The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-7291 TE SOIL i:nclniciivnc consviucaon. October 1, 1999 TO: Mr. Lee McEachern California Coastal Commission FROM: Mr. Bob Mahony & John Niven Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. RE: Updated Geotechnical Review / Plan for Emergency Construction Proposed Lower Bluff Seawall & Upper Bluff Repairs Bruce Residence, 630 Neptune Avenue Encinitas California Soil Engineering Construction (SEC) has prepared the following, updated geotechnical review in response to recent upper bluff failures at the subject site. As noted in the conclusions ofthis review, the sudden and unexpected failures occurring during the past 120 days have promoted a level ofbluff instability, which places the residence on this property under imminent threat of failure. This review includes the results of our bluff stability analyses, conclusions and recommendations for the lower bluff seawall, repair of the existing upper bluff retaining wall and the installation of a new buried upper bluff retention system located on the southern portion of the property. This review utilizes, as a base for substantiating revised changes in overall bluff stability, information presented in the existing geotechnical report prepared by Geosoils, Inc., dated September 30, 1997 Some geotechnical information presented in that report is not included herein; therefore, the prior report should be utilized in conjunction with this review. Specific recommendations provided under the purview of this review supersede those presented in the referenced document. t Page 1 927 Arguello Street, Redwood Ciry, Colifornic 94063 -1310 (650) 367 -9595 • FAX (650) 367 -8139 SITE DESCRIPTION m Encinitas. The site consists of relative level budding The project site is located at 630 Neptune Avenue relatively pad area (EL +93' + / -) occupied by a single story wood frame residential dwelling of standard construction with appurtenant improvements. It appears that the structure is founded on shallow foundations and is situated within a couple of feet at its closest point (northern portion) to an existing upper bluff retaining wall which is approximately 18 feet in height. The project site is bounded to the east by Neptune Avenue, single family residences to the north and south, and on the west, by an approximately 93 foot high, steeply sloping westerly facing sea bluff. Along the toe of the coastal bluffare riprap materials, which were placed en permit in 1996 (Emergency under a temporary emergency pe (E g Y Permit No. 6- 96- 16 -G). A wooden stairway exists from the rear of the building pad area and extends down a portion of the coastal bluf. The lower portion of the bluff and the stairway have previously failed. It is our understanding that the riprap was placed on the beach in front of failed areas of the lower bluff. Based on our observations ofthe subject site, and the results this updated evaluation, it appears that the site conditions have degraded significantly: As observed at the site and on a portion of the adjacent property to the south, an ongoing upper bluff failure is occurring. A substantial failure of the upper bluff terrace deposits has occurred below a portion of the upper bluff retaining wall located on the southern half of the property and has migrated onto the } neighboring property to the south It is estimated that the failure below has resulted in a vertical failure scarp of in excess of 8 feet in height. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will consist of approximately 50 lineal feet of lower bluff seawall consisting of _ _ ks. At this time the height steel reinforced, poured rn place /shotcrete wall with two rows oftrebac of the proposed lower seawall is anticipated to be +32' M.S.L. In addition, emergency repairs to the g existin g PP g Y upper bluff retaining system, utilizing tiebacks and steel walers, and the emergency installation of an buried upper bluff retention system on the southern most portion of the property. The proposed lower bluff seawall will be built in a similar fashion to the existing lower bluff seawall located adjacent to the site, on the north, and the repairs to the existing wood retaining wall will be similar to that approved north of the subject property at 656 through 660 Neptune. The buried upper bluff retention system will be built in a similar fashion as those previously constructed by SEC on other properties on Neptune Avenue. The project plans, `Repairs to the Lower Bluff ` and `Repairs to the Upper Bluff dated September 20, 1999 should be reviewed for more detailed information. Page 2 PROJECT TIMING Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. has notified the property owner that it would be hazardous to initiate replacement of the rip -rap on the lower coastal bluff with a permanent solution until such time as the upper bluff repairs are completed. Initiating such work on the lower bluff prior to stabilizing the upper bluff would: ➢ Allow the upper bluff to experience continued failure for a period of months, resulting in the loss of portions of the primary residential structure, and; ➢ Place construction crews on the lower bluff in a perilous and unsanctionable threat of personal danger. ongoing Based on the imminent threat of failure to the primary residen tial structure posed by the upper bluff failure, the repairs to the existing upper bluff retaining wall and the development of the upper bluff retention system, as proposed in the `project description', must be implemented immediately. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Presented herein are the results of our bluff stability slo p a l ses for the subject site. The purpose analyses of the analyses was to find the minimum factors of safety with respect to sliding for the existing bluff conditions. The analyses were performed for both static and seismic conditions utilizing the Modified Bishops Method of Slices (STABL5M computer program) and the results are discussed herein. The location of the assumed most critical bluff cross - section A -A', shown on sheet I of 3 of the plans titled `Repairs to the Lower Bluff, and represents the bluff slope used in our analyses. The computer printouts are included in this review and are attached. Assumed design soil parameters used for our analysis are presented in the table on the following page: Page 3 ' Material Total Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Angle (Pef) (psf) (deg) Terrace Deposits NPPer - 120 100 32 Bluff Torrey Sandstone (Lower- 126 1000 35 Bluff) Seismic criteria are included in the slope stability analyses. The slope stability analysis uses a pseudo - static method with a Seismic Coefficient of 0.15 gravity. The calculated factor of safety with respect to sliding for each load case are presented below: Bluff Condition Minimum Calculated X- Section A -A' Factor of Safety Existing Bluff Analysis Before Seawall Construction Static Analysis- 1.28 Pseudo-Static Analysis - 1.05 Bluff Analysis After Construction of Seawall { Static Analysis - 1.50 Pseudo-Static Analysis - 1.18 Upper Bluff Analysis Before Upper Bluff Repairs Static Analysis- 1.16 Pseudo-Static Analysis - 0.92 Upper Bluff Analysis After Upper Bluff Repairs Static Analysis- 1.5 Pseudo-Static Analysis - 1.22 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings presented above, it is recommended that emergency repairs and the installation of an upper bluff retention system be performed immediately. Our engineering analyses, supported by Page 4 j the recent observations of upper bluff failures on the southern half of the property, indicates that the recommended upper bluff construction proceed immediately and it's presence is imperative to prevent imminent substantial failure of a degree sufficient to impact the residential structure on the site. As presented on cross - section A -A' (Drawing Sheet 1 of 3), the section depicts the estimated existing bluff conditions with the proposed lower bluff seawall and a projected slope configuration assuming that the upper terrace sands lay at their angle of repose, approximately 33 degrees. It is our opinion that if the upper bluff construction repairs proposed are not carried out, imminent failure ofthe upper bluff will occur and loss of the existing residence will also occur. In regards to the repair of the lower bluff, it is recommended that the construction of the seawall proceed as soon as possible. It is recommended that the existing rip rap materials remain in place until construction activities for the lower seawall commence. During construction of the lower seawall, it is recommended that the rip rap be moved in front of the construction work area and remain there until construction is completed. At that point the owner should proceed in receiving the necessary permits to remove the riprap from the intertidal areas to an approved location. It is recommended that the bottom of the lower seawall extend to a depth of approximately —4' M.S.L. Tiebacks for the seawall and the upper bluff repairs should be designed using a minimum bond stress of 15 pounds per square inch. The minimum length of the proposed tiebacks should be 40 feet. Caissons for the emergency installation of the upper bluff retention system should be a minimum of 39 g Y feet in depth. Caissons should not be spaced greater than eight feet on center. Minimum diameter of the caissons should not be less than 24 inches. Based on the findings presented above, it is recommended that a lower bluff seawall, repairs to the upper existing upper bluff retaining bluff retention g wall and the installation of an sy stem be constructed at the site. Our engineering analyses, supported by our observations of the upper bluff failures at the property as well as previous failures of the lower bluff, indicates that the recommended construction of the upper bluff repair work proceed immediately followed by the construction of a lower bluff seawall. It is our opinion that their presence is imperative to prevent substantial failure of a degree sufficient to impact the residential structure on the site. If the e ro d project is delayed, we recommend that the California Coastal Commission provide P P P J Y SEC and the property owner assurance that these present site conditions will not adversely effect the l subject property as well as the neighboring properties. Page 5 i Thank you, in advance, for providing your immediate attention, review and comments to this review. If you have any questions, require additional materials, or would desire an on -site meeting, please call us at (760) 633 -3470. Sincerely, S ENGIN LCONSTRIUCITON, Inc. tk ohn W. Si ven, R.C.E. 57517 Robert D. Mahony, E. 554, C.E.G. 847 Q� 0 �9 \ \NEER / N��l pFESS10 �O pONALD () 1 oQR W. N ��. �� q y c � °••��R� . Mq'yoG�r�t No. GE 554 m LIC. W ; No. 847 C D No. C 57517 E,,'� EXP. 1231101 :0 EXP.08 / d EXP. 06/30/01 ,k * � � �1�,�• / :�i LP CtVt\- ",� T�' 0 , 11 F C E O C A \- CFO; F OF CAS -1Y"" f�L h j Page 6 m M i I � m I I m O I kv pd Z33 ►aC� O f� •'�_ I N PAM wa. cl o I _ s¢ z a as ,� I �X H a , wa ^ cc o ON . m� .ate � CMM c ' 94 V w mN ~ rE SwM'� N MW r y V to x VO In a m-pd to H lu MM 04 O H•• c P4 P4 H =••IN O UJOOaNNMMIAY'!Y'!Y'! M GyNMMMMMMMMM �C.iNMd�Y?�OL�EDQ+O �i CD N ate+ ** PCSTABL5M ** by Purdue University --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Slope Stability Analysis- - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 09 -27 -99 Time of Run: 9:12am Run By: Input Data Filename: C:B22.DAT Output Filename: C:B22.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:B22.PLT i .1 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BRUCE RES. LOWER NO WALL BOUNDARY COORDINATES NOTE: User defined origin was specified. Add 00.00 to X values and 60.00 to Y values listed. 10 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 38.00 150.00 38.00 2 2 150.00 38.00 156.00 65.00 2 3 156.00 65.00 159.00 75.00 1 4 159.00 75.00 168.00 86.50 1 5 168.00 86.50 189.00 103.00 1 6 189.00 103.00 189.10 107.00 1 7 189.10 107.00 204.00 116.00 1 8 204.00 116.00 204.10 132.00 1 9 204.10 132.00 221.00 132.00 1 10 221.00 132.00 321.00 132.00 1 11 -------- -- - - - - -- 156_00 65.00 321.00 65_00 1 ----- - - --- r ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil oi 3 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. 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 .0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Mal Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X -Water Y -Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 ? 321.00 65.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Specified. Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been S p 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 150.00 ft. and X = 155.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221.00 ft. and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 9.00 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 -5.0 And .0 deg. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * s Are Calculated B Safety Factor Y The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y - S urf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.91 3 167.97 38.69 4 176.81 40.34 5 185.46 42.85 6 193.82 46.19 7 201.81 50.32 8 209.36 55.21 9 216.41 60.82 10 222.87 67.08 11 228.69 73.94 12 233.82 81.34 13 238.20 89.20 14 241.80 97.45 15 244.57 106.01 16 246.50 114.80 17 247.57 123.74 18 247.74 132.00 Circle Center At X = 155.5 ; Y = 130.1 and Radius, 92.3 * ** 1.283 * ** Individual data on the 25 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge e Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 6.0 10552.5 23295.8 10119.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.0 11547.3 .0 5068.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.0 45648.1 .0 14994.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 195.7 .0 57.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 8.8 53343.4 .0 14253.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.6 57282.3 .0 13142.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 24681.0 .0 5104.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .1 728.6 .0 139.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.7 35754.9 .0 6259.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.0 61408.8 .0 9405.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 16895.4 .0 2274.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 _2 .1 866.8 .0 98.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.3 49591.1 .0 4498.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.0 62521.6 .0 3923.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 L 4.3 35794.4 .0 784.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 tL .3 2213.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 14770.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.8 42962.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 L9 5.1 33441.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 24573.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9 3.6 16688.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ?2 2.8 10081.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 4998.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 1625.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 85.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.96 3 167.97 38.74 4 176.83 40.33 5 185.50 42.71 6 193.93 45.87 7 202.04 49.78 8 209.76 54.41 9 217.03 59.71 10 223.78 65.66 11 229.97 72.19 12 235.55 79.26 13 240.46 86.80 14 244.66 94.76 15 248.13 103.06 16 250.83 111.65 17 252.74 120.44 18 253.85 129.37 19 253.94 132.00 Circle Center At X = 154.9 ; Y = 137.1 and Radius, 99.2 * ** * ** 1.297 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf t f t No. (f ) ( ) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.81 3 167.98 38.44 4 176.86 39.91 5 185.56 42.19 6 194.02 45.27 7 202.15 49.12 8 209.90 53.71 9 217.18 58.99 10 223.95 64.93 11 230.13 71.47 12 235.68 78.55 13 240.56 86.11 14 244.71 94.10 15 248.10 102.44 16 250.71 111.05 17 252.51 119.87 18 253.48 128.82 19 253.53 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.6.; Y = 134.8 and Radius, 97.0 * ** 1.315 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 153.75 54.88 2 162.75 54.86 3 171.69 55.92 4 180.44 58.02 5 188.88 61.14 6 196.89 65.25 7 204.36 70.27 j 8 211.19 76.13 9 217.27 82.77 10 222.52 90.08 11 226.87 97.95 12 230.26 106.29 13 232.64 114.97 14 233.97 123.87 15 234.22 132.00 Circle Center At X = 158.4 ; Y = 130.7 and Radius, 75.9 * ** 1.319 * ** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 153.75 54.88 2 162.75 54.80 3 171.70 55.78 4 180.46 57.81 5 188.93 60.86 6 196.98 64.89 7 204.50 69.84 8 211.38 75.64 9 217.53 82.21 10 222.86 89.46 11 227.30 97.29 12 230.78 105.59 13 233.27 114.24 14 234.71 123.13 15 235.10 132.00 Circle Center At X = 158.9 ; Y = 130.9 and Radius, 76.2 * ** 1.329 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.88 3 167.98 38.52 4 176.86 39.94 5 185.60 42.11 6 194.11 45.02 7 202.35 48.66 8 210.24 52.98 9 217.73 57.97 10 224.76 63.59 11 231.29 69.78 12 237.26 76.52 13 242.63 83.74 14 247.36 91.40 15 251.42 99.43 16 254.77 107.78 17 257.39 116.39 18 259.26 125.20 19 260.11 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.0 ; Y = 142.6 and Radius, 104.7 13 243.73 82.24 14 248.75 89.71 15 253.14 97.57 16 256.86 105.76 17 259.89 114.24 18 262.21 122.93 19 263.81 131.79 20 263.83 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.0 ; Y = 146.6 and Radius, 108.8 * ** 1.348 * ** ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 151.25 43.63 2 160.24 43.28 3 169.23 43.83 4 178.11 45.26 5 186.81 47.56 6 195.25 50.70 7 203.33 54.67 8 210.98 59.41 9 218.12 64.88 10 224.69 71.03 11 230.62 77.80 12 235.85 85.13 13 240.34 92.93 14 244.03 101.14 15 246.89 109.67 16 248.90 118.44 17 250.03 127.37 18 250.16 132.00 Circle Center At X = 159.3 ; Y = 134.2 and Radius, 90.9 * ** 1.348 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) I 1 151.25 43.63 2 160.24 43.31 3 169.23 43.86 4 178.12 45.28 5 186.83 47.54 6 195.28 50.63 7 203.39 54.52 8 211.10 59.18 9 218.31 64.56 10 224.98 70.60 11 231.04 77.26 12 236.42 84.47 13 241.08 92.17 14 244.99 100.28 15 248.09 108.73 16 250.36 117.44 17 251.79 126.32 18 252.14 132.00 Circle Center At X = 159.1 Y = 136.5 and Radius, 93.2 * ** * ** 1.353 M I I � I N � I � s_ - E ., a �33 CDC" I fd Go C9 O�ioo IA Alm PkAk P4 =I x m¢ W-4 aaoQ aw 3y .4 d min m . au mm Y7•1 ON •i 11 C =N ^ O W V IA p°,N N m 3V �tri NW Q v �� °O a to ti o Q,.N.I,N,I CDC W F4 V V t+ C� Ncy a V F v•4L4 Is s �p F onnoNtiM mom m WOQOOOOQOOO dC •i N tri V� If7 �0 N Oo Q► � m Im a ? N N N N .+ %4 •-I •-I f 1 4 i M I � I N I I m f I N m m ' V N ryQt E+0� ¢I Hm 1 � OR9 N W � co PAO ¢a, 3N 13 H IN Om �'x U I x ap oa N w d � V A 41 I m 10 IA Im ¢ N r� 19 O Q r+ to m m N w IA N Qw �0 N N N W v 1 t ** PCSTABL5M ** by Purdue University ------------------------------ - -Slope Stability Analysis- - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 10 -01 -99 Time of Run: 10:10am Run By: Input Data Filename: C:B22PS.DAT Output Filename: C:B22PS.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:B22PS.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BRUCE RES. 3 LOWER NO WALL PSEUDO STATIC BOUNDARY COORDINATES NOTE: User defined origin was specified. Add 00.00 to X values and 60.00 to Y values listed. 10 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. ( ft) ( ft) ( ft) ( ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 38.00 150.00 38.00 2 2 150.00 38.00 156.00 65.00 2 3 156.00 65.00 159.00 75.00 1 4 159.00 75.00 168.00 86.50 1 5 168.00 86.50 189.00 103.00 1 6 189.00 103.00 189.10 107.00 1 F 2 7 189.10 107.00 04.00 116.00 1 8 204.00 116.00 204.10 132.00 1 9 204.10 132.00 221.00 132.00 1 10 221.00 132.00 321.00 132.00 1 11 156.00 65.00 321.00 65.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil �43 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. 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 .0 1 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) 1 156.00 65.00 2 321.00 65.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf - - -- t ------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 150.00 ft. and X = 155.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221.00 ft. and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 9.00 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 -5.0 And .0 deg. - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.91 3 167.97 38.69 4 176.81 40.34 5 185.46 42.85 6 193.82 46.19 7 201.81 50.32 8 209.36 55.21 9 216.41 60.82 10 222.87 67.08 11 228.69 73.94 12 233.82 81.34 13 238.20 89.20 14 241.80 97.45 15 244.57 106.01 16 246.50 114.80 17 247.57 123.74 3 18 247.74 132.00 Circle Center At X = 155.5 ; Y = 130.1 and Radius, 92.3 * ** 1.045 * ** Individual data on the 25 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge ice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 6.0 10552.5 23295.8 10119.3 .0 .0 1582.9 .0 .0 2 3.0 11547.3 .0 5068.8 .0 .0 1732.1. .0 .0 9.0 45648.1 .0 14994.4 .0 .0 6847.2 .0 .0 .0 195.7 .0 57.0 .0 .0 29.4 .0 .0 5 8.8 53343.4 .0 14253.5 .0 .0 8001.5 .0 .0 8.6 57282.3 .0 13142.9 .0 .0 8592.3 .0 .0 3.5 24681.0 .0 5104.1 .0 .0 3702.2 .0 .0 .1 728.6 .0 139.2 .0 .0 109.3 .0 .0 9 4.7 35754.9 .0 6259.3 .0 .0 5363.2 .0 .0 8.0 61408.8 .0 9405.3 .0 .0 9211.3 .0 .0 2.2 16895.4 .0 2274.0 .0 .0 2534.3 .0 .0 2 .1 866.8 .0 98.4 .0 .0 130.0 .0 .0 5.3 49591.1 .0 4498.5 .0 .0 7438.7 .0 .0 7.0 62521.6 .0 3923.4 .0 .0 9378.2 .0 .0 4.3 35794.4 .0 784.8 .0 .0 5369.2 .0 .0 .3 2213.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 332.0 .0 .0 1.9 14770.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 2215.6 .0 .0 5.8 42962.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6444.3 .0 .0 .9 5.1 33441.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 5016.2 .0 .0 4.4 24573.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3686.0 .0 .0 3.6' 16688.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 2503.3 .0 .0 2 2.8 10081.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 1512.3 .0 .0 1.9 4998.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 749.7 .0 .0 1.1 1625.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 243.8 .0 .0 .2 85.