
o z 3 D
A
-4 X Arrn
Ar zA
A
b
r r m s E ig
m
�
N
T Au, rp m
r = �m D A
tr
EMBEDMENT PER PLAN PER ELE VATION
VERIFY DIM. WHERE
NO LAGCs 3- OCCURS
n
t D O i t A
� A b
Z� Z
3
N
W
N N V N
f
(1
N _ (ltb D 3 N D ID
m
gg N
pG ,$ D j m HfT IA
El P�t i �_ d A m �ooNg N cn < lTJ
p�0 t�i mQ 3 i�i d N (. i NZCj A �n
m O ?� n m m— n m g�
8 -
In ��X DN �07p� p
O BD (p (A D C
tttt��� y` u t� r�t 0 tlt d F_ � rt 1 ca 2 d Y q
0 D � ��' i �c �-� _ D � r�R flf
ZZ 0 D op g 7Q _ oo^ t�t �d_r p D
G� 3 r�D , ZGCD Z� m AN
�m X (� O D �m N r;"
m
m N fi�tt►► 77p� �7
d rim
yy to rr
X Aa Z N D �p�
_ m tai mf t o a 1p F Z t; 51 I r P
4� z 3 � D ,v LD
tii F O (p N � �d
N n
r
m
� DRILLING F�-M FLORES, LUND M urrwl>fm *}
W cxn a m ®NI�dD�VOtMI® �Rfl ® OU�I���� &P1AiBB
n_ (`nnkronfnr / Lip No. ' ., cceo�s R SAM X40, CAIFORNIA 82721 N►IM4� *€