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.9 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.96 3 167.97 38.74 4 176.83 40.33 5 185.50 42.71 6 193.93 45.87 7 202.04 49.78 8 209.76 54.41 9 217.03 59.71 10 223.78 65.66 11 229.97 72.19 12 235.55 79.26 13 240.46 86.80 14 244.66 94.76 15 248.13 103.06 16 250.83 111.65 17 252.74 120.44 18 253.85 129.37 19 253.94 132.00 Circle Center At X = 154.9 ; Y = 137.1 and Radius, 99.2 * ** 1.046 * ** -------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.81 3 167.98 38.44 4 176.86 39.91 5 185.56 42.19 6 194.02 45.27 7 202.15 49.12 8 209.90 53.71 9 217.18 58.99 10 223.95 64.93 11 230.13 71.47 12 235.68 78.55 13 240.56 86.11 14 244.71 94.10 15 248.10 102.44 16 250.71 111.05 17 252.51 119.87 18 253.48 128.82 19 253.53 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.6 ; Y = 134.8 and Radius, 97.0 * ** 1.063 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.88 3 167.98 38.52 4 176.86 39.94 5 185.60 42.11 6 194.11 45.02 7 202.35 48.66 8 210.24 52.98 9 217.73 57.97 10 224.76 63.59 11 231.29 69.78 12 237.26 76.52 13 242.63 83.74 14 247.36 91.40 15 251.42 99.43 16 254.77 107.78 17 257.39 116.39 18 259.26 125.20 19 260.11 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.0 ; Y = 142.6 and Radius, 104.7 * ** 1.066 * ** ---------------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.87 3 167.98 38.49 4 176.88 39.85 5 185.63 41.94 6 194.18 44.74 7 202.47 48.24 8 210.45 52.42 9 218.05 57.23 10 225.22 62.67 ' 11 231.93 68.67 12 238.11 75.21 13 243.73 82.24 14 248.75 89.71 15 253.14 97.57 16 256.86 105.76 17 259.89 114.24 18 262.21 122.93 19 263.81 131.79 ; 20 263.83 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.0 ; Y = 146.6 and Radius, 108.8 * ** 1.072 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.86 3 167.98 38.45 4 176.88 39.77 5 185.65 41.81 6 194.22 44.56 7 202.54 48.00 8 210.55 52.10 9 218.20 56.84 10 225.43 62.19 11 232.21 68.11 12 238.49 74.56 13 244.22 81.50 14 249.36 88.89 15 253.88 96.67 16 257.76 104.79 17 260.96 113.20 18 263.47 121.85 19 265.26 130.67 20 265.42 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.3 ; Y = 148.2 and Radius, 110.3 * ** 1.076 * ** --------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.99 3 167.98 38.66 4 176.88 39.98 5 185.66 41.96 6 194.26 44.59 7 202.65 47.86 8 210.78 51.73 9 218.59 56.20 10 226.05 61.24 mm 11 233.11 66.81 12 239.74 72.90 13 245.90 79.46 or 14 251.56 86.46 15 256.68 93.86 16 261.24 101.62 17 265.21 109.70 18 268.56 118.05 19 271.29 126.62 20 272.57 132.00 Circle Center At X = 154.7 ; Y = 158.9 and Radius, 120.9 * ** 1.077 * ** e Surface Specified B 20 Coordinate Points Failure p Y Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.85 3 167.98 38.41 4 176.89 39.70 5 185.67 41.69 6 194.25 44.38 7 202.60 47.76 8 210.64 51.79 9 218.34 56.45 10 225.64 61.72 11 232.49 67.55 12 238.85 73.92 13 244.68 80.78 14 249.95 88.08 15 254.61 95.78 16 258.63 103.83 17 262.00 112.17 18 264.69 120.76 19 266.68 129.54 20 267.03 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.5 ; Y = 149.8 and Radius, 112.0 * ** 1.081 * ** ------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- a Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points AW Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 151.25 43.63 2 160.25 43.62 3 169.22 44.35 4 178.10 45.80 5 186.84 47.97 6 195.37 50.84 7 203.64 54.39 8 211.59 58.60 9 219.18 63.45 10 226.35 68.89 11 233.05 74.89 12 239.24 81.42 13 244.89 88.43 14 249.95 95.88 15 254.38 103.71 16 258.17 111.87 17 261.28 120.32 18 263.70 128.99 19 264.28 132.00 Circle Center At X = 155.8 ; Y = 154.4 and Radius, 110.9 * ** 1.083 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 153.75 54.88 2 162.75 54.86 3 171.69 55.92 4 180.44 58.02 5 188.88 61.14 6 196.89 65.25 7 204.36 70.27 8 211.19 76.13 9 217.27 82.77 10 222.52 90.08 11 226.87 97.95 12 230.26 106.29 13 232.64 114.97 14 233.97 123.87 15 234.22 132.00 - Circle Center At X - 158.4 Y 130.7 and Radius, 75.9 * ** 1.084 * ** I I N I � I � N av, 33 i PA cr 05400 N 3m 0404 ,ul vim a (d OC i 04X 3F i4 °- iXO n m Y7 ... amp m . ON pk Iri• aaa •a n n p c HV V wON •I j a %o Nw f V~ � ma V #in a+H INN 0 swou� IA 4Ik.HH a E ' f4Z iN � UJOO•i•- INNNNNm wNNNnnnnonn mvn0NmQ+O ,' N d' •i a CO In N 0 %a N N N W v -4 •i •-1 t I M h � N M RN � N 0► PAN a+ I h N 3ch W I � H0 i W v MIN 3� mIA au x a w m x a� N u cis a t� a P", a � co as M N A7 N W - .a IVA ** PCSTABL5M ** by Purdue University ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -Slope Stability Analysis- - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 09 -27 -99 Time of Run: 4:30pm Run By: Input Data Filename: C:B28.DAT Output Filename: C:B28.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:B28.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BRUCE RES. LOWER W/ SEAWALL BOUNDARY COORDINATES NOTE: User defined origin was specified. Add 00.00 to X values and 60.00 to Y values listed. 10 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 38.00 150.00 38.00 2 2 150.00 38.00 156.00 65.00 2 3 156.00 65.00 159.00 75.00 1 4 159.00 75.00 168.00 86.50 1 5 168.00 86.50 189.00 103.00 1 6 189.00 103.00 189.10 107.00 1 7 189.10 107.00 204.00 116.00 1 8 204.00 116.00 204.10 132.00 1 9 204.10 132.00 221.00 132.00 1 10 221.00 132.00 321.00 132.00 1 11 156.00 65.00 321.00 65.00 1 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. 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 .0 1 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) 1 156.00 65.00 2 321.00 65.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X -Pos Y -Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 152.22 48.00 70000.0 8.5 20.00 40.0 2 155.33 62.00 70000.0 8.5 20.00 45.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. Searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 36.00 150.10 38.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along•The Ground Surface Between X = 100.00 ft. and X = 140.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221.00 ft. and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 23.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points ._, Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 110.00 38.00 2 132.68 34.19 3 155.61 36.01 4 177.41 43.35 5 196.76 55.77 6 212.52 72.53 7 223.72 92.62 8 229.70 114.83 9 230.00 132.00 Circle Center At X = 136.8 ; Y = 127.9 and Radius, 93.8 i 1.496 * ** Individual data on the 18 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Top Lice Width Weight To Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 22.7 5620.0 38214.5 41485.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17.3 7034.6 29176.7 32655.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 5.6 10822.0 23201.4 10259.8 851.8 -59.8 .0 .0 . .4 1421.0 98.3 742.2 92.8 -9.7 .0 .0 .0 3.0 12008.1 .0 5601.2 842 15.6 .0 .0 .0 6 9.0 45451.5 .0 15606.0 2873.5 1144.2 .0 .0 .0 9.4 54670.3 .0 14391.7 2240.1 1848.5 .0 .0 • 11.6 71471.6 .0 15412.3 2458.9 2127.5 .0 .0 • .1 650.2 .0 105.1 16.1 18.1 .0 .0 . L. 7.7 51498.5 .0 6640.4 1016.3 1329.7 .0 .0 . 7.2 47060.7 .0 3545.8 1078.0 1144.9 .0 .0 . .1 725.8 .0 13.4 12.3 15.0 .0 .0 .0 L3 1.3 10866.1 .0 86.7 158.0 198.9 .0 .0 .0 7.1 53718.7 .0 .0 672.5 974.8 .0 .0 .0 8.5 52798.5 .0 .0 988.5 1155.0 .0 .0 .0 2.7 13653.3 .0 .0 224.5 321.8 .0 .0 .0 '7 6.0 20298.3 .0 .0 830.7 918.5 .0 .0 .0 .3 308.0 .0 .0 466.8 424.6 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 110.00 38.00 2 132.77 34.78 3 155.75 35.90 4 178.10 41.30 5 199.05 50.81 ' 6 217.83 64.08 7 233.80 80.63 8 246.37 99.89 9 255.10 121.17 10 257.31 132.00 Circle Center At X = 138.5 ; Y = 155.7 and Radius, 121.1 * ** 1.496 * ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ �'' Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 110.00 38.00 2 132.51 33.28 3 155.51 33.59 4 177.89 38.89 5 198.58 48.94 6 216.58 63.26 7 231.03 81.15 8 241.24 101.76 9 246.71 124.10 10 246.87 132.00 Circle Center At X = 142.7 ; Y = 137.0 and Radius, 104.3 * ** 1.510 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 120.00 38.00 2 142.85 35.39 3 165.81 36.72 4 188.21 41.95 5 209.38 50.94 6 228.70 63.41 7 245.61 79.01 8 259.60 97.26 9 270.27 117.64 10 274.88 132.00 Circle Center At X = 146.7 ; Y = 168.6 and Radius, 133.3 * ** 1.511 * ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 120.00 38.00 2 142.86 35.42 3 165.80 37.04 4 188.06 42.81 5 208.90 52.54 6 227.63 65.90 7 243.60 82.45 8 256.30 101.62 9 265.30 122.79 10 267.34 132.00 Circle Center At X = 145.6 ; Y = 160.3 and Radius, 125.0 * ** 1.515 * ** Specified B Failure Surface Sp y 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 38.00 2 122.69 34.21 3 145.68 34.79 4 168.15 39.70 5 189.28 48.77 6 208.32 61.68 7 224.58 77.95 8 237.46 97.00 9 246.50 118.15 10 249.51 132.00 Circle Center At X = 131.3 ; Y = 154.2 and Radius, 120.3 3 * ** 1.516 * ** � ------------------------------------------------------------------ Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 110.00 38.00 2 132.60 33.73 3 155.60 34.03 4 178.07 38.92 5 199.13 48.17 6 217.92 61.44 7 233.69 78.17 8 245.82 97.72 9 253.82 119.28 10 255.80 132.00 Circle Center At X = 142.7 ; Y = 147.4 and Radius, 114.2 * ** 1.516 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 38.00 2 152.84 35.25 3 175.77 36.99 4 197.93 43.16 5 218.46 53.53 6 236.58 67.70 7 251.60 85.12 8 262.94 105.13 9 270.17 126.96 10 270.79 132.00 At .X = 152.2 and Radius, Circle Center A .X - 155.5 Y Ra i 117.0 * ** 1.517 * ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 120.00 38.00 2 142.80 34.98 3 165.78 36.03 4 188.21 41.10 5 209.40 50.05 6 228.68 62.59 7 245.45 78.33 8 259.19 96.78 9 269.46 117.36 10 273.76 132.00 Circle Center At X = 148.5 ; Y = 164.1 and Radius, 129.3 * ** 1.518 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 38.00 2 152.81 35.01 3 175.75 36.58 4 197.94 42.64 5 218.50 52.96 6 236.62 67.12 7 251.59 84.58 8 262.83 104.65 9 269.89 126.54 10 270.52 132.00 Circle Center At X 156.5 Y - 150.4 and Radius, 115.5 * ** 1.526 * ** s F �i M N I 1 � M O I I N kv Y7 I H Nr4W H� Pit �33 N H G4fA I•: n �I?Q► IA i:': �' o► a w •� I ma 0 C �100 NPk A•� a.� 1 Ma ' - aH as °O � I �� C04 co F . ♦c�v wn A% mm 3W 4 400 .� V WOM f W t+ Nw V 3 �n •-I !! o p-I IV 3 4400 i In Imc �� -4-4 a aG �� m 1 mz rp M c a SIN H w 19 W4 mN Mm Im M Gy+- I•iNNNNNNNN �CrINI+9�If?10Nwo0 M h d� a N w 94 W v m I M a � N V F4� cm FI Hq Al N 'T, � I 0 as � I � PA •, co as �' WN a IA val if 3� wa N •� .. N wa aw m In .-1 a m N R a +' N In N N N W v ** PCSTABL5M ** by Purdue University ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Slope Stability Analysis- - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 10 -01 -99 Time of Run: 10:05am Run By: Input Data Filename: C:B28PS.DAT Output Filename: C:B28PS.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:B28PS.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BRUCE RES. LOWER W/ SEAWALL PSEUDO STATIC BOUNDARY COORDINATES NOTE: User defined origin was specified. Add 00.00 to X values and 60.00 to Y values listed. 10 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 38.00 150.00 38.00 2 2 150.00 38.00 156.00 65.00 2 3 156.00 65.00 159.00 75.00 1 4 159.00 75.00 168.00 86.50 1 5 168.00 86.50 189.00 103.00 1 i 6 189.00 103.00 189.10 107.00 1 7 189.10 107.00 204.00 116.00 1 8 204.00 116.00 204.10 132.00 1 9 204.10 132.00 221.00 132.00 1 10 221.00 132.00 321.00 132.00 1 11 156.00 65.00 321.00 65.00 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil 3 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. 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 .0 1 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 f No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 321.00 65.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned { A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned ----- Cavitation - Pressure - - - - psf -------------------------------- - - - - -- i TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified } Tieback X -Pos Y -Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft). 1 152.22 48.00 70000.0 8.5 20.00 40.0 2 155.33 62.00 70000.0 8.5 20.00 45.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 36.00 150.10 38.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 100.00 ft. and X = 140.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221.00 ft. and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 23.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. i -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- 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 Bishop Method dw F Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 120.00 38.00 2 142.85 35.39 3 165.81 36.72 4 188.21 41.95 5 209.38 50.94 6 228.70 63.41 7 245.61 79.01 8 259.60 97.26 9 270.27 117.64 } 10 274.88 132.00 ' Circle Center At X = 146.7 ; Y = 168.6 and Radius, 133.3 a * ** 1.183 * ** Individual data on the 19 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge .are Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 22.9 3882.3 38499.4 40626.1 .0 .0 582.3 .0 .0 2.. 7.1 2236.5 12043.8 13139.3 .0 .0 335.5 .0 .0 6.0 12110.0 23299.6 10885.5 648.5 4.3 1816.5 .0 .0 3.0 12155.4 .0 5393.8 490.8 186.9 1823.3 .0 .0 5 6.8 35018.7 .0 12128.3 993.4 783.4 5252.8 .0 .0 2.2 12631.5 .0 3928.1 290.3 243.0 1894.7 .0 .0 20.2 133013.4 .0 32906.7 1275.6 2109.8 19952.0 .0 .0 .8 5748.6 .0 1226.7 39.5 62.7 862.3 .0 .0 .. .1 752.3 .0 153.8 4.9 7.9 112.8 .0 .0 14.9 118020.0 .0 19702.9 499.2 1012.9 17703.0 .0 .0 .1 903.9 .0 110.7 2.4 5.9 135.6 .0 .0 L2 5.3 52075.9 .0 5434.3 113.6 294.5 7811.4 .0 .0 11.6 107795.5 .0 8897.5 285.9 566.6.16169.3 .0 .0 7.7 65709.3 .0 2330.8 134.5 320.8 9856.4 .0 .0 1 1.7 13996.2 .0 115.9 41.7 69.9 2099.4 .0 .0 15.2 109339.4 .0 .0 277.3 543.0 16400.9 .0 .0 14.0 73660.1 .0 .0 262.2 441.0 11049.0 .0 .0 10.7 31427.4 .0 .0 222.4 322.9 4714.1 .0 .0 19 4.6 3971.8 .0 .0 132.6 160.0 595.8 .0 .0 e -, Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ft ft 1 120.00 38.00 2 142.80 34.98 3 165.78 36.03 4 188.21 41.10 5 209.40 50.05 6 228.68 62.59 7 245.45 78.33 8 259.19 96.78 9 269.46 117.36 10 273.76 132.00 Circle Center At X = 148.5 ; Y = 164.1 and Radius, 129.3 * ** 1.191 * ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 120.00 38.00 2 142.86 35.42 3 165.80 37.04 4 188.06 42.81 5 208.90 52.54 6 227.63 65.90 7 243.60 82.45 8 256.30 101.62 9 265.30 122.79 10 267.34 132.00 Circle Center At X = 145.6 Y = 160.3 and Radius, 125.0 * ** 1.196 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 3 1 110.00 38.00 2 132.77 34.78 3 155.75 35.90 4 178.10 41.30 5 199.05 50.81 3 6 217.83 64.08 7 233.80 80.63 8 246.37 99.89 9 255.10 121.17 10 257.31 132.00 Circle Center At X = 138.5 ; Y = 155.7 and Radius, 121.1 { * ** 1.198 * ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points �'z Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 38.00 2 152.84 35.25 3 175.77 36.99 4 197.93 43.16 5 218.46 53.53 6 236.58 67.70 7 251.60 85.12 8 262.94 105.13 9 270.17 126.96 10 270.79 132.00 Circle Center At X = 155.5 ; Y = 152.2 and Radius, 117.0 * ** 1.198 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 130.00 38.00 F 2 152.81 35.01 3 175.75 36.58 4 197.94 42.64 5 218.50 52.96 6 236.62 67.12 7 251.59 84.58 8 262.83 104.65 9 269.89 126.54 10 270.52 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.5 ; Y = 150.4 and Radius, 115.5 * ** 1.206 * ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 38.00 2 152.79 34.93 3 175.75 36.29 4 198.02 42.04 5 218.77 51.96 6 237.23 65.68 7 252.71 82.69 8 264.63 102.36 9 272.56 123.95 10 273.84 132.00 Circle Center At X = 157.4 ; Y = 153.2 and Radius, 118.4 * ** 1.215 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 110.00 38.00 2 132.60 33.73 3 155.60 34.03 4 178.07 38.92 5 199.13 48.17 6 217.92 61.44 7 233.69 78.17 8 245.82 97.72 9 253.82 119.28 10 255.80 132.00 Circle Center At X = 142.7 ; Y = 147.4 and Radius, 114.2 * ** 1.220 * ** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 38.00 2 122.49 33.16 3 145.46 32.17 4 168.28 35.05 5 190.29 41.72 6 210.87 52.00 7 229.43 65.58 8 245.45 82.09 9 258.47 101.05 10 268.11 121.93 11 270.84 132.00 Circle Center At X = 139.8 ; Y = 168.5 and Radius, 136.5 * ** 1.225 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 38.00 2 152.79 34.86 3 175.76 36.03 4 198.10 41.47 5 219.05 50.98 6 237.84 64.23 7 253.84 80.76 8 266.47 99.98 9 275.29 121.23 10 277.54 132.00 t f Circle Center At X = 158.2 Y = 156.5 and Radius, 121.8 s * ** 1.225 * ** �a 3 A _. N44 P 4 32 ........ 040 PA a fr IA acNV a (>O IA C I (SC co I 0 944 XIVOO PA WOW ViV 00 Q AI MS N cow AIM94 - cqw • mg z 00 (> In 0 CDC �' � 3w ON � OH 0 JAW (AZ Im woo owt NOO-1 N m w m m 0 q4 W4 C9 C9 M •4 M I @ @ @ � N Q+ •-I N I aa� � a@ a 3 @ H co Z04 •�� WIN ` 0. 04M @ In ' + W)•A 1� �I X Q V I N W W� @ P a v sw IA �o P4 to Cq a @ M i ** PCSTABLSM ** by Purdue University ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Slope Stability Analysis- - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 09 -27 -99 Time of Run: 9:19am Run By: Input Data Filename: C:B23.DAT Output Filename: C:B23.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:B23.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BRUCE RES. UPPER NO WALL BOUNDARY COORDINATES NOTE: User defined origin was specified. Add 00.00 to X values and 60.00 to Y values listed. 10 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 38.00 150.00 38.00 2 2 150.00 38.00 156.00 65.00 2 3 156.00 65.00 159.00 75.00 1 4 159.00 75.00 168.00 86.50 1 5 168.00 86.50 189.00 103.00 1 6 189.00 103.00 189.10 107.00 1 7 189.10 107.00 204.00 116.00 1 8 204.00 116.00 204.10 132.00 1 9 204.10 132.00 221.00 132.00 1 10 221.00 132.00 321.00 132.00 1 11 156.00 65.00 321.00 65.00 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 .0 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 1 156.00 65.00 2 321.00 65.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 1 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 156.00 ft. and X = 168.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221.00 ft. + and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 9.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 163.92 69.28 3 171.65 73.89 4 179.17 78.84 5 186.47 84.10 6 193.53 89.68 7 200.35 95.55 8 206.90 101.72 9 213.19 108.16 10 219.19 114.87 11 224.89 121.83 12 230.29 129.03 13 232.32 132.00 Circle Center At X = 61.1 ; Y = 250.2 and Radius, 208.1 * ** 1.161 * ** 3 Individual data on the 19 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge ��r-e Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 3.0 1507.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ., 4.9 6017.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1 1V 4.1 6559.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.6 6619.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 7.5 14396.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.3 14601.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 5140.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .1 226.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 10848.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 lit 6.8 15639.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.7 7725.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12 .1 299.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.8 10632.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.3 20404.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 15 6.0 14747.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 3484.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.9 5857.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18 5.4 4253.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ill 2.0 361.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 164.59 67.68 3 172.90 71.13 4 180.86 75.33 5 188.41 80.24 6 195.47 85.82 7 201.99 92.03 8 207.91 98.80 9 213.20 106.09 10 217.79 113.83 11 221.65 121.96 12 224.76 130.40 13 225.18 132.00 Circle Center At X = 131.1 ; Y = 160.0 and Radius, 98.2 * ** 1.163 * ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 164.42 68.17 3 172.62 71.90 4 180.54 76.17 5 188.16 80.95 6 195.45 86.24 7 202.36 92.00 8 208.87 98.21 9 214.96 104.84 10 220.58 111.87 11 225.73 119.25 12 230.37 126.96 13 232.95 132.00 Circle Center At X = 112.9 ; Y = 192.4 and Radius, 134.5 * ** 1.163 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points i Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 164.04 69.05 3 171.89 73.46 4 179.52 78.22 5 186.93 83.32 6 194.11 88.76 7 201.02 94.52 8 207.66 100.59 9 214.03 106.96 10 220.09 113.61 11 225.84 120.53 12 231.27 127.71 13 234.22 132.00 Circle Center At X = 71.4 ; Y = 243.0 and Radius, 197.1 * ** 1.164 * ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points ' Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 163.84 69.43 3 171.49 74.16 4 178.96 79.19 5 186.22 84.50 6 193.27 90.10 ' 7 200.09 95.96 8 206.69 102.09 9 213.03 108.48 10 219.12 115.10 11 224.95 121.96 12 230.50 129.04 13 232.64 132.00 Circle Center At X = 46.8 ; Y = 267.5 and Radius, 230.1 1.167 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 164.44 68.12 3 172.70 71.69 4 180.77 75.69 5 188.60 80.12 6 196.19 84.96 7 203.51 90.20 8 210.53 95.82 9 217.25 101.81 10 223.64 108.15 11 229.68 114.82 12 235.36 121.81 13 240.65 129.08 14 242.55 132.00 Circle Center At X = 102.1 Y = 224.1 and Radius, 168.0 * ** 1.216 * ** �r t co m noW UM 41 PA Soo) A" ormoo IA WS 9 ma co I XIVOO I min -C - WAR Ckw 0411 c �` N 0 Xm CM00 W-- 0 MCNIN Go p4lu MW z 344 In 00 4. 0 c4m IV 04.4.4 13C P4 W A 41) O IA P-4 c Go oz ommmmqvvnnn Igo m 0 m 0% m 0+ C+ 0 0 0 00 � m m m �� m � m m ti q 40 m N m m cq m N % W4 N 1 N i I � I � N t ti N 00 N N *'I m V N cI QI O� C4 A•-I W as al C04 3 N G ul Z V �¢ W x wa N N W4 w c+ mId F IA .. � m Is In N a N N N W v -1 94 •� 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. 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 .0 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 1 156.00 65.00 2 321.00 65.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned ------ Cavitation - Pressure _-- - - - psf -------------------------------- - - - - -- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. r 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 156.00 ft. and X = 168.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221.00 ft. and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. r 9.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 3.7 7725.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 1158.8 .0 .0 .2 .1 299.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 44.9 .0 .0 2.8 10632.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 1594.9 .0 . .0 6.3 20404.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 3060.7 .0 .0 6.0 14747.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 2212.1 .0 .0 1.8 3484.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 522.6 .0 .0 3.9 5857.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 878.7 .0 • 5.4 4253.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 638.0 .0 .0 2.0 361.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 54.2 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 164.04 69.05 3 171.89 73.46 4 179.52 78.22 5 186.93 83.32 6 194.11 88.76 7 201.02 94.52 8 207.66 100.59 9 214.03 106.96 10 220.09 113.61 11 225.84 120.53 12 231.27 127.71 13 234.22 132.00 Circle Center At X = 71.4 ; Y = 243.0 and Radius, 197.1 * ** .922 * ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 163.84 69.43 3 171.49 74.16 4 178.96 79.19 5 186.22 84.50 6 193.27 90.10 7 200.09 95.96 8 206.69 102.09 9 213.03 108.48 10 219.12 115.10 11 224.95 121.96 12 230.50 129.04 13 232.64 132.00 Circle Center At X = 46.8 Y = 267.5 and Radius, 230.1 * ** .926 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) ., 1 156.00 65.00 2 164.42 68.17 3 172.62 71.90 4 180.54 76.17 5 188.16 80.95 6 195.45 86.24 7 202.36 92.00 8 208.87 98.21 9 214.96 104.84 10 220.58 111.87 11 225.73 119.25 12 230.37 126.96 13 232.95 132.00 Circle Center At X = 112.9 ; Y = 192.4 and Radius, 134.5 * ** .928 * ** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points I t Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 164.49 67.98 3 172.76 71.53 4 180.77 75.64 5 188.47 80.29 6 195.84 85.46 7 202.84 91.13 8 209.42 97.26 9 215.57 103.83 10 221.26 110.80 ' 11 226.45 118.16 12 231.13 125.85 13 234.31 132.00 i Circle Center At X = 117.0 ; Y = 190.0 and Radius, 130.9 * ** .935 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 163.88 69.35 3 171.63 73.93 4 179.22 78.76 5 186.67 83.82 6 193.95 89.11 7 201.06 94.62 8 208.00 100.35 9 214.76 106.29 10 221.33 112.44 11 227.71 118.80 12 233.88 125.34 13 239.78 132.00 Circle Center At X = 20.3 ; Y = 320.6 and Radius, 289.3 * ** .942 * ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 164.59 67.68 3 172.90 71.13 4 180.86 75.33 5 188.41 80.24 6 195.47 85.82 7 201.99 92.03 8 207.91 98.80 9 213.20 106.09 10 217.79 113.83 11 221.65 121.96 12 224.76 130.40 13 225.18 132.00 Circle Center At X = 131.1 ; Y = 160.0 and Radius, 98.2 * ** .942 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 164.44 68.12 3 172.70 71.69 4 180.77 75.69 5 188.60 80.12 6 196.19 84.96 7 203.51 90.20 8 210.53 95.82 9 217.25 101.81 10 223.64 108.15 11 229.68 114.82 12 235.36 121.81 13 240.65 129.08 14 242.55 132.00 Circle Center At X = 102.1 ; Y = 224.1 and Radius, 168.0 * ** .953 * ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 163.76 69.57 3 171.40 74.32 4 178.93 79.25 5 186.34 84.36 6 193.62 89.64 7 200.78 95.10 8 207.81 100.72 9 214.70 106.51 10 221.45 112.46 11 228.06 118.57 12 234.53 124.83 13 240.84 131.25 14 241.54 132.00 Circle Center At X = -32.1 ; Y = 393.3 and Radius, 378.4 * ** .954 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 164.56 67.78 3 172.93 71.10 4 181.06 74.95 5 188.93 79.31 6 196.51 84.16 7 203.77 89.49 8 210.67 95.27 9 217.18 101.48 10 223.29 108.09 11 228.96 115.08 12 234.17 122.42 13 238.90 130.07 14 239.93 132.00 Circle Center At X = 117.0 Y = 200.0 and Radius, 140.5 * ** .954 * ** 3 I I m I M 1 I � Adis C9 •# O N NW 44 pp i 0. 33 Q+ IA 94 i N� aN w °O 94 i am z � I ma 3 as I .-Ix H a ' WN t v+ a • d ah ok c a G . � 0; �t+�• -I N MW W4 z v V 0 4i pp qq If� a+ Nc9 M-pl �� ma V �+H H 40 1 YI O 04." W 0 E+v z c O a r1N H m wo000000.4-4.4 W Q' IA Y? {I'J Y7 IA If! Iff H IA � •i N �*? d� If! �0 h CO 0� O �•1 h d' •-4 d � 00 n N Q+ uD N N N ■+ �« •i rl rl IJ �s � t+7 I I � I � I I � N I N I !� N Q, I I tV •� I � N I h � � 3a �r� WN v G4a1 •� X a� C9 Vp-4 pq �d Ih � d w � m P4 a + cc In c m , w N N W v •� •� •� 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. 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 q- 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 .0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 w€ Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X -Water Y -Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 321.00 65.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- `i TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X -Pos Y -Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 204.04 122.00 54000.0 14.0 20.00 44.0 2 204.08 128.00 35000.0 14.0 20.00 41.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 159.00 ft. and X = 169.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221.00 ft. and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 15.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -5.0 And .0 deg. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.80 3 188.61 78.19 4 201.99 84.97 5 213.35 94.76 6 222.05 106.99 7 227.56 120.94 8 229.07 132.00 Circle Center At X = 167.5 ; Y = 136.2 and Radius, 61.7 * ** 1.489 * ** Individual data on the 13 slices g Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge lice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) • 9.0 6275.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 10092.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 14.6 35877.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 1146.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 , .0 .0 .0 1 319.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12..9 45138.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 7135.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 447.0 .0 .0 4.1 -3.5 .0 .0 .0 9.3 45767.9 .0 .0 643.0 -413.1 .0 .0 .0 7.6 29236.4 .0 .0 1465.2 -703.1 .0 .0 .0 1.0 3231.9 .0 .0 285.5 -50.0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 11941.7 .0 .0 2835.1 -226.1 .0 .0 .0 .3 1.5 998.3 .0 .0 1802.3 377.8 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 173.99 74.45 3 188.60 77.84 4 201.83 84.91 5 212.75 95.19 6 220.62 107.96 7 224.88 122.34 8 225.12 132.00 Circle Center At X = 168.7 ; Y = 130.6 and Radius, 56.4 * ** 1.495 * ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.61 3 188.62 77.94 4 201.96 84.79 5 213.20 94.73 6 221.61 107.15 7 226.69 121.26 8 227.72 132.00 Circle Center At X = 168.2 ; Y = 133.8 and Radius, 59.6 * ** 1.496 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159*00 75*00 2 174.00 74.79 3 188.65 78.01 4 202*17 84,50 5 213.86 93.91 6 223.08 105.74 7 229.35 119.36 8 231.93 132.00 Circle Center At X = 167.5 ; Y = 139.3 and Radius, 64.9 1.502 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.75 3 188.65 77.96 4 202.17 84.46 5 213.83 93.90 6 223.00 105.76 7 229.19 119.43 8 231.65 132.00 Circle Center At X = 167.6 ; Y = 138.8 and Radius, 64.4 1.502 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 �:E 2 173.99 74.51 3 188.64 77.74 4 202.05 84.47 5 213.38 94.30 6 221.94 106.62 7 227.20 120.66 8 228.45 132.00 Circle Center At X = 168.5 ; Y = 134.2 and Radius, 59.9 1.502 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 161.50 78.20 2 176.50 77.98 3 191.05 81.61 4 204.18 88.86 5 215.01 99.24 6 222.82 112.05 7 227.07 126.44 8 227.23 132.00 Circle Center At X = 170.0 ; Y = 134.8 and Radius, 57.3 1.503 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.89 3 188.66 78.07 4 202.27 84.38 5 214.15 93.53 6 223.75 105.06 7 230.58 118.41 8 234.08 132.00 Circle Center At X = 167.0 ; Y = 142.3 and Radius, 67.8 �' 1.507 j - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 173.99 74.56 3 188.66 77.72 4 202.15 84.28 5 213.68 93.86 6 222.60 105.93 7 228.38 119.77 8 230.29 132.00 Circle Center At X = 168.4 Y = 136.3 and Radius, 62.0 * ** 1.508 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ft ft N ( ) ( ) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.99 3 188.67 78.13 4 202.35 84.28 5 214.43 93.17 6 224.38 104.40 7 231.74 117.46 3 8 236.20 131.79 9 236.22 132.00 Circle Center At X = 166.6 Y = 145.6 and Radius, 71.0 * ** 1.513 * ** i a N I I � I N I I � W4 I N � N � N I H a�3s I �, a HO IA „� ! M44 H1 s4 do I NN aG aa '� I ' X wm i � "ix aaoo N aw N an m . 2 . - a NI17 I IA•-I to Apom m 9411 3N pl ,.. W� V N O N mo w �c+�• -I NG4 04 '�� ♦,,•� V-4 IA .� V1 Q to S, m a+� rn W fr 3�i+0117 V 0, m IA H� G z �pq C C 0 .4m a � H M f �+NNt . .. . . .. . .-I •i ri q-1 ri rl r1 rl •i ri • m m qr m d y cc .� M N N 4t *i N W v I I � m I c� I I � E 1 N M N � � V � N E+Q I c I N W ' I m 3ti .r N m IA n �I ' X 3� a 1 a� N m x fW a N 41.0 •� rte.. V In =a s. .-4 m ti C W4 d &A W � �s 3 ** PCSTABLSM ** by Purdue University ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Slope Stability Analysis- - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 10 -01 -99 Time of Run: 12:31pm Run By: Input Data Filename: C:B27PS.DAT Output Filename: C:B27PS.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:B27PS.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BRUCE RES. UPPER W/ WALL PSEUDO STATIC BOUNDARY COORDINATES NOTE: User defined origin was specified. Add 00.00 to X values and 60.00 to Y values listed. 10 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 38.00 150.00 38.00 2 2 150.00 38.00 156.00 65.00 2 3 156.00 65.00 159.00 75.00 1 4 159.00 75.00 168.00 86.50 1 5 168.00 86.50 189.00 103.00 1 6 189.00 103.00 189.10 107.00 1 7 189.10 107.00 204.00 116.00 1 8 204.00 116.00 204.10 132.00 1 9 204.10 132.00 221.00 132.00 1 10 221.00 132.00 321.00 132.00 1 11 156.00 65.00 321.00 65.00 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 .0 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 1 156.00 65.00 2 321.00 65.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = - _0 psf -------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------------ TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X -Pos Y -Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 204.04 122.00 54000.0 14.0 20.00 44.0 2 204.08 128.00 35000.0 14.0 20.00 41.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 159.00 ft. and X = 169.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221.00 ft. and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 15.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -5.0 And .0 deg. ------------------------------------------------------------ Following Displayed owin Are Dis la ed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.80 3 188.61 78.19 4 201.99 84.97 5 213.35 94.76 6 222.05 106.99 7 227.56 120.94 8 229.07 132.00 Circle Center At X = 167.5 ; Y = 136.2 and Radius, 61.7 * ** 1.220 * ** Individual data on the 13 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge ice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load tJo. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 9.0 6275.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 941.3 .0 .0 6.0 10092.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1513.8 .0 .0 14.6 35877.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 5381.6 .0 .0 .4 1146.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 172.0 .0 .0 .1 319.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 47.9 .0 .0 12.9 45138.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6770.7 .0 .0 7 2.0 7135.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 1070.4 .0 .0 .1 447.0 .0 .0 4.1 -3.5 67.1 .0 .0 9.3 45767.9 .0 .0 643.0 -413.1 6865.2 .0 .0 10 7.6 29236.4 .0 .0 1465.2 -703.1 4385.5 .0 .0 a.= 1.0 3231.9 .0 .0 285.5 -50.0 484.8 .0 .0 5.5 11941.7 .0 .0 2835.1 -226.1 1791.3 .0 .0 1.5 998.3 .0 .0 1802.3 377.8 149.7 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.99 3 188.67 78.13 4 202.35 84.28 5 214.43 93.17 6 224.38 104.40 7 231.74 117.46 8 236.20 131.79 9 236.22 132.00 Circle Center At X = 166.6 ; Y = 145.6 and Radius, 71.0 * ** 1.222 * ** ------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.89 3 188.66 78.07 4 202.27 84.38 5 214.15 93.53 6 223.75 105.06 7 230.58 118.41 8 234.08 132.00 Circle Center At X = 167.0 ; Y = 142.3 and Radius, 67.8 * ** 1.223 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points n Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.79 3 188.65 78.01 4 202.17 84.50 5 213.86 93.91 6 223.08 105.74 7 229.35 119.36 8 231.93 132.00 Circle Center At X = 167.5 ; Y = 139.3 and Radius, 64.9 * ** 1.224 * ** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.75 3 188.65 77.96 4 202.17 84.46 5 213.83 93.90 6 223.00 105.76 7 229.19 119.43 8 231.65 132.00 Circle Center At X 167.6 ; Y - 138.8 and Radius, 64.4 * ** 1.226 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.95 3 188.70 77.93 4 202.50 83.82 5 214.82 92.37 6 225.15 103.24 7 233.08 115.98 8 238.26 130.06 9 238.56 132.00 Circle Center At X = 166.8 ; Y = 148.4 and Radius, 73.8 * ** 1.229 * ** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.61 3 188.62 77.94 4 201.96 84.79 5 213.20 94.73 6 221.61 107.15 7 226.69 121.26 8 227.72 132.00 _ _ Circle Center At X 168.2 Y 133.8 and Radius, 59. 6 * ** 1.229 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 173.99 74.56 3 188.66 77.72 4 202.15 84.28 5 213.68 93.86 6 222.60 105.93 7 228.38 119.77 8 230.29 132.00 Circle Center At X = 168.4 ; Y = 136.3 and Radius, 62.0 * ** 1.235 * ** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 173.99 74.51 3 188.64 77.74 4 202.05 84.47 5 213.38 94.30 6 221.94 106.62 7 227.20 120.66 8 228.45 132.00 Circle Center At X = 168.5 ; Y = 134.2 and Radius, 59.9 * ** 1.235 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 159.00 75.00 2 174.00 74.72 3 188.70 77.68 4 202.42 83.74 5 214.51 92.63 6 224.40 103.91 7 231.62 117.05 8 235.83 131.45 9 235.86 132.00 r Circle Center At X = 167.8 ; Y = 143.5 and Radius, 69.1 e 1 1 Y i t 1 f 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INV . BOYD RESIDENCE, 630 NEPTUN E AV ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY CALIFORNIA FOR SKELLY ENGINEERING 619 SOUTH VULCAN, SUITE 214B�' ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 ' W.Q. 2296 -SC SEPTEMBER 30,1997 S9 .. Geotechnical Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438 -3155 FAX (760) 931 -0915 September 30, 1997 W.O.2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering 619 South Vulcan, Suite 214B Encinitas, California, 92024 Attention: Mr. David W. Skelly Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Boyd Residence, 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, California. Dear Sir: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to present the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject property. the The purpose of the study was to evaluate the onsite soils and geologic conditions t of the retaining wall and upper bluff area and to evaluate the earth materials bluff for the proposed seawall, and near the proposed upper retaining wall. EXECUTIVE SUMMAELY Based on our review of data (Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analyses, the proposed site appears suitable for the intended in the text use, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations p ud s summarized of this report are implemented. The most significant elements of our y are below: • Proximity of existing residential structures and improvements ll, excavations adjoining property to the northwest or southwest, should any significant be proposed. No new structures re proposed at this time. If structures are proposed at a later time, they should be located at least 45 feet from the edge of the bluff and be demonstrated to be behind the identified daylight line. Should the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall be properly constructed, however, no such setback would be necessary from a geotechnical viewpoint. • Excavation of foundations and earthwork adjacent to or in close.proximity to the sea cliff and/or existing structures onsite and to the northwest or southwest. • The effects of strong seismic shaking as a result of an earthquake and resulting vertical and horizontal deformation. • Potential for perched groundwater in excavations on the bluff, and depth to groundwater. • Potential for bluff retreat and associated distress to settlement sensitive improvements, should the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall not be constructed and maintained. • The proposed seawall and upper retaining wall should be constructed and maintained. Drainage of the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall should also be provided and maintained. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, please contact us at (760) 438 -3155. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Sherry L. aton Maung Maung Gy Project Manager `ti QED Gc p�o Staff Engineer �OQQOFE$S /ONqZ NO. 1 cartilied A bert E 06- -01 R. Kleist N o. 4 . Franklin cry Enghaerin0 4n Engirneerin � RC T Geologi � ��4�1 F � Civil Engineer, OF CF O Geotechnical Engin a C Ati- q OF CA� SLE /JPF /ARK/hs Distribution: (5) Addressee (1) Nowak - Meulmester & Associates, Mr. George Meulmester W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering Page Two File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi G¢oSoiis, Inc TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................... ... 1 FIELD STUDIES ...... ............................... ..................1 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................... ..............................1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............... ............................... 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ................. ............................... 3 COASTAL BLUFF GEOMORPHOLOGY ....... ............................... 3 GEOLOGIC UNITS ....................... . .............................. 4 Pleistocene -age Lindavista Formation (Map Symbol - Qlv) ................. 4 Eocene -age Torrey Sandstone (Map Symbol Tt) ........................ 5 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE .................. ............................... 5 GROUNDWATER......................... ............................... 5 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY ...................................... 6 Faulting........................... ............................... 6 Seismicity......................... ............................... 8 LONG -TERM SEA -LEVEL CHANGE . ............................... • • • • • • • • • 9 COASTAL -BLUFF RETREAT ................ ............................... 9 Marine Erosion ...................... .............................10 Mechanical and Biological Processes ... ....................... 10 Water Depth, Wave Height, and Platform Slope ................... 10 Marine Erosion at the Cliff- Platform Junction ...................... 10 Subaerial Erosion .................... .............................11 Groundwater .................. .............................11 Slope Decline ................. .............................11 OTHER GEOLOGIC DEVELOPMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .................... 11 LABORATORY TESTING .................. ............................... 12 Classification ........................ .............................12 Moisture/ Density .................. ....................:.......... 12 Laboratory Standard .................. .............................12 Shear Testing ....................... .............................13 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES ............. ............................... 13 Slope Setbacks ...................... .............................13 GeoSoiiis, Inc. Gross Stability Analysis ............. ............................... 13 Surficial Slope Stability ....•••••••••• •• ........................•.... 15 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ .. 15 DESIGN OF UPPER RETAINING WALL ...... ............................... 16 16 Bearing Value of Upper Wall ........................... • • • • • ...... _ . 16 Lateral Pressure .......... ..........................••••• Tieback Skin Friction in Upper Wall ................................... 17 DESIGN OF LOWER SEAWALL ............ ............................... 17 Bearing Value of Lower Wall ......... ............................... 17 Lateral Pressure ..................... .............................17 Tieback Skin Friction in Lower Seawall .......... .................. . . 17 WALL AND BACKFILL DRAINAGE ........................... • • • • • ... .... 18 SHORING AND BRACING ................. ............................... 18 Temporary Excavation /Shoring .. .•••••••••••••••••••••'••...... ,.24 E xcavation Observation (All Excavations) ..... • • • • • • • • • • ' ' ' ' ' .. , 25 Field Observation ......................................... .. CAISSON CONSTRUCTION .............. ................................ LATERAL DEFLECTION OF EXCAVATION - ALLOWABLE DESIGN LIMITS ......... 27 Conventional H -Pile Walls with Tieback Anchors ..................... 27 Drilled Pier Walls /H -Piles Walls without Tiebacks ........................ 27 Allowable Settlement (Total and Differential) ........................... 27 .... Fill Placement ..................... ........................... 28 Slope Construction ............................... • • • • • .. 28 General.................. ............................... 28 Cut Slopes - Temporary ............................... DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 28 Landscape Maintenance and Planting ..• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••::: 28 2g Site Improvements ................. ............................... 29 Drainage ............. ............................... ... 29 Footing /Pier Excavations ......... ............................... 29 Trenching ....................................................... 30 Utility Trench Backfill .. ............................... • • • • • .. 30 Grading Guidelines ........ ............................... .. 30 Corrosive Potential ................................................ PLANREVIEW ............................ .............................30 LIMITATIONS............................. ............................. Table of Contents Skelly Engineering Page ii File: eAwp7T2200\2296a.pgi GeoSoiiils, Inc. FIGURES: 2 FIGURE 1 - Site Location Map ......... ............................... 7 FIGURE 2 - California Fault Map .... • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • .... ' .......... FIGURE 3 - Geologic Cross Section X -X' .............................. 14 1 FIGURE 4 - Schematic of Site Wall Drain Option A ....................... 20 FIGURE 5 - Schematic of Site Wall Drain Option B ....................... FIGURE 6 - Schematic of Site Wall Drain Option C ....................... 21 ATTACHMENTS: Rear of Text APPENDIX A - References ..................... • • • • • ' ' ' ' ' Rear of Text APPENDIX B - Boring Logs ............ • • • • • • • • • • ' ' ' . ' ' ' Rear of Text APPENDIX C - EQSEARCH, and FRISK89 Data .... • • • • • ' ' ' ' ' . .. Rear of Text APPENDIX D - Slope Stability Analyses ....................... APPENDIX E - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines ......... Rear of Text APPENDIX F - Homeowners Maintenance Guidelines ............ Rear of Text APPENDIX G - Procedures for Tieback Soldier Beam Installation ... Rear of Text PLATE 1 - Geotechnical Map ................. F . .... Rear of Text in Pocket Table of Contents Skelly Engineering Page iii File: e: \wp7 \2200\2296a.pgi GeoSoiils, InC• i PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BOYD RESIDENCE, 630 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services includes the following: 1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data for the area, documents provided by you, and stereoscopic aerial photographs of the site (Appendix A). 2. Geologic mapping of exposed conditions, including sea cliff bedding and joint/fracture attitudes. 3. Subsurface exploration consisting of the drilling of one hollow- stem -auger boring and geotechnical logging and sampling. .4. Pertinent laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program. 5. Evaluation of potential areal site seismicity and secondary seismic hazards. 6. Slope stability evaluation. 7. Appropriate engineering and geologic analyses of data collected and preparation of this report. FIELD STUDIES Site specific field studies conducted by GSI consisted of geologic mapping of the existing geologic conditions in the bluff, and the drilling of one hollow- stem -auger boring for evaluation of near - surface soil and geologic conditions. The boring was logged by a geologist from our firm who collected representative bulk and undisturbed samples from the boring for appropriate laboratory testing. The log of the boring is presented in Appendix B. The locations of the boring is presented on Plate 1. SITE DESCRIPTION The study area is a coastal bluff located on the beach in Encinitas, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). A single-family, beach. Access to the bluff on the exists a is via publics stairs shaped parcel that fronts on the s from a parking area on Neptune Avenue, about 1000 feet north of the site. GeoSoiis, Inc. ': %'1. 1 '�� a ',`• � `u y,. a .:S rr/ o \ am 1 I I ` ' 1' J _ - N , '1' ,• . nt; i .:. .: �; ; � t�7�.. = t •,. \y: � \ � � ' '��•_- „rte ��'� \lull'! ..�� `5'•`,' s -�-- � . \�, t -Tank a .:��'• � _ 1 � \ � � /•u •\' ..-. It �'r�� iU � � �� Leucadia� m 't''15 \ G,•. G US •,' -� • .t:. { r'6C '• Q,. ;�.' C_ ni ill \ 1•,1 N9'.,t ° •`: , I!• • .t • - 1 x11 �r ` . it 15 N \ "��',_ • \ 1l 1 300` . . i�.j� it At ` - • t S � u �'�• , a .a�,' �• ,Water %I ��. r rade i ,n '',• Park :�` - �'I . 't�•� , ia�'s: �rr� �: \ , \ 1 . �� t ' `� -C �, - - Encinitas 0 County Park ca •;s�,• 1 r 7 ' f >•.,.p ■�L -� _ rj o • 1 1 _ .:n\ �9 Now V n a ' \ .� I _fig f • - - • / Y `\ � - ` - U �� i ®m_ Ek u•- ��.. r'. � ) ••��7� Q Seas,de Gardens {:;` St o \` m - ' In P "• - - - -- t n County Park R". E 1 ,' zT a li I I \ u u! $nt ita L G�; n! i # 7 moONUGHT 1 ti'1'aTE BEACH' i � •� 1 \ �' - ' `l y �� i � •� 1 � y . - , 1 ; -• ; „7 Encinit t ° , £ ~ ` as (BM 91)..' q .gam %.i. i - ' / . t :.�I ate. •- .: ®n: • ..�\�. Base Map: Encinitas Quadrangle, California - -SS Diego Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1968 (photo revised 1975), by USG S. .0. 2296 -A -SC SITE LOCATION MAP 0 2000 4000 Figure 1 Scale Feet Stairs that provided access from the residence to the beach previously existed from the residence to the beach. The lower portion of the bluff and the access stairs have failed and on been removed by erosion of the coastal waters. e nts of the bluff range been p place 55 the beach in the failed bluff area. Slop g adie degrees in the upper portions of the bluff and 75 degrees in the lower portions of the bluff (Torrey Sandstone), with localized steeper areas in both portions of the bluff. Slight seepage was observed in the bluff face within the Torrey Sandstone. This seepage is much greater in the bluff face at neighboring properties (within 300 feet of the site). PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the proposed development consists of a seawall in the lower portion of the bluff (at beach level) and a retaining wall in upper portions of the bluff to stabilize the cliff and, therefore, the existing structure and related improvements. Inasmuch as the client will provide the seawall design and recommendations, based on our report, no further information about the proposed seawall is available at this time. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The site is located in Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by northwest - trending, steep, elongated ranges and valleys. The Peninsular Ranges extend north to the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and south into Mexico to the tip of Baja California. The province is bounded by the east -west trending Transverse Ranges geomorphic province to the north and northeast, by the Colorado Desert geomorphic province to the southeast, and by the Continental Borderlands geomorphic province to the west. In the Peninsular Ranges, sedimentary and volcanic units discontinuously mantle the crystalline bedrock, alluvial deposits have filled in the lower valley areas, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited /eroded in the coastal and beach areas. COASTAL BLUFF GEOMORPHOLOGY The typical coastal -bluff profile may be divided into three zones; bluff shore generally a lower nging near -vertical between about 5 and 65 degrees The buff top is the boundary between In inclination the upper bluff and the coastal terrace. Offshore from the sea cliff is an area of indefinite extent termed the near -shore zone. The bedrock surface in the near -shore zone, which extends out to sea from the base of the sea cliff, is the shore platform. As pointed out by Trenhaile (1987), worldwide, the shore platform may vary in inclination from near horizontal to as steep as 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). The boundary between the sea cliff (the lower vertical and near - vertical section W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 3 File: eAwp7\2200\2296a.pgi GeoSoils, Inc. of the bluff) and the shore platform is called the cliff - platform junction, or sometimes the shoreline angle. Within the near -shore zone is a subdivision called the inshore zone, beginning where the waves begin to break. This boundary varies with time because the point at which waves begin to break changes dramatically with changes in wave size and tidal level. During low tides, large waves will begin to break further away from shore. During high tides, waves may not break at all or they may break directly on the lower cliff. Closer to shore is the foreshore zone, that portion of the shore lying between the upper limit of wave wash at high tide and the ordinary low water mark. Both of these boundaries often lie on a sand or cobble beach. In this case of a shoreline with a bluff, the foreshore zone extends from low water to the lower face of the bluff. Emery and Kuhn (1982) developed a global system of classification of coastal bluff profiles, and applied that system to the San Diego County coastline from San Onofre State Park to the southerly tip of Point Loma. Emery and Kuhn (1982), designated this portion of the coast area as "active" and "Type C (c)," as the surficial deposits are relatively thick with respect to the underlying bedrock. The letter "C' designates coastal bluffs having a resistant geologic formation at the bottom of the bluff and less resistant cap on the remaining height of the bluff. The relative effectiveness of marine erosion compared to subaerial erosion of the bluff produces a characteristic profile. Extremely rapid marine erosion compared to subaerial erosion produces a steep overall bluff, whereas slower marine erosion produces a more gently - sloping upper bluff. The letter "(c)" indicates that the long -term rate of subaerial erosion is about equal to that of marine erosion. GEOLOGIC UNITS Two major geologic units were observed and /or encountered on the site. Mappable units are shown on the Geologic Map, Plate 1. These units are described, from youngest to oldest: Pleisto age Lindavista Formation (Map Sym - Qlv) Our mapping and research (Wilson, 1972) indicate that the upper portion of the sea bluff is composed of Pleistocene -age terrace deposits termed the Lindavista Formation. This unit encountered on the site was brownish orange in color and is composed of fine- to coarse - grained, slightly silty sandstone. The deposits continuously make up the sea bluff from near the existing top of the bluff, to an elevation of about 20 feet. This unit was observed to be generally massively to thickly bedded. The Lindavista deposits are moderately consolidated, poorly indurated, and unconformably overlie the older sedimentary bedrock. This unit includes near -shore marine sands. Previous studies have indicated an age range for this unit of approximately 27,000 ( ±2,600) to perhaps as much as 220,000 to 500,000 ( ±75,000) years old. This unit is also lithologically similar to Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 Page 4 Fite: e:\wp7\2200 \2296a.pgi GeoSoiis, Inc. sand dune deposits, dated by some as 15,000 years old and possibly younger (Cooper, 1959). This unit is, therefore, likely Late Pleistocene in age (Artim and Streiff, 1981). Eocen age Torr�I Sandstone (Ma a Sym - TO The Eocene -age Torrey Sandstone underlies the Lindavista Formation on the site. These materials were observed in the lower portions of the coastal bluff and were encountered in our boring B -1 at 68 feet in depth. The materials encountered consisted of slightly silty, fine- to coarse - grained sandstone. The materials were moderately cemented and micaceous. This formation is described (Kennedy and Peterson, 1975)- as an arkosic sandstone, subangular, and moderately well indurated. The Torrey Sandstone is believed to have been formed along a submerging coast on an arcuate barrier beach. This beach enclosed and later transgressed over lagoonal sediments. Its deposition ceased when submergence slowed and the shoreline retreated. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE The Lindavista Formation is generally massively to thickly- bedded, and relatively flat lying to gently inclined to the southwest. The Torrey Sandstone is generally well bedded and cross bedded, and gently inclined in a northwesterly direction. Steeply inclined jointing was mapped within this unit, dipping steeply easterly, into slope. In addition, a southeast - dipping fault was mapped in the Torrey Sandstone, which did not appear to offset beds of the Lindavista Formation. GROUNDWATER An important contributor to the erosion of coastal bluffs is the flow of groundwater along the contact between the pervious, moderately - consolidated coastal Lindavista Formation, and the well- consolidated, less pervious bedrock that underlies the Lindavista Formation, and subsequent migration of this water into joints /fractures of the bedrock/Torrey Sandstone. The likely sources of this groundwater are; a) natural groundwater migration from highland areas upgradient of the Lindavista Formation, and b) infiltration of the Lindavista Formation and /or formational surface by rainfall, and by residential irrigation water. Typically, the volume of groundwater exiting the bluff face in the site area varies from season to season, even during drought years. This is probably occurring at the area of onsite seepage, which was observed in the bluff face. Groundwater seepage exiting the bluff face on top of the bedrock within the beds of the bedrock unit tends to cause spring sapping and solution cavities along fractures, joints, and bedding planes, locally accelerating marine erosion where these conditions exist. In addition, groundwater may infiltrate bluff - parallel joints, which form naturally behind and parallel to the bluff face as a result of near - surface, stress - relief. Hydrostatic loading of W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 5 File: e:\wp7\2200 \2296a.pgi GeoSoils, Inc bluff- parallel (and sub - parallel) joints within the bedrock may contribute to block - toppling failures. LILTING AND REGIONAL SEIS MICITY - au The site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially- active faults. Our review indicates that there are no known active s to s not within han site Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, for development (Wilson, 1972), and th 1994) . There are a number of faults in the southern California area that are considered active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include - -but are not limited to - -the San Andreas fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone, and the Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone. The location of these and other major faults relative to the site are indicated on the California Fault Map, Figure 2. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity. ABBREVIATED qPP.... q(29)l ; MILE Coronado Bank -A ua Blanca 1Elsinore 2 La Nacion 1 New ort -In lewood1 Can on L sa:Uie o Trou h -Bahia Sol. 28 46 Northeasterly trending faults have been mapped previously in the site vicinity. In addition, our review revealed the presence of other northeasterly trending faults within the Torrey Sandstone in the site vicinity. These faults belong to a group of relatively short northeasterly trending faults and would be characteristic of extensional faulting between right stepping, right lateral faults. As pointed out by Treiman (1984), the northeast - trending W .O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 6 File: eAwp7\2200\2296a.pgi GeoSoills, Inc. 0 50 100 SCALE (Miles) SAN FRANCISCO L G ES SITE LOCATION ( +): Latitude — 33.0601 N Longitude — 117.3018 W 630 Neptune Avenue CALIFORNIA FAU L P Figure 2 W.O. 2296 -A -SC GeoSoils, Inc- faults appear to have died out around . addition, these faults apparently do not trending regional faulting became established. n displace the Late Pleistocene terrace deposits of the Lindavista Formation, which have been dated as likely older than about 15,000 years. Seismicity The acceleration- attenuation relations of Joyner ) into EQFAULT Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (19 ) aye been incorporated (Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean and mean plus 1 sigma attenuation and curves and developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and B g ( m94 ) in other (1989). These acceleration-attenuation relations ,which performs determ n�stic EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake ( 1997 ) seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. . The program estimates the closest distance adios each fault and a user-specified horizon If a fault Is found to be within a user - selected r the p rogram estimates speak hon ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the "maximum credible" and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration as a percentage of the acceleration of gravity (g) is computed by any of ined in EQFAULT. the 14 user - selected acceleration attenuation latio from a maximum credible event Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations may be on the order of 0.58 g to 0.88 g, and a maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.43 g to 0.54 g. Historical site seismicity was evaluated utilizing the computer program EQSEARCH . (Blake, 1997). This program performs a search of historical earthquake records, for magnitude 4.0 to magnitude 9.0 within a specified radius (e.g., 100 miles), between the years 1800 to 1996. Based on the selected acceleration- attenuation relation, a peak horizontal ground acceleration is estimated, which may have affected the site during the specific seismic event listed. In addition, site specific probability of exceeding various peak horizontal ground accelerations and seismic recurrence curves are also estimated /generated from the historical data. The maximum horizontal acceleration experienced by the site during the period 6 5 approximately 0 9 6 miles awaye that occur red corresponding to an earthquake of about on November 22, 1800. A probabilistic seismic hazards analyses was also performed using FRISK89 (Blake, 1997), which models earthquake sources as lines and evaluates the site specific probabilities. Printouts generated from EQSEARCH and FRISK89 are included in Appendix C. Based on a review of these data and considering the relative seismic 1cti s obtained. souhern s California region, a rPn� ground acceleration of 0.19 to 9 value was considered as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 8 File: e: \wp7\2200\22 GeoSOUS, JIM years (or a 475 year return period). Selection of this design event is important as it is the m desin level of risk assumed by the Uniform Building Code mi pg of about 7.5. This level of ground shaking corresponds to a Richter magnitude even Our review of "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating ds Seismic H d coefficient (k) (Davis, 1997) indicates the State of California r ecommends 9 of 0.15 for design earthquakes of M 8.25 and using e•o01 for e magnitudes of M 6.25, with an acceptable factor of safety in the rang During a 50 -year span, a structure on .the project orSZOntal acceleration on subjected earthquake induced by an may affect earth structures and /or embankments. earthquake L 0 N T 0 M S - I`VEL CH ANGE Long -term (geologic) sea -level change is likely the major factor determining coastal evolution. Three general sea -level conditions are re lease andltransportSwh'le the The rising and failing stages result in massive sediment stationary stage allows time for adjustment and reorganization to r worldwide climate . lim changes in sea level of the Quaternary period were fluctuation resulting in at least seventeen glacial and associated with the me years and many before then. Worldwide sea -lev el rise as glaciers is commonly referred to as "glacio- eustatic" o re than 350e V feet below the present 200,000 years, eustatic sea level has ranged from m to possibly as high as about 31 ±feet above. Sea -level changes during the last 18,000 years have resulted in an approximately 400 -foot age started to rise in sea level when relatively cold global climates of the Was ice iin ic e Sea - level d to become warmer, melting a substantial portion of the c 000 years before show a relatively rapid rise of about 000 year r ise slowed, present to about 8,000 years ago. A bout 8,000 s ago the rate of sea-level ultimately to a relatively constant rate of about 10 the world coastline, including that of 6,000 years ago (Inman, 1976). More importantly, California and the subject site, has been shaped largely within this 6,000 -year period, with the sea at or within about 16 feet of its present level. COASTAL -BLUFF RETREAT osion Most of San Diego County's coastline has experienced occurrin during pee ods of heavy m in the last 20 to 30 years, with more rapid erosion 9 bluff surf (Kuhn and Shepard, 1984). The entire base of the e Thle we es erode the sea c ff by is exposed to direct wave attack along most of the coast. impact on small joints /fractures and fissures in the otherwise essentially massive bedrock W .O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 9 File: e: \wp7\2200 \229 GeoSoi ft, Inc. i units, and by water - hammer effects. The upper bluffs, which often support little or no the vegetation, are subject to wave spray and sp slopes.cWind,gaint sa fa outer layer and subsequent sloughing of over-steepened uncontrolled surface runoff contribute to the ero f the friable sands. Where the se on the more exposed over - steepened portions of processes are active, unraveling of cohesionless sands has resulted along portions of the upper bluffs. Marine Eros'o The factors contributing to "Marine Erosion" processes are described below. Mechanical and Biological Processes Mechanical erosion processes at the cliff - platform junction include wat ab a n, rock a brasion, cavitation, water hammer, air compression In joints/fractures, f these shock, and alternation of hydrostatic pressur earinh t waves and tides. l b�eaking- precesses are active in backwearmg. Down wearing processes include all but the mechanical wave shock (Trenhaile, 1987). Backwearing and downwearing by processes described above are both augmente g e nsat t h e remov of rock by the to s assisted by algae direct action of organisms (Trenhaile, 1987). ackwear e. Algae in the intertidal and splash zones and by roc rock up m eral millimete sa M olgus k s may and associated small organisms bore into p to se bore several centimeters into the rock. Chemical and salt weathering also contribute to the erosion process. Water Depth, Wave Height, and Platform Slope at The key factors affecting the marine erosion component f b shore a e water dept the the base of the cliff, breaking wave height, and the slope P entire coastline, the sea cliff is subject to periodic attack by breaking and broken waves, air which create the dynamic effects of turbulent water er rock and t the water- hammer pockets. When acting upon jointed and fractured iated with to cause hydraulic fracturing which exacerbates sad the e ro s ion. junction coincide with breaking waves is most active when water depths P latform the respective critical incoming wave height, such that the water depth is approximately equal to 1.3 times the wave height. Marine Erosion at the Cliff- Platform Junction The cliff - platform junction contribution to retreat d biological erosion processes. Marine erosion, which includes mechanical, chemlcao�n the cliff as far u as the to of the splash erosion operates horizontally ( backwearing) P P zone, and vertically (downwearing) on the shore platform (Emery and Kuhn, 1980; W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 10 File: e: \wp7\2200 \2296a.pgi GeoSoiils, Inc. Trenhaile, 1987). Backwearing and downwearing typically progress at rates that will maintain the existing gradient of the shore platform. Sub aerial Erosion "Subaerial Erosion" processes are discussed as follows. Groundwater The primary erosive effect of groundwater seepage upon the formations at the site is spring sapping, or the mechanical erosion of sand grains by water exiting the buff face. Chemical solution, however, is also a significant contributor (especially of carbonate matrix material). As indicated previously, as groundwater approaches the bluff, it infiltrates near - surface, stress - relief, bluff - parallel joints /fractures, which form naturally behind and parallel to the bluff face. Hydrostatic loading of bluff parallel (and sub - parallel) joints /fractures is an important cause of block - toppling on steep- cliffed lower bluffs (Kuhn and Shepard, 1980). Slope Decline The process of bluff slope decline consists of a series of steps, which ultimately cause the bluff to retreat. The base of the bluff is first weakened by wave attack and the development of wave cut niches and /or sea caves, and bluff parallel tension joint/fractures. As the weakened sea cliff fails by blockfall or rockfall, an over - steepened bluff face is left, with the debris at the toe of the sea cliff. Ultimately, the rockfall /blockfall debris is removed by wave action, and the marginal support for the upper bluff is thereby removed. Progressive surficial slumping and failure of the bluff will occur until a condition approaching the angle of repose is established in the terrace deposits of the Lindavista Formation. This process is repeated over time. Upper bluffs with slope angles in the 35 to 40 degree range may indicate ages in the 75 to 100 year range. Steeper slopes indicate a younger age. Slopes at the site vicinity indicate a relatively young age, which are generally typical of active erosion. OTHER GEOLOGIC DEVELOPMENTAL CON Other potential secondary seismic related hazards have been evaluated with respect to this site are ground rupture due to faulting, liquefaction, dynamic settlement, and seiche. Inasmuch as no active faults are known to cross the site, the potential for ground rupture is considered very low. Based on review of available data, the potential for liquefaction to affect the residence is considered low to nil. The potential for dynamic settlement to affect the site is considered low. The potential for seiche to affect the site is not considered pertinent to development; however, the potential for tsunami to impact the site is considered moderate to high. This should be further evaluated by the coastal engineer. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 11 File: eAwp7 \2200\2296a.pgi GeoSoi ls, Inc. ou h currently generally unstable, in general, the possibility and the proposed ea Although the site is considered low, provided all slopes are maintained and upper retaining wall, when constructed are maintained. e may rectede hough eft exposed to m are granular in nature and lightly indurated, y P weathering and are in an unconfined condition (slope face). The slope faces, if left untreated, will continue to progressively erode and may accelerate during strong seismic shaking or severe storm events. LABORATORY TESTIN Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of representative used and materials in order to evaluate their yscal characteristics. Test procedure results obtained are presented below. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified soils Classification System. The soil classifications are shown on the boring logs, Appendix Moisture/ Density ntent and dry unit weight were determined for each selected The field moisture co undisturbed sample (modified California sample) of the soils collected in the boring. The rmined for each select field moisture content was deteed in unds e cubic foot (pcfl, collected in the boring. The dry unit weight was determtn P and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of g the dry unit weight. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs (App ) Laboratory Standar soil density and optimum moisture content was determined for the 1557 r The The maximum The laboratory standard used was ASTM D type encountered in the boring. moisture - density relationship obtained for this soil is shown below: MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT. LOCATION SOIL TYPE PC B -1 @ 20 -22 SAND, Brownish orange 124.0 10.5 undavista Formation) W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 12 File: e: \wp7\2200\2296a•p9i GeoSoiis, Inc. Shear Testing Shear tests were per in general accordance with ASTM test method D -3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. The samples were tested in their natural condition. Test results are presented in the following table. LOCATION' .COHESION INTERNAL`':FRICTION B -1 @ 10' 395 29 B -1 @ 40' 365 32 B -1 @ 70' 570 30 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Analyses were performed utilizing the two dimensional slope stability computer program XSTABL. The program calculates the factor of safety for specified circles or searches for a circular, block, or irregular slip surface having the minimum factor of safety using the Janbu or general limit equilibrium (Spencer). Additional information regarding the methodology utilized in these programs are included in Appendix D. Computer print -outs of calculations and shear strength parameters used are provided in Appendix D. A representative cross section were prepared for analysis, utilizing data from our investigation and the map that depicts the existing slope. This cross section is provided as Figure 3. The location of the cross section is shown on Plate 1. Analyses were also performed using the geometry of the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall. Sioae Setbacks Based on slope stability analysis, the slope setback should be 45 feet away from the top of the slope, withou the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall. With the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall, such setbacks would not be warranted from a geotechnical viewpoint. Gross Stability Analysis Based on the available data, the constraints outlined above, and our stability calculations of the most critical slopes shown in Appendix D, calculated factors -of- safety less than code have been obtained for the existing slope on the subject site. This assumes that the slope remains in its current condition as depicted on the cross section shown on Figure 3. When analyzed with the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall, however, calculated factors of safety greater than code were obtained. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 13 File: e: \wpM200\2296a.p9i GeoSoils, Inc. Boring B -1 X Projected 6' NW v 10 . 100 80 80 J 60 60 Q1v m 0 " ; 40 40 W 20 - TD70' /2 " Tt • 20 0 0 20 0 20 LEGEND " =v Scale Feet Q' V Quaternary Lindavista Formation F LOS ANGELES CO. RIV ERSIDE CO. Tt Tertiary Torrey Sandstone , I »C. ORANGE CO. � SAN DIEGO CO. Approximate location of geologic contac IC CROSS SECTION Fig ure 3' W.O. 2296 -A -SC DATE 9/97 SCALE 1" =20' Surficial Slope Stability The surficial stability of the slope has been analyzed utilizing the shear strength parameters in Appendix D. Calculations are shown in Appendix D, which indicate a static. surficial safety factor less than code for the e XLsfing landavista Formation slopes. CONCLU "'S eNn RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineer avdl kel geologic amass with appears that the site is marginally stable and the overall stability Y time as coastal erosion continues. The construction of the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall will likely extend the design life of the residence (as impacted by slope stability) on the order of 75 years. It is our opinion that the project site appears suited for the proposed seawall from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, and upper retaining wall will have no adverse effect on the stability o f be reasonably safe bluff, e endanger life or property, and any proposed structure or facility is expected to from failure over its life time. Our analyses indicate that the project can be designed or located so that the project will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the life span of the project. The recommendations presented herein should be incorporated into the final design, grading, and construction phase of development. The primary geotechnical conditions affecting proposed site development are as follows: • Proximity of existing residential structures and improvements (walls, etc.) on the adjoining property to the north or south, should any significant excavations be proposed. No new structures are proposed at this time. if structures are proposed at a later time, they should be located at least 45 feet from the edge of the bluff and be demonstrated to be behind the identified daylight line (per code). Should the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall be constructed; however, no such setback would be necessary from a geotechnical viewpoint. • Excavation of foundations and earthwork adjacent to or in close proximity to the sea cliff and /or existing structures onsite and to the north or south. • The effects of strong seismic shaking as a result of an earthquake and resulting vertical and horizontal deformation. • Potential for perched groundwater in excavations on the bluff, and depth to groundwater. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 15 File: eAwp7\2200 \2296a.pgi GeoSOSlS, I »e. • Potential for bluff retreat and associated distress retaining wall to n sitiv improvements, should the proposed seawall and uppe constructed and /or maintained. and upper retaining wall should be constructed and maintained. The proposed seawall not be mitigated, ultimate Should the bluff areas ultimately distress to t d also imp provided and residence will likely occur. Drainage of the proposed seawall shout b p maintained. The surface drainage of the lot needs to be directed away from the bluff face to an appropriate inlet, utilizing non- erosive devices. This may require a moisture- activated sump pump in order to get the drainage to flow to a suitable ou l as other aspects provided herein or in prior discussions consider the above factors as we of the site. The engineering analyses performed, concerning site preparation a r the recommendations presented below, have been completed using the i p. to us regarding site development. In the event that the information concerning the proposed development is not correct, or any changes in the design and location of the proposed structures are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. DESI OF UPPER RETAINING WALL Bearing Value of Upper Wall 1. An allowable vertical bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) should be used for design of continuous footings a minimum 15 inches wide and 18 inches deep and for design of square footings 24 inches wide and 24 inches deep, bearing in properly compacted fill material. Per UBC code, this value may be increased by 20 percent, 300 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in depth of embedment (no increase should be utilized abo e for alues may behnc�eased by one- third of 2,000 pounds per square foot. Th when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Lateral Pressure p 1. Passive earth pressure of the Lindavista Formation may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density 0 pounds pound p r cu foott per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 1, 500 p 2. An allowable coefficient of friction between compacted fill soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 16 File: e: \wpM200\2296a.pgi GeoSoiills, Ine. 3, When combining passive pr d ri clonal resistance, the passive pressure ed b component should be re Y on 4. Active pressure of the upper wall should be computed as a uniformly undistributed rectangular pressure of 30H. Tieback Skin Friction in Uaper all The tieback should be designed with skin friction of 150 psf. Tiebacks in the Undavista Formation material would need to founded s� from the below 45 -foot failure from the top of the slope). degrees downward and to the coast OF LOW B SEAWALL Bearing Value of Lower Wall 1. An allowable vertical bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) should be used for design of continuous footings a minimum 15 inches wide and 18 inches deep and for design of square footings 24 inches wide and 24 inches deep, bearing in the Torrey Sandstone. Per UBC code, this value may be increased by 20 percent, 400 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in depth of a maximum value embedment (no increase should The above for �alues may behnc� by one-third of 3,000 pounds per square foot. when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Lateral Pressure 1. Passive earth pressure of the Torrey Sandstone may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. 2. An allowable coefficient of friction between compacted fill soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one - third. 4. Active pressure of the lower wall should be computed as a uniformly distributed rectangular pressure of 55H. Tieback Ski Friction in Lower Seawall Tiebacks should be designed with a skin friction of 400 psf in the Torrey Sandstone. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 17 File: e: \wpM200\2296a.pgi GeoSoiis, Ine. W ALL AND BACKF1Lt� DRAINAGE All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrain and outlet system (a minimum two outlets per wall and no greater than 100 feet apart), to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures and be designed in accordance with minimum standards presented herein. See site wall drain options (Figure 4, pipe Figure 6). Drain in pipe should Gravel consist of 4-inch diameter perforated sc hedule 40 used in the backdrain systems should be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of 3 /8- to 1 -inch clean crushed rock wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) and 12. inches thick behind the wall. Where the void to be fitted is constrained by lot lines or property boundaries, the use of panel drains (Mirafi 5000 or equivalent) t)f tihe ay be backfill sho d with the approval of the project geotechnical engineer. The surface be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted to 90 percent relative compaction the walls with native soil. Proper surface drainage should also be than 2 feet n height. F walls in lieu of a backdrain is not recommended for walls greater 2 feet or less in height, weepholes should be no greater than 6 feet on center in the bottom coarse of block and above the landscape zone. A paved drainage channel (v -ditch or substitute), either asphaltic reduce concrete the behind . the top of the walls with sloping backfill sho uld be considered potential for surface water penetration. For level backfill, the grade should be sloped such that drainage is toward a suitable outlet at 1 to 2 percent. SHORING AND BRACING Temporary excavations in the landavista Formation may not e at uphill gradient of and will likely require a shoring be achieved using one of several options: P l n of the planned excavatio n may A. Drilled cast -in -place reinforced concrete piers. B. Pier supported H -piles lagged with concrete elements or gunite walls. C. Combinations of options A and B. D. Option B with a system of tiebacks and whalers'. ve Driving of shoring elements (H- piles) is not recommended. Jetting ent of site oils es chi not compaction behind or adjacent to shoring or for the p piers/pi recommended. ' The use of shoring and bracing with tiebacks may not be practical due to the structures adjacent or in close proximity to the property line. Settlement from drilled, cast - in -place piers or H -pile and lagging shoring system would be on the order of to 1 inch and will be discussed under the section of pier /pile capacity. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 18 File: e: \wp7\2200\2296a.pgi GeoSoiils, Inc. r v 1 r Ccp drain (cut off) 2 I 18" below soil line Wcterproofinc Site retaining wail (structural design by others) Manufactured drainace Geocomposite drain ( Mira drain 5000 or equivalent ) Fcvern^ent section per Note: filter fabric wraps c ompletely GSI reccmrne^dctions around perforated pipe cnd behind core material, core Fnished lot surface male. -ie! �n►rcps beneath (� i bottom of pipe. I _ T � o' O o v o � •mac o °•r° �— o0d a !� 'orated a o 0 4" die. min. pe. S pipe placed with holes - down and sloped at 2% I to suitable outlet d a u 4" min. granular materiel o ' 4 ° U ° � � ° a ° �d�a ° � � ° a ° a � ° n,/ a D o (class 2 permeable or 3/8 -1 clean crushed o ` rack wrapped in e . I filter fabric) L WCII footinc (designed by others) SCHEMATIC OF SITE WALL DRAIN OPTION A Figure 4 sip DATE DATE 9/97 W. O. NO 2296 A — Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental \ Cap drain (cut off) T I F- be!ow soil line 2 Waterproofing Site retaining wall 12" thick (min.) drain rock _ .(structural design (class 2 permeable) or _ • ..•,��:�; .;:• other acceptable„ granular by others) material, 1 /8 -1 clean •' • :''' ;-�"•� ..:� crushed rock wrapped 140 ' : •' •• pavement section per a filter fabric ( Mirafi ' '• �'••:•- ••., - G51 recomendations or equivalent) ' r: a." perforated Fl • nished lot surface dia. min. pipe placed with holes — down and sloped at Its .tz ,JI 1U`511 ;r a •_ : •/�` to a suitable outlet '• , '8 0� - e # '� ' �� •ntl a77 ¢ Min I . 4" Min. I. -" ° • • • ' ° O de I� r 0 � �° de . � � • • do W(1« TcO (designed by c 1 %.: .ners) SCHEMATIC OF SITE WALL DRAIN OPTION B Figure 5 �is n . 9/97 W.O. NO 229 5 -A -SC G v \ v � � DAT E `v Geotechnical •Geologic •Environmental f i 1 I , , N Cao drain '(c',lt 0fij 1 below soii line 2 If finished surface is within 8,, of top of footing wall drains 1 shall be at 6' intervals along I the length of the wall and located at the level of the bottom course of block. The ' ' �%�'• •`•'' drains shall be 4" in diameter. ' Site retaining wail t•.;:��• :•. (structural design by others) 2a" thick (min.) drain rock _ Pavement section per (class 2 permeable) or - • • ;SI recome ^actions , other accep'table granular I rnctericl, 1 /8— clean ; gushed rock wrcooed in I a" aic. pipe a filter fabric (,Mircfi 140 '. or equivalent) ' ,•. /+ Finished lot surface ` o Waterprcofing u a ado 0o D lb° t • 1 '�• I � ' �• 1 r ' •� 1� 1� e a 1 1 = s V 1 � � o • ° � t c gP •, G ° • a b o � � I r ' � . S• S � Wall fco Ling <desigred by c �ners� P Geteh T ni ' cal- HEMAC OF SITE WALL DRAIN OPTION C Fi 6 �S� n 9/97 W. 0. N 2296 -A -SC o cGeolo gic •Environmental The excavated surface of the back cut, if not retained by lagging between elements, may exposed without lagging elements provided that the duration is during the be temporary dry period of the year. (April to October) and a permanent wall system is installed. 'Gunite should be sprayed on any exposed excavation face soon after excavation is made, Auring of the any season of the year, in order to reduce the potential �f/ali d onfi g ura�on f a d Gain system slope face. Gunite may be incorporated Into the final 9 is provided. Due to the proximity of the adjacent structures, a pre- construction survey should be conducted to document existing conditions of the structures roadways and appurtenances and establish a basis for lateral and vertical c ontrol. lon of the existing improvements. survey work should also Include photographic document Temorary ExcavationlShorincl Where there is enough space, a temporary a slope ion and the locations of the property lines Considering the depth of the proposed excavation relative to the public ways, the temporary excavations probably cannot be laid back at a gradient steeper than 1:1 and will likely require a shoring system. Because the laid back excavation is not entirely feasible for this site, a shoring system such as cantilevered soldier piles with tiebacks, lagging, or internal bracing (i.e., rakers) may be required to support the temporary excavation. Based upon the engineering properties of onsite soils, the recommended maximum depth of vertical unsupported excavations in the near- surface soils with minimum risk is about 5 feet. For temporary excavations more than 5 feet in height, a shoring system shall be designed to support the vertical excavation to the depth necessary to construct the retaining walls. If soldier piles with lagging and /or drilled piers are u�sedIto 3a spaces between the excavation face and the lagging. This may be achieved with % er inch clean crushed rock and may be part of the per constru c ion sy GSl n recomme l nds b all lagging, must be removed prior to perm anent permanent lagging be concrete or gunite. Placement of gunite walls on exposed cut faces is an acceptable wall alternative and may lead to easier construction methods. Maximum spacing of soldier piles (H -piles or drilled piers) shall be no more than 8 feet on center. To obtain a factor of safety for permanent excavation equal to or greater than 1.5, et with only with pile spacing at 8 feet, the excavation may be ca levered soldie piles aee spac at the support of the cantilevered soldier bea r 6 feet on center, the excavation may be allowed to proceed to 12 feet with only the support of the cantilevered soldier beams. d conditions a raker placed at 0.25H down from the top of the wall should be employe Machine drilled, cast -in -place caissons reinforced with (W or HP) beams and spaced no greater than 8 feet on- centers may be used as soldier piles. In drilling the vertical holes, W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 22 File: e: \wp7 \2200\2296a.pgi GeoSoils, Ine. slough accumulated in the bottom of the holes should be properly cleaned to provide for firm bearing. Drilled, cast -in -place pier installation techniqu stage a chieve e p ocessundation and support of the earthwork cut may be performed in a multip le 9 • sta a •Construction of a level, temporary( fill working area. This soil pad will be used to drill pier holes and e� level and lower level picas and /or H -piles (2 rows) and • Sta :Placement of upp grade beams along lower row. • Stage •Excavation of proposed cut wit of the lower drilled piers dur upper with raker beams extending from the top of piers: at approximately 0.25 H of the exposed excavation face. Rakers may be added or adjusted based on the daily mon tll eeded. If H -piles are used, progressive installation of lagging elemen • Stage 4: Installation of additional grade beams across base of cut. • 51a Placement of final walls backfill (shotcrete) along with first and second stories and braced frame structure. If H -pile and lagging walls are used to support the cut, a tieback system may be utilized to reduce wall loads that will be transferred to the structure. he bracing When substantial excavations are made before eme p n of I the so�ldier t cons dered effect of the tieback is not yet fully utilized, m flexible, is greatest at the top, and soil pressure will approach active values. th Anchor loads will be carried by adhesion (frictional re sistance) ad to the appropriate material can b e and diameter of the anchor required to transfer the I approximated by determining the overburden loading and selecting corresponding shear strength values from the design shear strength curves. The selected anchor installations will be subjected to proof testing and other Code requirements. ound and not The anchor holes should be drilled in a manner anchorsmThe holes a are to drilled at a endanger existing utilities or previously installed p er sand layers, as negative angle of about 15± degr ativelo t h e w in cohesion and may subject to caving. described earlier in this report, are relatively lo Casing or other methods to prevent loss of g roun d ith smaller diameter anchor holes. required. Less change of collapse or caving will occur w Failure planes shaft be determined in accordance WO start behind the plane i m in the field. Anchor loading is assume determining penetration length. A minimum penetration length of 10 feet beyond the failure plane is recommended. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 23 Fiie: e: \wp7\2200\2296a.pgi GeoSoils, Ine• Attachment of the anchor to the H -pile or caisson must be done in such a way so as not to cause torque in the soldier pile. These recommendations assume the tieback system is permanent shoring. If tiebacks are proposed as part of the permanent earth sion protection additional special recommendations must be developed including corro No surcharge loads may be permitted within 5 feet of the top of the excavation. Of particular concern is the possibility of heavy construction equipment (i.e., cranes, stockpiles of steel or other materials, etc.) being placed close to the excavation. Additionally, before placement of equipment close to the excavation edge, GeoSoils, Inc. must be notified so that any potential change in the lateral soil pressure distribution may be reviewed. Since the proposed temporary excavation may remove lateral support adjacent building, the designed shoring systems should be approved by the City of Encinitas. The contractor should be solely responsible for safety during construction. All applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Safe Industry should Safey Ord the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety be met. Where slope or supported vertical excavations are used, the top of the excavation should be barricaded to prevent equipment and heavystorage loads within 5 feet of the top of the slope. Berms should be constructed along the top of the excavation to prevent runoff water from eroding the slope faces. The soils exposed in the cut slopes should be observed during excavation by the geologist and geotechnical engineer so that modifications of the excavations or support system can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur. Ex cavation Observation (All Excavations) When excavations are made adjacent to an existing improvements (i.e., utility, road, wall, etc.), there is a potential for damage to that structure even if a well designed system of excavation and /or shoring is planned and installed. We recommend, therefore, that a systematic program of observations be made during construction to determine the effects of construction on the existing structures. We believe that this is necessary for two reasons: 1) if excessive movements are detected early enough, remedial measures can be taken which could possibly prevent serious damage to existing improvements; 2) the te cause sponsibility for extent of the defopmati can structures can be readily evaluated determined more precisely. W .O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 24 File: e: \wp7\2200\2296a.pgi GeoSoiis, Ine. We recommend that the shoring system and adjacent area be monitored for horizontal and vertical deformation during the period of construction. Monitoring should include the measurement of any horizontal and vertical movements of both the existing structures and the shoring and /or bracing. Locations and type of the monitoring devices should be selected as soon as the total shoring system is designed and approved. The no monitoring system should include surface monuments, subsurface monuments, casings. The program of monitoring the wall should be g r9 eed upon between the owner, the contractor, the site surveyor and GSI prLof to excavation for the walls or slopes. The measuring system should have an accuracy of at least 0.01 inch. Reference points should be installed and read initially prior to excavation. The readings should continue until all construction below ground has been completed and the backfill has been brought up to final grade. The frequency of readings will depend upon the results of previous readings and the rate of construction. Weekly readings could be assumed throughout the duration of construction with daily readings during rapid excavation near the bottom and at critical times during the installation of shoring or support. The readings should be plotted by the surveyor and then reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. In addition to the monitoring system, it would be prudent for the owner and the contractor to make a complete inspection of the existing adjacent improvements both before and after construction. The inspection should settlement. Notes should detecting any and pictures damage, particularly those caused by s ures shouldbe taken where necessary. Field Observation It is recommended that all foundation excavations be inspected by the geologist or geotechnical engineer prior to placing forms, concrete, or steel. Any fill which is placed should be approved, tested, and verified by r the geologist ot slopes temporary wall excavations should be ob served Should the observation reveal any unforeseen hazard, the geologist or geotechnical engineer will recommend treatment. GSI would request at least 24 hours notice prior to any required site observation. Approved by the foundation engineer, 10 percent of tieback anchors shall be tested to 200 percent of the design load. In addition, a representative sample of these tieback anchors shall be tested for a time period of 24 hours. an addendum The founeport engineer shall specify the number and location of these anchors GSI should observe and approve the testing of all anchors. GSI will keep a record of ail test loads and total anchor movements and evaluate their accuracy. This record shall be kept on the jobsite and shall be available for review by the building inspector. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 25 File: e: \wpM200\2296a.pgi GeoSOUS, Inc. CAISSON CONSTRUCTION Caissons should be constructed in accordance with Section 305 -1.3 of the 1994 Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Caisson excavations should be observed and periodically down hole logged by a representative of GSI prior to placement of steel or concrete. Concrete should not be allowed to drop from heights in excess of 5 feet during placement. Therefore, the tremie method of concrete placement will be necessary. Prior to the placement of concrete, all loose material at the bottom of the caisson excavation should be removed. If the caisson te bottom should be red Iled east 2 more hours or more, prior to concrete placement, feet, and /or cleaned of all loose debris. In lieu of removing standing water prior to placing concrete (i.e., pumping water), the water. The solid concrete may be placed by using the tremie method to displace collec When concrete tremie tube shall be long enough to reach the bottom of h excavation. is being placed, the solid tremie tube must be kept full of concrete at all times, with the lower end emersed in the concrete just deposited. The concrete shall at no time be placed through the water. Adjacent piers should be spaced no closer than 8 feet apart (approximately 2.6 diameters apart for 36 -inch piers), as measured center to center and should be drilled and cast prior to working on an adjacent pier. However, a drilling system of primary and secondary holes may be proposed if sequencing does not install adjacent piers simultaneously. Pier holes should be drilled straight and plumb. Locations (both plan and elevation) and plumbness should be the contractors responsibility. Concrete and steel reinforcement should be placed in each pier hole the same day that the hole is drilled. If caving soil conditions occur, during or after drilling, the pier hole should be cased. The bottom of the casing should be at lease 4 feet below the top of the concrete as the concrete is poured and the casing withdrawn. Steel reinforcement cages, if used, should have spaces to allow for minimum spacing of steel from the side of the pier excavation. All materials used for foundation elements should be. inspected and tested, as needed, by a qualified materials testing consultant for strength and mix, as needed. If H -pile reinforcement is used, built - up H -piles may be fabricated on -site, and materials used for the fabrication, as well as methodologies should also be approved by the project structural engineer and inspected prior to placement into excavations. LATERAL DEFLECTION OF EXCAVATION - ALLOWABLE DESIGN LIMITS Most deep excavations tend to exhibit a certain amount of excavation (cut face) wail deflection during construction in a direction toward the excavation. The ground movements associated with a shored excavation depend on many factors including the contractor's procedures and schedule, and, therefore, the distribution and magnitude of ground movements are difficult to predict. Based on shoring performance data for W.O. 2296 -A -Sc Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 26 File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi GeoSoi ls, Inc. the documented excavations combined with our engineer ing r�in � carefully constructed s ment, we estimate ground movements associated with properly designed system will be as follows: Convent'o al H Pile Walls with Tieba Anchors 0.2 percent of the The maximum horizontal wall deflection will equal should occurnea� the op of the wall vertical depth. The maximum horizontal movement and decrease with depth. The maximum settlement iZ ntat and will probably about 50 percent to 100 percent of the maximum occur at a distance behind the wall equal to about 25 percent to 50 percent of the excavation depth. D Irl led Pi r wars /H Piies WaUS "' Tiebacks The maximum horizontal wall deflection will equal about should o cur near the to of the wall . vertical depth. The maximum horizontal movement sh e with depth. The maximum settlement behind the and wi ll and d ecreas l probably about 50 percent to 100 percent of the maximum horizontal m of the occur at a distance behind the wall equal to about and settlement assumes r mes the use excavation depth. The above estimate of wall movement of raker system during construction. u .,t rr Allowable �eiuC " " a nd Differential ' v earin -wall structures and plaster partitions are first cracked at It is generally agreed that b 9 an angular distortion of approximately 1/300. It o and that the absolute settlement of any be limited to one -half of this amount, or 1/60 column or footing be limited to 1 inch. Fill Placement din should conform to the guidelines presented in the current encies, except where All gra g e Encinitas Grading Code, and requirements hi report. f the governing g spbcifically superseded in Subsequent to completing the recommended removals and ground vegetation and deb es, onsite soils may be placed in thin (4± to 8 - ± - inch) lift , leaned of brought to at least optimum moisture content, and ASTM Test Method D-1 57 rela compacted to a minmum compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory stand If fill material is to be imported to the site for use as cal engineer f with enough �ead time t should first be provided to the project geotechni evaluate its suitability with on site material. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 27 File: e: \wpM200\2296a.pgi GeOSOUS, Inc SlopeConstruction General I slo es should be constructed in accordance with eh uatel 17 in the future w th re I to AI p of Encinitas. Slopes are anticipated to perform a q gross stability, if the soil materials are maintained in a. solid or semi -solid state. Cut Slopes - Temporary d temporary cut slopes adjacent to existing buildings or against the shoring Any propose p system are anticipated to be graded at gradients (h o r ili on work, th s s c or flatter. Y pated to Due to the anticipated removals (5 feet) and limited significantly limit site work. should be identified on the plans and reviewed by an o engin for o amendments engineerin All cuts rading t geologist from this office prior to and during g re commendations. The adjacent improvements (walls, utlit etc.) on s) and c section(s) reviewed from the City records (if available) and the plan included in the project plans. DEVELOPMENT C LI R IA RECOMMENDATIONS Lands Maintenance and Pla tin cause Water has been shown to weaken the inherent d strength ee g erly ° Nemcon r dit ons. Plants expansion. Slope stability is significantly reduce dy rooted types which require little selected for landscaping should be light weight, p ter and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate• m a er soil mat eberg Li�mi sd be water maintained in a solid to semi -solid state as defined by t ver Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life s sue imp poveme o We watering the landscape areas could adversely affect prop would recommend that any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to proposed osed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance 10 in feet. e bottom of the planterc bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. From a g eotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing amendments landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for purpose For additio Hal information ormation refer they should be recompacted to 90 percent compaction. to the Homeowner Maintenance Guidelines included in Appendix F. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 28 File: e: \wp7\2200\2296a.p9i GeOSOilsq Inc. Top-of-bluff stability may be effected by the landscape configuration selected h deeper architect and /or landscape architect. Native plants should of co bluff and reduce taproots, which may improve the stability of the upper portion the potential for subaerial erosion. If irrigation systems are utilized surface the sens othe�over de devices) embedded unto reviewed a rchitect and should include moisture the soil. Landscape work should comply with AB325 and Ordinance 195. Within a period d be review s deemed of seven years, existing landscaping shoul on the bluff face a should be necessary by the landscape architect. Hand p lanti n g minimized or eliminated. Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements are planned of design t an i e constructton of concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects 9 est. improvements could be provided upon requ This sit , or trench backf II ng after rough of any additional fill placement, regrading of the grading, utility trench, and retaining wall grading has been completed. This includes any backfills. Drainage flow Positive site drainage should be maintained at all time Drainage sho uld not from uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water sh ould be directed rainage foundations systems and not allowed to pond and/or approved oof gutters and down should be directed toward the street or other pp oved area or into a spouts are recommended to control roof runoff. may spouts due o d rig t let or heavy subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage y de rainfall. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. I area provided o upon p ge de recommendations for minimizing this effect could For additional recommendations about maintenance of site drainage refer to Appendix F. rootinglPier Excavations All footing trench excavations and/or pier excavations Footing tench obe spoil representative of this office prior to placing reinfor cement acted to a any excess soils generated from utility trenc laboaat ry standard be (ASTM test method minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of D -1557) if not removed from the site. r Ten_ Ching All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety codes. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas Page 29 File: e:\wp7\2200\2296a.pgl CreO.SO113, Inc Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1, All interior utility trench backfill should be br thve t to near optimum moisture content compaction of 90 percent of the and then compacted to obtain a minimum r ela laboratory standard (ASTM test method p- 155 u va ent ative of ha ll l ogrea t er i inches) under slab trenches , sand having a and q nt is not may be utilized. Jetted or flooded backfill as e verify the recommended. Observation /probing/testing sh ould be accomplished to desired results. 2. Exterior trenches in structural areas, beneath nt of the laboratory standard! Sand should be compacted to a minimum of 90 shout permeter backfill, unless excavated from the trench, houlte tin and observat o with footings or in trenches on slopes. Compaction 9 probing should be performed to verify the desired results. F Gradin Guidelines Grading hould be performed in accordance with the minimum adopted chapters of the Uniform g of Encinitas, and applicable an P Grading Code of the City Appendix E of this Building Code (UBC), and the General Grading Guidelines presented in App report. Corrosive Potential Corrosivity testing of the site soils was not performed for this st rad ng, at the can b e pe preferably subsequent to final site impr 9 request. use Foundation excavations will encounter wet or saturated of the found will ion environme The of Type V concrete due to the brackish nature water /cement ratio may also be modified (or admixtures osion. Considerationcmyabe given to discretion to further reduce the potential for corr consultation with a corrosion specialist. PLAN R I lans should be submitted to this office for review and omm plans beccomom available, for the pure between Final foundation P purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings tions and the plans and recommendations presented herein be observed and tested byth s office. earthwork construction performed on the site should W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas page 30 File: e: \wp7\2200\2296a.pgi GeOSeils, luc- If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that l as high Jowl plans should indicate site elevations and canal embankment elevations as w 9 LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project bedrock materials vary n character believed representative of the area; however, between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. Inasmuch as our study is based upon the site materialsobserved, selective ato herein testing, and engineering analysis, the conclusions an d professional opinions. These opinions*have been implied. Standards of practice are standards of practice, and no warranty is exp ressed or subject to change with time. W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering September 30, 1997 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas page 31 File: e: \wp7\2200\22 Geesoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES Appendix A _ RU EREN_CES Artim, Ernest 1995, Supplement to third parry review of geotechnical informati prepared re ared by Southern California Soil and 4 96b,gSeptembeat'1 a to 620 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Protect No. Mills, D., 1982, The Rose Canyon fault: a review, in Abbott, P.L., ed., Artim, E.R., and Elder - Geologic Studies in San Diego: San Diego Association of Geologists, April. Artim, E .R. ultants Final and Streiff, D., 1981, Trenching the Rose Technical Report, cont n g4- California, in Woodward -Clyde Cons 08 -0001 - 19824, September. Upper Cretaceous sedimentary rocks, Bartling, W.A., Kies, R.P., and Abbott, P.L., 1981, UPP Geologic northwestern San Diego County, . 0 Dunn, S. and Abbott, P.L., eds, vesti Plain: San Diego Association of Geologists. investigation of the San Diego Coastal Blake, T.F., 1996, EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and Frisk89, Computer programs J. E. 1988, Foundation analysis and design: McGraw -Hill Book Company, New Bowles, , York. Campb K.W., 1993, Empirical prediction of near-source groun ds.o T.F., AEG Short earthquakes in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. 5 Strong motion attenuation relations, a ten -year perspective, in Johnson, J.A., 198 , Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F., eds., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Clarke, S.H., Green, H.G., Kennedy, M.P. Vedder, J.G., and Legg, M.R., 1987, Geologic ma of the inner - southern California tal Margin continental , Map Series: alifo California P Kennedy, M.P., eds., California Continental Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. S 1959, Coastal sand dunes of California: Geological Society of America Cooper, W , Memoir. 1994, Fire history of organic fragments Cretaceous Point Curran, S.A., and Abbott, P.L., Loma Formation at La Jolla Bay, in Rosenberg, p,S, ed., Geology and Natural History, Camp Pendleton, United States Marine Corps Base, San Diego County, California: by the San Diego Association of Geologists. Davis, James F., 1997, Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating Publication 11 hazards in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special GeOSOUS, Inc. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Geotechnical and geologic investigation, Clayton sea bluff, 638 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, October 26. Eisenberg, L.T., 1985, Pleistocene faults and marine terraces, northern San Diego County, in Abbott, P.L., ed., On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists. Elder - Mills, D., and Artim, E.R., 1982, The Rose Canyon fault; 'a review, in Abbott, P.L., ed., Geologic Studies in San Diego: San Diego Association of Geologists. Emery, K.O., and Kuhn, G.G., 1980, Erosion of rock shores at La Jolla, California, .Q Marine Geology, v. 37. 1982, Sea cliffs: their processes, profiles, and classification: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, no. 7. Fisher, P.J., and Mills, G.I., 1991, The offshore Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone, California: structure, segmentation, and tectonics, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental Perils - San Diego Region: San Diego Association of Geologists. . Flick, R.E., 1994, Shoreline erosion assessment and atlas of the San Diego region, V. I and 11, December. Fulton, K., 1981, A manual for researching historical coastal erosion in Kuhn, G.G., ed., California Sea Grant Report No. T -CSGCP -003. Group Delta Consultants, Inc., 1993, Shoreline erosion evaluation, Encinitas coastline, San Diego county, California, project no. 1404 -EC01, November 3. Hart, E.W., 1994, Fault rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Hausmann, M. R., 1990, Engineering principles of ground modification: McGraw -Hill, Inc., New York. Holtz, R. D. and Kovacs, W. D., Undated, An introduction to geotechnical engineering: Prentice -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Horrer, P.L., 1984, Wave action and related factors for proposed seawall at 6000 Camino de la Costa, dated November 28. Howell, D.G., Stuart, C.G., Platt, J.P., and Hill, D.J., 1974, Possible strike -slip faulting in the southern California Borderland: Geological Society of America Geology, v. 2, no. 2. Skelly Engineering Appendix A File: e1wp7\2200\2296a.pgi Page 2 GeoSoiills, Inc. Inman, D.L., 1976, Summary report of man's impact on the California coastal zone; prepared for the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, State of California. Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: A.A. Balkema Publishers Rotterdam, Netherlands. Jenkins, S. and D. Skelly, 1986, Oceanographic considerations for the proposed seawall at 6040 Camino De La Costa. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas, scale 1:750,000:. California Division of Mines and Geology, California Data Map Series, map no.6. , j. Joyner, W.B, and Boore, D.M., 1982a, Estimation of response - spectral values as functions of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Kennedy, M.P., 1973, Sea -cliff erosion at Sunset Cliffs, San Diego: California Geology, v. 26, February. Kennedy, M.P., and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California: Del Mar, La Jolla, Point Loma, La Mesa, Poway and SW y / 4 Escondido 7'/2 minute quadrangles: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200. Kern, J.P., 1977, Origin and history of upper Pleistocene marine terraces, San Diego, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin 88. Kuhn, G.G., and Shepard, F.P., 1984, Sea Cliffs, beaches and coastal valleys of San Diego County: some amazing histories and some horrifying implications: University of California Press, Berkeley, California, and London, England. 1983, Newly discovered evidence form the San Diego County area of some principles of coastal retreat: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, January. 1981, Should southern California build defenses against violent storms resulting in lowland flooding as discovered in records of past century: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, October. Skelly Engineering File: e:1wp,7\2200\2296a.pgi Appendix A GeoSoils, Inc. Page 3 1980a, Greatly accelerated man - induced coastal erosion and new sources of beach sand, San Onofre State Park and Camp Pendleton, northern San Diego County,, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, October. 1980b, Coastal erosion in San Diego County, California, jq Edge, B.L., ed., Coastal Zone '80, Proceedings of Second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management held in Hollywood, Florida, on 17 -20 November, 1980: American Society of Civil Engineers, v. III. 1979a, Accelerated beach -cliff erosion related to unusual storms in southern California: California Geology, March. 1979b, Coastal erosion in San Diego County, California, ja Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and other perils San Diego region. Lambe, T. W., 1951, Soil testing for engineers: John Wiley & Sons, New York. Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V., 1969, Soil mechanics: John Wiley & Sons, New York. Lee, L.J., Schug, D.L., and Raines, G.L., 1990, Seacliff stabilization, Seacliff Park (Swami's), beach access stairway, Encinitas, California, in Geotechnical Engineering Case Histories in San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologist, October 20 Field Trip Guide Book. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1983, City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study, June. Legg, M.R., 1985, Geologic structure and tectonics of the inner continental borderland offshore northern Baja California, Mexico, unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of California, Santa Barbara. 1989, Faulting and seismotectonics of the inner continental borderland west of San Diego, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, Workshop on The Seismic Risk in the San Diego Region: Special Focus on the Rose Canyon Fault System. Legg, M.R., and Kennedy, M.P., 1991, Oblique divergence and convergence in the California Continental Borderland, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental Perils - San Diego Region: San Diego Association of Geologists. Lindivall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Lindivall, E.C., 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego revised: new evidence for magnitude 6+ Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, workshop on The Seismic Risk in the San Diego Region: Special Focus on the Rose Canyon Fault System. Masters, P.M., 1996, Paleocoastlines, ancient harbors, and marine archaeology: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, July. Skelly Engineering Appendix A File: eAwp7\220012296a.pgi GeoSoiis, Inc. Page 4 Matti, J.C., and Morton, D.M., 1993, Paleogeographic evolution of the San Andreas fault in southern California: A reconstruction based on a new cross -fault correlation, in Powell, R.E., Weldon, R.J. 11, and Matti, J. C., eds., The San Andreas Fault System: Displacement, Palinspastic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution: Geological ® Society of America Memoir 178. Matti, J.C., Morton, D.M., and Cox, B.F., 1992, The San Andreas fault system in the vicinity of the central Transverse Ranges Province, southern California, in Sieh, K.E., and Matti, J.C., eds., Earthquake Geology San Andreas Fault System, Palm Springs to Palmdale. Mitchell, J. K., 1976, Fundamentals of soil behavior: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Morton, D.M., and Matti, J.C., 1993, Extension and contraction within an evolving divergent strike -slip fault complex: The San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones at their convergence in southern California, b Powell, R.E., Weldon, R.J. Il, and Matti, J. C., eds., The San Andreas Fault System: Displacement, Palinspastic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution: Geological Society of America Memoir 178. Munk, W.H., and Traylor, M.A., 1947, Refraction of ocean waves: a process linking underwater topography to beach erosion: Journal of Geology, v. LV, no. 1. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986a, Soil mechanics, design manual 7.01, Change 1 September: United States Navy. . 1986b, Foundations and earth structures, DM 7.02, Change 1 September: United States Navy. 1983, Soil dynamics, deep stabilization, and special geotechnical construction, design manual 7.3, April: United States Navy. Ninyo & Moore, 1989, Limited geotechnical evaluation for feasibility of purchase, 678 Neptune, Encinitas, California, Project No. 101224 -01, April 12. Nordstrom, C.E., and Inman, D.L., 1973, Beach and cliff erosion in San Diego County, California, in Ross, A., and Dowlen, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California: the San Diego Association of Geologists, and the Association of Engineering Geologists. San Diego, City of, 1953, San Diego, San Diego County California metropolitan area, 1 inch = 200 feet, topographic survey, complied by Fairchild Aerial Survey, Inc. Schumm, S.A., and Mosley, P.M., 1973, Slope morphology: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. Skelly Engineering Fite: eAwp7\220012296a.pgi Appendix A GeoSoiis, Inc. Page 5 Seed, H. B., 1976, Evaluation of soil liquefaction effects on level ground during earthquakes, state -of -art paper, liquefaction problem: Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Preprint 2753, New York. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute monograph. 1971, A simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential: American Society of Civil Engineers, JSMFD, v. 197. Seed, H. B. , Idriss, L M. and Arango, I., 1983, Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data: American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, v. 109. Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M., 1985, Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations: Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 111, no. GR12, p. 1425 -1445. Shepard, F.P., and Kuhn, G.G., 1983, History of sea arches and remnant stacks of La Jolla, California, and their bearing on similar features elsewhere: Marine Geology, v. 51 Shepard, F.P., and Grant, U.S. IV, 1947, Wave erosion along the southern California coast: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 58, Shore and Beach, October. Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., 1994, Stability of erosion control walls on bluff face, 620 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, SCS &T 8921191, October 10. Streiff, D., Schmoll, M., and Artim, E.R., 1982, The Rose Canyon fault at Sprindrift Drive, La Jolla, California, b Abbott, P.L., ed., Geologic Studies in San Diego: San Diego Association of Geologists. Sunamura, T., 1977, A relationship between wave - induced cliff erosion and erosive forces of waves: Journal of Geology, v. 85. Sylvester, A.G., 1988, Strike slip faults: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 100, p. 1666 -1703 Terzaghi, K., and Peck, Ralph B., 1967, Soil mechanics in engineering practice: John Wiley & Sons, New York, second edition. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon fault zone, a review and analysis: The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Cooperative Agreement EMF -83 -k -0148. Trenhaile, A.S., 1987, The geomorphology of rock coasts: Clarendon Press, Oxford. Skelly Engineering File: e: \wp7 \2200\2296a.pgi Appendix A GeoSoiils, Inc. Page 6 United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1984a, Shore protection manual. 1984b, Nearshore bathymetric survey report, no 1, CCSTWS 84 -2. 1988, Coastal cliff segments San Diego region (1887- 1947), CCSTWS 88 -8. 1989, Historic wave and sea level data report San Diego region, CCSTWS 88 -6. 1991, State of the coast report San Diego region, CCSTWS 91. Weber, F.H., 1982, Geologic map of north- central coastal area of San Diego County, California, showing recent slop failures and pre - development landslides: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 82 -12 LA. Wilson, K.L.,.1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego County, California: unpublished masters thesis, University of California, Riverside. Zeevaert, L., 1972, Foundation engineering for difficult subsoil conditions: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Regional Offices, New York. Ziony, J.I., 1973, Recency of faulting in the greater San Diego area, California, in Ross, A., and Dowlen, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California: San Diego Association of Geologists and Association of Engineering Geologists. Skelly Engineering Appendix A File: eAwp7\2200\2296a.pgi GeoSoiis, Inc. Page 7 APPENDIX B BORING LOGS a BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. O. 2296 -A -SC PROJECT. SKELLY ENGINEERING BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF 3 630 Neptune — DATE EXCAVATED 8 -7 -97 Sample x SAMPLE METHOD: Modified Cal Sampler ^ + X i- 3 " o Standard Penetration Test v _ w y C Water Seepage into hole Z e m a o o L ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample a. — 'O L O U E T c m' �+ m � rn o y Description of Material SW LINDAVISTA FORMATION @ 0', SANDSTONE, brownish orange, moist, dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty. 5 10 34 108.4 6.2 31.0 @ 10', SANDSTONE, brownish orange, damp, dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty. 15 20 32 98.5 3.8 14.9 •:-: @ 20', SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, dry to damp, medium dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty, micaceous. 25 i 630 Neptune GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B -1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.,O. 2296 -A -SC PROJECT. SKELLY ENGINEERING BORING B-1 SHEET 2 OF 3 630 Neptune — DATE EXCAVATED 8 -7 -97 Sample X SAMPLE METHOD: Modified Cal Sampler i- a c Standard Penetration Test '#- + + m .. , 4. _ w L +- % Water Seepage into hole .0 �, m a 0 5 o L ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample t at — d 3 W d a e 0 d — V 0 U E T" t o m a +' m D y a s in Description of Material 54 SW NR LINDAVISTA. FORMATION @ 30', SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, damp, dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty. 35 40 55 98.2 2.8 10.8 '.•. @ 40', SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, dry, dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty. 45 50 65 96.6 2.0 7.5 • •: @ 50', SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, dry, dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty. 55 630 Neptune GeoSoils, Inc. PLAT B-2 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 2296 -A -SC PROJECT.•SKELLY ENGINEERING BORING B-1 SHEET 3 OF 3 630 Neptune -- DATE EXCAVATED 8 -7 -97 Sample X SAMPLE METHOD: Modified Cal Sampler + a f: 3 a Standard Penetration Test 4 o — c n .0 a m a o 5 u 4 - L ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample t 3 ai .n a m a —'a L O U E 31 d m' +' m M 0 31 c L E r W n Description of Material 84 SW 95.1 6.0 21.4 ;•;• LINDAVISTA FORMATION @ 60', SANDSTONE, orangish yellowish gray, dry to damp, very dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty. 65 @ 68', few gravels at contact. SW TORREY SANDSTONE 70 @ 68', SANDSTONE, orangish gray, moist, very dense; fine to coarse, moderately cemented, slightly silty.' @ 70', as per 68'. Total Depth = 70 1/2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 8/7/97 75 80 85 I 630 Neptune GeoSoils, Inc. PLAT B -3 APPENDIX C EQSEARCH, AND FRISK89 DATA O rn rn m m Z00 O + v O r I I I I O n Z 1 0 0 0 0 o Z (D r, V LLi N O I 00 O O N U-) J Q Z I II II II it II Q NO V) gi o I a o- I J WI U W N O 'D O 0 a x :3 t «� C 00 J J Q z O _N Q 0) Q O x x x O W l x x x I- z �® x x / x x x O w wa ® Y x Avx x Q X z / D X x x (A `J Q w�� z n w Q Q Q LLJ W O U o U Q ° U C U O U Q V) n Q 0 _ 1__L_ N w ° Z m N V Z N L U Z V) � I Q N c0 z (1° N O O N Q � O Z W m o W N Ad U o O C) w Q , z 0 > O W Q - U � Q J LLJ 0 w W U W U U '_ < X ° W W O J Q ao O LO O O O O O O O O O O 00 p CL O 0) 00 I - cD to -t n N . O D! (�) ]ONb'a:]]OXI A0 ),iII18VMJd a W L- 00 Of O LOO dNU') X W M V N 4 co a U U) I Q r rn N N z O O � Z Q m (]% O w -' N w U ^ Q v z to O > ~Q O � � w w � Q z Li Z Li o CD w o > 0) Q o O d Y N a0 b � N b 0 '.t N O (O 'f N O O O O O w O O O O O O O O m r C (SJDGA) aoid:l N�jn13�J ]1Odd]nd a N af Z W Z o� ' V _ m W n. Z U I � Q I z � N Q O N Q M O (y N rn Z W o O' m J o LLJ U J J U m U z � O W Q U Z w Q -i p W W U W o Q U x W O J Q `U) m °O o �LOo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 n O rn 00 n cn LO r7 N N ]ONVO - TIOX3 -dO ),il�IeVeo d uj (n c W L' L- oa ® N a- " LO X W LO V m C a cn i Q rn N z N O O N Z Q o m O w w U ^ U z O > Q O � 0 w w W U a p Q z w cr- Q � W N Q o m o .r n m m .r O C i� O O O > O O Q sa oaA ) a0l�lld N�I(11ij�1 IOddInb d J O W Z m d O :2 r7 Q U APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS XSTABL Computer Program Introduction XSTABL is a fully integrated slope stability analysis program. It permits the engineer to develop the slope geometry interactively and perform slope analysis from within a single program. The slope analysis portion of XSTABL uses a modified version of the popular STABL program, originally developed at Purdue University. XSTABL performs a two dimensional limit equilibrium analysis to compute the fa ctor of safety for a layered slope using the modified Bishop or Janbu methods. This program can be used to search for the most critical surface or the factor of safety may be determined for specific surfaces. XSTABL, Version 5.10, is programmed to handle: 1. Heterogenous soil systems 2. Anisotropic soil strength properties 3. Reinforced slopes 4. Nonlinear Mohr- Coulomb strength envelope 5. Pore water pressures for effective stress analysis using: a. Phreatic and piezometric surfaces b. Pore pressure grid c. R factor d. Constant pore water pressure 6. Pseudo- static earthquake loading 7. Surcharge boundary loads 8. Automatic generation and analysis of an unlimited number of circular, noncircular and block- shaped failure surfaces 9. Analysis of right- facing slopes 10. Both SI and Imperial units General Information If the reviewer wishes to obtain more information concerning slope stability analysis, the following publications may be consulted initially: 1. The Stability of Slopes by E.N. Bromhead, Surrey University Press, Chapman and Hall, 374 pages, ISBN 412 01061 5, 1985. 2. Rock Slope Engineering by E. Hoek and J.W. Bray, Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London, England, Third Edition, 358 pages, ISNB 0 900488 573, 1981. 3. Landslides: Analysis and Control by R.L. Schuster and R.J. Krizek (editors), Special Report 176, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, 234 pages, ISBN 0 309 02804 3, 1978. XSTABL Features The present version of XSTABL contains the following features: 1. Allows user to calculate factors of safety for static stability and dynamic stability situations. 2. Allows user to analyze stability situations with different failure modes. 3. Allows user to edit input for slope geometry and calculate corresponding factor of safety. 4. Allows user to readily review on- screen the input slope geometry. 5. Allows user to automatically generate and analyze unlimited number of circular, non - circular and block- shaped failure surfaces (i.e., bedding plane, slide plane, etc.). Input Data Input data includes the following items: 1. Unit weight, residual cohesion, residual friction angle, peak cohesion, and peak friction angle-of fill material, bedding plane, and bedrock, respectively. Residual cohesion and friction angle is used for static stability analysis, whereas peak cohesion and friction angle is for dynamic stability analysis. 2. Slope geometry and surcharge boundary loads. 3. Apparent dip of bedding plane can be specified in angular range (i.e., from 0 to 90 degrees. 4. Pseudo - static earthquake loading (an earthquake loading of 0.25 g was used in the analysis). Seismic Discussion Seismic stability analyses were approximated using a pseudo- static approach. The major difficulty in the pseudo- static approach arises from the appropriate selection of the seismic coefficient used in the analysis. The use of a static inertia force equal to this acceleration during an earthquake (rigid -body response) would be extremely conservative for several reasons including: 1. Only low height, stiff /dense embankments or embankments in confined areas may respond essentially as rigid structures; Skelly Engineering Appendix D File: e:%wp7\220012296a.pgi Page 2 2. An earthquake's inertia force is enacted on a mass for a short time period. Therefore, replacing a transient force by a pseudo- static force representing the maximum acceleration is considered unrealistic; 3. Assuming that total pseudo- static loading is applied evenly throughout the embankment for an extended period of time is an incorrect assumption, as the length of the failure surface analyzed is usually much greater than the wave length of seismic waves generated by earthquakes; and 4. The seismic waves would place portions of the mass in compression and some in tension, resulting in only a limited portion of the failure surface analyzed moving in a downslope direction, at any one instant of time. The coefficients usually suggested by regulating agencies, counties and municipalities are in the range of 0.05 g to 0.25 g. For example, past regulatory guidelines within the city and county of Los Angeles indicated that the slope stability pseudostatic coefficient = 0.15 g. The method developed by Krinitzsky, Gould, and Edinger (1993), which was in turn based on Taniguchi and Sasaki, 1986, (T &S, 1986), was referenced. This method is based on empirical data and the performance of existing earth embankments during seismic loading. Our review of "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," (Davis, 1997) indicates the State of California recommends using a pseudo- static coefficient of 0.15 for design earthquakes M 8.25 or greater and using 0.1 for earthquake parameter M 6.5. Therefore, a seismic coefficient of 0.10 was used. Seismic Deformation Seismic deformation is estimated based on the Dr. K. Lee's method (1977), which is a modification of the original Newmark's method (1965) and which is modified by Goodman and Seed (1966). In this method, the seismic deformation is estimated based on the earthquake magnitude (M), yield acceleration (a and maximum horizontal ground acceleration (a j . For all ground accelerations less than yield acceleration the factor of safety against sliding is greater than 1.0 and hense these low accelerations will not induce any sliding motion to occur. The yield acceleration of 0.35 g and maximum horizontal ground acceleration of 0.39 g were used in the calculation of seismic deformation. The results indicate ,that the seismic deformation is on the order of 1 inch. Output Information Output information includes: 1. All input data. 2. Factors of safety for the ten most critical surfaces for static and pseudo- static stability situation. Skelly Engineering Appendix D File: e:1wp7\220042296a.pgi Page 3 3. High quality plots can be generated. The plots include the slope geometry, the critical surfaces and the factor of safety. 4. Note, that in the analysis, a minimum of 50 trial surfaces were analyzed for each section for either static or pseudo- static analyses. Results of Slope Stability Calculation Table D -1 shows the soil parameters used in slope stability calculations. Detailed output information for the most critical analyses are presented in Plates D -1 to D -55. Summaries of the fill slope analysis are presented in Table D -2. Table D -1 SO LS 1 (PS . (D$Gl$E$) Lindavista Formation 390 32 Torrey Sandstone 1200 35 Table D -2 F <'S S STABtL1TY :::<CONFI.GURATION . GRADIENT >< >` >$TATIiG:? < >SEISMIG: MAR Gross Section A -A' varies from 1.340 1.127 Bishop w/o seawall 1.1:1 to 0.5:1 Gross Section A -A' 1.4:1 2.383 1.997 Bishop w/37' seawall (shallow) Gross Section A -A' 1.4:1 1.730 1.494 Bishop w/37' seawall (deep) Gross Section A -A' 1.4:1 2.018 1.721 Bishop w/27' seawall (shallow) Gross Section A -A' 1.4:1 1.694 1.452 Bishop w/27' seawall ( dee p) Skelly Engineering Appendix D File: eAwp7\2200\2296a.pgi Page 4 Z SEEPAGE PARALLEL TO SLOPE i LINDAVISTA TORRE FORMATION SANDSTONE Depth of Saturation (z) = 4 4 Slope Angle (1) (for 2:1 slopes) 50 75 Unit Weight of Water (5 62.4 62.4 Saturated Unit of Soil ( 115 125 Apparent Angle of Internal Friction (c)) 25 30 Apparent Cohesion (c) = 185 600 Fs, Static Safety Factor = z (b AT -b ) Cos Tan (d)) + C z (6sAT) Sin (1) Cos (1) A.. *, Critical Acceleration, proportion of g. _ (FS -1) Sin (1) STATIC F:S..:: �* DEPTH OF LINDAVISTA TORREY "LINDAVISTA TORREY . SATURATION FORMATION SANDSTONE.:'.: FORMATION: SANDSTONE 4 feet 0.99 4.8 0.0 3.7 *Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, 1993. * *Acceleration needed to induce failure. Skelly Engineering Appendix D " File: eAwp71220012296a.pgi Page 5 0 N • 3 O ' d o M N II V) o O o0 O � O CYl M (D N Z o � N x Q U x cn � � o to v o Q U cfl Z } O N 0 N U E v W O O V) �— M rn rn rn O LO N 0) (00 M O .-- N (1 SIXd -, PLATE D -1 XSTABL File: S2 9 -19 -97 14 :21 * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 7 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 51.0 20.0 2 3 51.0 20.0 60.0 35.0 2 4 60.0 35.0 113.5 80.0 1 5 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 6 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 7 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 51.0 20.0 220.0 22.0 2 ----- ---7----------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. PLATE D -2 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit (s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 • 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points PHREATIC Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED PLATE D -3 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 10.0 ft and x = 70.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 160.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees --------------------------- ----------------- USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------ Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface PLATE D -4 is specified by 16 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 16.06 2 58.18 19.82 3 66.26 23.78 4 74.23 27.95 5 82.10 32.32 6 89.85 36.89 7 97.49 41.66 8 105.00 46.62 9 112.38 51.77 10 119.63 57.10 11 126.74 62.61 12 133.71 68:31 13 140.53 74.18 14 147.21 80.22 15 153.72 86.43 16 159.28 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.340 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.340 -93.88 339.74 354.22 50.00 159.28 6.945E +07 2. 1.353 -41.47 189.21 195.83 50.00 128.48 2.163E +07 3. 1.355 - 274.19 536.64 613.28 50.00 148.17 8.900E +07 4. 1.395 - 161.06 334.69 382.20 50.00 134.16 4.219E +07 5. 1.402 8.25 189.09 166.83 56.67 143.88 2.102E +07 6. 1.429 55.17 107.09 77.66 56.67 131.23 1.042E +07 7. 1.483 26.55 100.12 87.27 50.00 110.89 8.768E +06 8. 1.496 39.71 104.38 99.34 36.67 138.20 3.058E +07 9. 1.517 61.30 137.70 99.91 63.33 150.12 1.502E +07 10. 1.525 56.09 118.26 76.13 70.00 127.44 4.963E +06 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -5 o N r . ' 3 O N (� O O 00 LL CL O � O m z c N V) G � r• X N Q I U a X L o') V L,J W Q U � i c Q U Z O o �- E N U p �t Ld O M V / O O O O O M N O co M r• r N (1 SIXd -Jl 0 PLATE D -6 XSTABL File: D2 9 -19 -97 14 :22 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 7 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 51.0 20.0 2 3 51.0 20.0 60.0 35.0 2 4 60.0 35.0 113.5 80.0 1 5 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 6 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 7 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 51.0 20.0 220.0 22.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. PLATE D -7 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges.specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value fT -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified . Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .100 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load (s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 PLATE D -8 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT' LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 10.0 ft and x = 70.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 160.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------------ PLATE D -9 Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 16 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 16.06 2 58.18 19.82 3 66.26 23.78 4 74.23 27.95 5 82.10 32.32 6 89.85 36.89 7 97.49 41.66 8 105.00 46.62 9 112.38 51.77 10 119.63 57.10 11 126.74 62.61 12 133.71 68.31 13 140.53 74.18 14' 147.21 80.22 15 153.72 86.43 16 159.28 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.127 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description SECTION A -A', SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.127 -93.88 339.74 354.22 50.00 159.28 6.641E +07 2. 1.152 - 274.19 536.64 613.28 50.00 148.17 8.502E +07 3. 1.173 -41.47 189.21 195.83 50.00 128.48 2.068E +07 4. 1.195 8.25 189.09 166.83 56.67 143.88 2:018E +07 5. 1.206 - 161.06 334.69 382.20 50.00 134.16 4.038E +07 6. 1.240 55.17 107.09 77.66 56.67 131.23 1.003E +07 7. 1.287 61.30 137.70 99.91 63.33 150.12 1.450E +07 8. 1.290 26.55 100.12 87.27 50.00 110.89 8.430E +06 9. 1.310 39.71 104.38 99.34 36.67 138.20 2.958E +07 10. 1.331 47.32 106.39 100.70 43.33 146.89 3.464E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -10 0 Nt N 3 1 M � o 00 I N N I I I � N 00 O LL- 0 cn I o LO y-- Z o � N (n X � a i Q X U D o Q � ' L to a zo - - -- - - - - -e to E- 0 M m i rn i rn O 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO N (D c0 M N (1 SIXd - ), PLATE D -11 XSTABL File: S3A 9 -19 -97 15:06 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * Ver. 5.005 94 A 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description,: SECTION A -A', STATIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 37.0 2 3 47.6 37.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -12 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit (s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: PLATE D -13 Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 37.0 UPPER limiting boundary of, 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y- right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 92.0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 48.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 6.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees ---------------------------=-------------------- USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ----------------------------------------------- Factors of safety have been calculated by the : PLATE D -14 * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 48.00 37.26 2 54.00 37.39 3 59.98 37.80 4 65.94 38.49 5 71.87 39.46 6 77.74 40.71 7 83.54 42.23 8 89.27 44.02 9 94.90 46.07 10 100.44 48.39 11 105.86 50.97 12 111.15 53.80 13 116.30 56.87 14 121.31 60.18 15 126.15 63.72 16 130.82 67.48 17 135..31 71.46 18 139.61 75.65 19 143.71 80.03. • 20 147.59 84.60 21 151.26 89.35 22 153.12 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.383 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 2.383 48.25 165.17 127.91 48.00 153.12 3.109E +07 2. 2.462 62.70 123.28 82.57 54.00 139.06 1.661E+07 3. 2.493 71.80 147.95 110.70 51.00 167.29 3.547E +07 4. 2.497 65.00 148.53 101.50 63.00 149.28 1.836E +07 5. 2.515 53.59 167.13 122.21 60.00 149.93 2.223E +07 6. 2.571 72.09 163.64 126.20 51.00 175.77 4.338E +07 7. 2.693 80.98 96.22 52.35 63.00 133.15 9.961E +06 8. 2.720 81.03 157.89 103.19 75.00 160.42 1.750E +07 9. 2.725 26.67 180.15 143.01 51.00 139.25 2.392E +07 10. 2.729 61.79 139.93 89.26 69.00 137.04 1.105E +07 PLATE D -15 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -16 0 N � I O rn I N II _I cn I o O I 0 I T O I S to I O m LO • T N x N � x � � p to � rn w N Q �U - I '� o Q U O U Ln Ln j j- n rn 1 O O O O p p O LO N O co M Q T r- (+aaj) SIXd —,� PLATE D -17 XSTABL File: D3A 9 -19 -97 15:10 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive•Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 & 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 37.0 2 3 47.6 37.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -18 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .100 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed PLATE D -19 force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 37.0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 48.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 6.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees ---------------------------------------------------- USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------ PLATE D -20 Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 48.00 37.26 2 54.00 37.39 3 59.98 37.80 4 65.94 38.49 5 71.87 39.46 6 77.74 40.71 7 83.54 42.23 8 89.27 44.02 .9 94.90 46.07 10 100.44 48.39 11 105.86 50.97 12 111.15 53.80 13 116.30 56.87 14 121.31 60.18 15 126.15 63.72 16 130.82 67.48 17 135.31 71.46 18 139.61 75.65 19 143.71 80.03 20 147.59 84.60 21 151.26 89.35 22 153.12 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.997 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.997 48.25 165.17 127.91 48.00 153.12 3.041E +07 2. 2.035 69.39 149.58 114.34 48.00 168.13 3.807E +07 3. 2.084 72.09 163.64 126.20 51.00 175.77 4.258E +07 4. 2.102 65.00 148.53 101.50 63.00 149.28 1.799E +07. 5. 2.107 62.70 123.28 82.57 54.00 139.06 1.627E +07 6. 2.114 53.59 167.13 122.21 60.00 149.93 2.177E +07 7. 2.166 61.26 216.70 171.61 60.00 178.56 4.466E +07 PLATE D -21 8. 2.171 80.99 158.89 118.22 57.00 178.13 3.832E +07 9. 2.185 70.85 153.37 100.45 72.00 150.36 1.472E +07 10. 2.219 -31.07 427.88 397.23 51.00 179.94 9.860E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -22 0 �r N o I o N I it I o I o0 LL. I CL o i V) o LO m � N (n Q N I U x L C) Q � W Q •V I •� O Q U O O ---- - - - - -- E 0 0 o U ui W O M V rn rn o, O 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO N O CD M N (1 slxv- -Jk PLATE D -23 XSTABL File: S3 9 -19 -97 15:00 * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * - * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION -A -A', STATIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 37.0 2 3 47.6 37.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -24 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Un:t 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load (s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: PLATE D -25 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Sgil Unit(s) Soil Un:t 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: PLATE D -25 Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 37.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y =right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 160.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PLATE D -26 The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 20 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.11 3.99 2 35.05 2.93 3 44.04 2.62 4 53.03 3.08 5 61.95 4.30 6 70.73 6.27 7 79.31 8.98 8 87.63 12.41 9 95.63 16.54 10 103.25 21.32 11 110.44 26.74 12 117.14 32.75 13 123.31 39.30 14 128,90 46.36 15 133.87 53.86 16 138.18 61.76 17 141.81 69.99 18 144.73 78.51 19 146.92 87.24 20 147.69 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.730 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -.lb) 1. 1.730 43.14 108.56 105.95 26.11 147.69 4.857E +07 2. 1.730 39.04 121.95 120.11 20.00 155.28 5.902E +07 3. 1.733 38.13 129.69 127.63 20.00 160.05 6.452E +07 4. 1.740 40.41 124.47 122.82 20.00 158.83 6.269E +07 5. 1.741 40.00 126.70 124.95 20.00 160.00 6.412E +07 6. 1.742 44.07 122.26 119.62 26.11 159.72 6.062E +07 7. 1.749 42.87 122.22 121.04 20.00 160.01 6.349E +07 8. 1.753 46.58 107.59 105.60 26.11 151.01 5.129E +07 9. 1.755 43.71 102.97 102.39 20.00 145.42 4.876E +07 10. 1.758 44.65 117.79 117.05 20.00 158.75 6.186E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -27 0 -4 N ' T 3 N I II I (n I o I co LL- I CL O i V) I O m 'n � N N x (/3 < N I C) a x o rn w U) V) - a a oz ---- - - - - -- N U v LEI O O A T / ) e � I _ v, T i O to N O co T• (1 SIXd -) PLATE D -28 XSTABL File: D3 9 -19 -97 14:27 * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * Ver..5.005 94 a 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description SECTION A -A', SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 40.0 2 3 47.6 40.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -29 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) F Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .100 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed PLATE D -30 force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 37.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 160.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees PLATE D -31 Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 3.36 2 28.95 2.40 3 37.94 2.07 4 46.94 2.37 5 55.89 3.31 .6 64.75 4.88 7 73.48 7.06 8 82.04 9.86 9 90.37 13.25 10 98.45 17.22 11 106.23 21.75 12 113.66 26.82 13 120.73 32.40 14 127.38 38.46 15 133.58 44.98 16 139.32 51.91 17 144.55 59.24 18 149.25 66.91 19 153.40 74.90 20 156.97 83.16 21 159.96 91.65 22 160.05 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.494 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting' (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.494 38.13 129.69 127.63 20.00 160.05 6.374E +07 2. 1.502 40.00 126.70 124.95 20.00 160.00 6.336E +07. 3. 1.503 40.41 124.53 122.88 20.00 158.89 6.202E +07 4. 1.510 42.87 122.22 121.04 20.00 .160.01 6.274E +07 5. 1.513 42.86 105.71 103.09 26.11 144.95 4.565E +07 6. 1.518 45.31 109.62 107.36 26.11 151.18 5.105E +07 7. 1.521 44.66 117.85 117.11 20.00 158.81 6.122E +07 8. 1.522 46.89 116.84 114.75 26.11 158.83 5.854E +07 9. 1.522 42.89 101.82 99.26 26.11 141.62 4.280E +07 PLATE D -32 10. 1.523 44.42 112.32 111.66 20.00 154.20 5.641E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -33 O N 3� 00 I o o I N CSI I I cn I o O I o rl- I CL O � I o Z o � CV X N < N � U X 4 - o 1— N V •L o Q V cD 7t 0 W O o a� 1 rn � O O O O O O O LO CV C3� c0 M m N (199j) SIXd -,k PLATE. D -34 XSTABL File: S3B 9 -19 -97 14:42 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 Problem Description SECTION A -A', STATIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 27.0 2 3 47.6 27.0 113.5 80.0 2, 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -35 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load (s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: PLATE D -36 Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 27.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 - 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 50.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 7.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------------ PLATE D -37 Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 19 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No., (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 28.93 2 56.98 29.52 3 63.91 30.49 4 70.77 31.85 5 77.55 33.59 6 84.23 35.71 7 90.77 38.19 8 97.17 41.03 9 103.40 44.22 10 109.44 47.75 11 115.28 51.61 12 120.90 55.80 13 126.27 60.28 14 131.38 65.06 15 136.23 70.12 16 140.78 75.43 17 145.03 80.99 18 148.96 86.78 19 152.10 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.018 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 2.018 42.90 154.65 125.92 50.00 152.10 3.207E +07 2. 2.091 61.30 117.01 83.81 55.56 141.29 1.885E +07 3. 2.135 59.69 147.47 107.46 63.89 151.67 2.139E +07 4. 2.137 12.09 190.80 166.26 50.00 145.76 3.376E +07 5. 2.164 67.84 105.49 70.50 58.33 136.98 1.502E +07. 6. 2.170 68.97 142.30 112.30 52.78 169.37 3.920E +07 7. 2.177 70.62 137.86 105.54 55.56 165.66 3.381E +07 8. 2.190 58.51 178.41 147.36 52.78 177.51 5.091E +07 9. 2.218 79.65 112.54 71.39 66.67 147.99 1.533E +07 10. 2.228 46.21 159.56 119.00 66.67 144.11 1.819E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -38 0 d N . 3 I o cv I N I II I I c o � I � � I � o L m ti- o v � N N X N < m U X � L � (_n :3 W cn Q v ZO -- - - - - -8 U O U) W O M V) r- 0) I rn r- I rn O O O O O O O LO m N O O M rn (1a SIXd —J, PLATE D -39 XSTABL File: D3B 9 -19 -97 15:21 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis *. * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 27.0 2 3 47.6 27.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -40 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .100 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed PLATE D -41 force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 27.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 92.0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 50.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 7.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees PLATE D -42 ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength.greater than zero -------------------------------------------------=---------- Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 19 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (f t) (ft) 1 50.00 28.93 2 56.98 29.52 3 63.91 30.49 4 70.77 31.85 5 77.55 33.59 6 84.23 35.71 7 90.77 38.19 8 97.17 41.03 9 103.40 44.22 10 109.44 47.75 11 115.28 51.61 12 120.90 55.80 13 126.27 60.28 14 131.38 65.06 15 136.23 70.12 16 140.78 75.43 17 145.03 80.99 18 148.96 86.78 19 152.10 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.721 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.721 42.90 154.65 125.92 50.00 152.10 3.124E +07 2. 1.803 58.51 178.41 147.36 52.78 177.51 4.973E +07 3. 1.812 61.30 117.01 83.81 55.56 141.29 1.840E +07 4. 1.815 68.97 142.30 112.30 52.78 169.37 3.834E +07 5. 1.817 59.69 147.47 107.46 63.89 151.67 2.088E +07 6. 1.828 70.62 137.86 105.54 55.56 165.66 3.307E +07 PLATE D -43 7. 1.834 12.09 190.80 166.26 50.00 145.76 3.286E +07 B. 1.874 -92.68 492.57 485.10 50.00 179.94 1.293E +08 9. 1.887 67.84 105.49 70.50 58.33 136.98 1.468E +07' - -10. 1.907. 79.65 112.54 71.39 66.67 147.99 1.502E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -44 O N 3� � { o (0 I N Lo I o o I 00 I r CL I O cry I o m I `" r z 0 �. N r < U X �- rn a c V) - U a 0 Q U LO E M V rn i rn i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q LO N O c0 M PLATE D -45 XSTABL File: S3AA 9 -19 -97 15:55 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 Problem Description SECTION A -A', STATIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 27.0 2 3 47.6 27.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface. No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -46 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) r Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: PLATE D -47 Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 27.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 92.0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PLATE D -48 The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 3.36 2 28.97 2.58 3 37.96 2.39 4 46.95 2.80 5 55.90 3.82 6 64.75 5.43 7 73.48 7.63 8 82.04 10.41 9 90.39 13.76 10 98.51 17.65 11 106.34 22.08 12 113.86 27.03 13 121.03 32.47 14 127.82 38.37 15 134.21 44.72 16 140.15 51.47 17 145.63 58.61 18 150.62 66.10 19 155.10 73.91 20 159.04 82.00 21 162.43 90.34 22 162.98 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.694 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.694 36.25 136.87 134.49 20.00 162.98 6.477E +07 2. 1.696 44.70 121.62 119.09 26.11 159.95 5.736E +07 3. 1.704 42.55 108.09 107.13 20.00 148.37 4.854E +07 4. 1.716 45.68 113.22 112.82 20.00 156.43 5.606E +07 5. 1.716 42.83 102.01 101.25 20.00 143.55 4.430E +07 6. 1.719 42.58 96.22 93.69 26.11 136.08 3.625E +07. 7. 1.722 46.75 112.47 112.34 20.00 157.13 5.673E +07 8. 1.722 52.18 113.05 110.25 32.22 160.37 5.436E +07 9. 1.739 48.81 94.06 92.88 26.11 141.55 4.051E +07 10. 1.743 38.41 155.56 153.31 20.00 177.64 8.376E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -49 0 N 3 1 N I o LO I N � I II I V) I c o I Q- 0 0 o I "' � 4- Z o `� N (n cn < (D U X � o L rn w cn - U Q L � Q U V) a� rn r -. 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO N 0') CO M (1999) slxv —,� PLATE D -50 XSTABL File: D3A 9 -19 -97 14:31 * X S T A B L * * Slope Stability Analysis * _ using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * Ver. 5.005 94 6.1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description SECTION A -A', SEISMIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 27.0 2 3 47.6 27.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below, Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -51 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .100 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load (s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 _0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed PLATE D -52 force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 27.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: 'Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees PLATE D -53 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 3.36 2 28.97 2.58 3 37.96 2.39 4 46.95 2.80 5 55.90 3.82 6 64.75 5.43 7 73.48 7.63 8 82.04 10.41 9 90.39 13.76 10 98.51 17.65 11 106.34 22.08 12 113.86 27.03 13 121.03 32.47 14 127.82 38.37 15 134.21 44.72 16 140.15 51.47 17 145.63 58.61 18 150.62 66.10 19 155.10 73.91 20 159.04 82.00 2 1 162.43 90.34 22 162.98 92..00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.452 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.452 36.25 136.87 134.49 20.00 162.98 6.288E +07 2. 1.459 '44.70 121.62 119.09 26.11 159.95 5.572E +07 3. 1.473 38.41 155.56 153.31 20.00 177.64 8.137E +07 4. 1.482 42.55 108.09 107.13 20.00 148.37 4.718E +07 5. 1.482 52.18 113.05 110.25 32.22 160.37 5.285E +07 6. 1.483 45.68 113.22 112.82 20.00 156.43 5.453E +07 PLATE D -54 7. 1.488 46.75 112.47 112.34 20.00 157.13 5.519E +07 8. 1.489 40.86 154.99 153.05 20.00 179.99 8.435E +07 9. 1.495 47.11 142.09 139.68 26.11 177.33 7.619E +07 10. 1.497 43.39 147.23 145.76 20.00 178.01 8.100E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -55 APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES ' GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotec nical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprized of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All clean -outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and /or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D- 1557 -78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test method ASTM designation D- 1556 -82, D -2937 or D -2922 and D -3017, at intervals of approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non - earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will r ill inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off -site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in -place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, thse materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be over - excavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations Skelly Engineering File: eAwp Appendix E Page 2 continue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned should be re- compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in. these guidelines. Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be over - excavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on -site soils engineer and /or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key,. should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and /or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the, recommended minimum width of the lowest bench orskey is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to'h the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre - stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and /or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or Skelly Engineering File: e:`wp7\220012296a.pgi Appendix E Page 3 substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material.. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill /bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken off -site or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and /or the developers representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material. Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D- 1557 -78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or Skelly Engineering File: eAwp7 \2200\2296a.pgi Appendix E Page 4 portion shall be re- worked until the required density and /or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. _ Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over- building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and /or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may be recommended. If an alternative to over- building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve therequired compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 5. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re- rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re- rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid - rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re- compact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction. 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and /or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. Skelly Engineering Appendix E File: eAwp7\220012296a.pgi Page 5 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and /or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and re- filling of cut areas should be performed and /or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. - The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in- grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractors responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and /or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. COMPLETION Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. Skelly Engineering Appendix E File: eAwp7\2200\2296a.pgi Page 6 After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and /or engineering geologist. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and /or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and /or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and /or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY G eneral At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi - employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at all times when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Skelly Engineering Appendix E File: e:1wpM20012296a.pgi Page 7 Test Pits Location Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non - encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreased test results. When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractors failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his /her supervisor. The grading contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his /her attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative and the soils technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Skelly Engineering Appendix E File: eAwp7\2200\2296a.pgi Page 8 Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches .where compaction testing is needed. - Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which 1) is 5 feet or deeper .unless shored or laid back, 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL -OSHA and /or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his /her supervisor. The contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and /or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner /developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL -OSHA and /or the proper authorities. Skelly Engineering Appendix E File: eAwpM200\2296a.pgi Page 9 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A ♦ PROPCSED COMPAC PALL �♦\ - NATURAL GROUNO � COLLUVIUM ANO ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) SEOROCK TYPICAL ENCHING '.0•�� y !fl = SEE ALTERNATIVES TYPE B S. ------------------- PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL Al ♦ � NATURAL GROUND /// COLLUVIUM ANO ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) / /� a�DROCK TYPIC -A L SENCHING SEE ALTERNATIVES NOTE. ALTERNATIVES. LOCATION ANO EXTENT Or SUSORAINS SHOULD .,_ OE T ERMINED ?Y THE SOILS ENGINE= "N /CR ENGINEE .RING v"E�LOGISi DU RING uRAOING. PLATE EG— CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DE T AILS . ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATE:;IAL 12' MINIMUM 6 FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 'FT,' /LINEAR FT. 6' � ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED MINIMUM SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (1/4'j) PERFS. LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIP ASTM 02751. SOR 35 OR ASTM 01527, SCHO. 40 6' MINIMUM A -1 ASTM 03034, SOR 35 OR ASTM 01785. SCHO. 40 8 -1 FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 500 FT. USE 8' J� PIPE FILTER MATERIAL )EVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING- 1 INCH 100 3/4 INCH 90 -100 3/8 INCH 40 -100 NO. G 25 -40 NO. 8 18 -33 NO. 30 6-15 NO. 50 0 -7 NO. 200 0 -3 ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND FILTER FABRIC ka {� 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP 6' MINIMUM COVER \ i /� �.••�. I .4' MINIMUM BEOGING 4' MINIMUM GE00ING \; A-_2 GRAVEL MATE=RIAL 9 FT' /LINEAR FT. 8--2 PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL: CLEAN 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVE) SUBSTITUTE PLATE EG -2 DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIA T ED CANYON TGE CF ', AS SHOWN ON G R AOING PLAN COMPACTED TILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO L RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FI ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE BACKCUT - VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS, ��• BACKCUT �1�,SHOULD BE MADE NO /�� STEEPER THAf�:1 OR AS NECESSAR j ;'�� ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL FOR SAFETY J\ONSIDERATIONS/ DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER. �� PR OVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF � SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT, SITE CONDITIONS ANO /OR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS. REMOVAL ADJACEN TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL ,i FOR DRAINAGE ONLY Qaf ` Qaf / I (TO SE REMOVED) (EXISTING COMPACTED FILL) g %TF \\ \�71 71 LE EN D m�/ � �� 11 TO B_ REMOVED BEFORE c REMOVED Qaf ARTIFICIAL FILL �/ LACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL Qal ALLUVIUM P L.A T E EIS G CL ww = w Z z u w c 2 w Z Z C > w �- U J w Z w o C z N rW- _"� u. W ° a w w m w c' Q v' W Z o Y I T 0 2 a _ =Q w �-- z U X W _1 Z G C W C. Q LU CL O m \ © Z Q cn _ Q C LL 2 c� U Z Z N Z / } G Q a p �- w (f � z -:c }' Q ° w W N a � ? a �y N f_ w F- F- Z X Y a. (_ Z LL 4 U w W O c o J / w L1 Im LLI Z Z a. 1 w O ° o ° F- N C i j a c r". p C LL ° Q W w ", U Q U N a- U d C: u ul cu C N_ Q Q N C Z c w Q Z N Z N ` uj Q U o3 CL \\ � u } r I PLATE EC-- C Cl Lu l'J I ' CLI co C3 Ln v Z : C I I I I I I I v> V m _ u Z. c a Ln © Ln c c w LA Z w w l �, r w "' LA L. Lut wl N LLJ � w f l C a cm < • " tL NI - z O NI V a > -' Q JI 3 w N ? o Z w Z lt� U= z m f., Ln CL LLN " O ` w JI W Q LiJI ? v co Q O Q Q -, Q �- Z ° C < � y W�1 r7 Z Z Z Z Z ` Q Z Q ry N Q W w O W c o w m v Z LL C ? p C o u- C >- rf y O w w Q G. C U U ell M N S; N O J w C Q Q W -� Q .1 ! - /1 LL N J m � CA C I C LL C a a li. J �.. N O N ( O ? > LL Q Z n Q U ° a w =) Q Z � N O LL g Q a- U - W J �� W C C UJ c O F - ° WO O w m ti! a z Q = O U ) � w N �- LL C7 ~ Q c i `� '" `� `- Q Ls. N Z • O Q W z ' Q 0 3 Z CC ° L < w C LL C > G Q W F- d U O C > w Z Z Z �-- u. W z r �`-„ - Z LL LL o 3 W -1 o t- E- w w w ° a. G z Q Q w > LL Q LL I O C z ,= N C w -i a. w O C Q N Z L� • w > o v: w Q z z a . w r }- ►- W a w cc w 2 : w o Z Q W U N O O w a C .w� J J Q r Lii w tz O CL F- ° C ..� N C w r z r c' r ° t U C 2 0 z w -' w o Ln Z w w w w o Z J o a r \ O ° W C Z a C m = a , O C J W O W Q W J r C LL LL ° w ° _W a. C N C r C tr-A N F- z r 4 Q Z ? c > > Q 1 o w CL u w ° }• °, I— Q a o c 0 i Q W o o o o CL o z Q a= -L w w J a w w i o a_ r w 3 .+- o c w C a: w �.._ zl a. Q L �1 u �- Ln ' - Q (L w z — c a Ln w a —Z c •� Q C Q Qj a o �' 3 a a w _� u L 3 _ C O w z Q W w z J C I -� Q C Q° C w Li z > Ica z z a u w ►- 3 a N Q z w r C m © " g ° c O -i W Q U- ry Z N J J � ~ to Z LL - 0 �_ C cl) I _ W W F- Lr CQ? Q l� G Lu Z ° ° to H J ° V W N N =1 O N N m ? 11 Q L Q1 Z' LO Wf1WINIW .� = J Q z —� U z nHINIW . \ •� " � I n _ .. .I =i I ' I w W N II (l -- C - C PLATE EG -5 J LL _ u u u = _ c W a Z "' 3 c U C C ` = p U •� W Q ° LU z ~ ° d 3 a ®� U C p Z a - Y , Q W Z X Z Q V L C W z m a a ° o a a . ...1 W J } C G W UJ Z p Q ¢ Z ° W a J 0o Q 3 W 4 Z U; 4 , a � z in O W W O m W a N a = d Z 0 -1 to W Q J W � d d 4 O N p Z p t!f O C p Q 4 Z Q ° d c W Z U O J L..1. W ._.l w Z J \ W Oa p tt O LL O 4 _ -J p p N J o CL W z o W F— _.! m c� �r �� C C 5 Z F Q a z W L 1 O J1 ZT. W 2 ?- < B.- p a ►- p r t/7 O Z r z u� W z ~ z CD - cn o W J a 3 a> ,( W o >- u CL c u LL } v Z Y G LL °- LL N" o ° w w c � c c x W l:.! }_ fV © F W J N Z a LLJ LU fn Q w J Q \ J > C Z ° p LL 1 - C LU -- C J w n Q C t/1 C w v r+ C W C C C N Q w Ca c u t, a w c` PLATE E --, c W C ►- W j Q Lu C > Z r a C I LL Z O C W W a W C • C Q c3 a LL C Q LL i J z W 2 W CL C U .N 'Y Z try W Z W J >' W Z ~ -j r C a0 O � z .a z `�� > n w U. Li Q w. r w (A v, W J z LL O a i �" O O W C Z u. N O t = U O 0 O w �- Q z ��'- w o 3 C U C L.Ll z F- p i / z O. p a a. :; = C 7 m W N Q Z Y U O � a J z > w w 0 Y N 3 = o z LU z Z C F- m N / Z ua --� z 3 a o J J n. F- Z ~ a Q r C U Q N W C7 < a _ !- z Q Q Z z C L O O O Z z a W O Q ~ C In Ln Q a � < 1 . C C4 O V1 � Y U U o C w `� PLATE EJ -7 W 1 _ U C Q �- V C W _. © a c , -� U ? _1 c LL.' L. W c w W C - Q O W LL w w c" c Z w z _ L _ C W C V C C Z c u a a. c v� c W -j Lu Q W W a Q W a W c ° - - `o Z c 4 a� Z C n U cm C LLI r W a \ C .J Q C F - W W z Q O N ! /N / � ° z 2 n w S z L z \ N a W W = O U W 4 W W Q W C \ \� CJ _T Z t!1 � � z / } Y v O C- t� � J LLI W : � n < r Z = W W N <Q U W to ►— p 4 z W U ` ( �� 4 F- © W N P L, (n L.l 2 O v O 1 - W W O >- a C3 W S u = z a = W z F- = W W 4 O Z z N W V O} 1 LL W U C W cn m W 0 F— CL _ ^� s Q C N CL c W W. 1 1 � - ILJ w 0 LL z LL O Ul t: c Vf _ W ca _ n = W ' Z lL a I W °- W Z W 3 Z Q © 0 W z Ln rT I ` ►- a r f LO • 'Q 0 W ui G t I N > W c ~ Q W X a Q // 3 `= m W LL. F- W I i �, � a a N c ° Q m ,n _ Q G L_ J c PLATE EG— 8 w c I �� <-, c w ° w Q c � z � ►- - a w LU c a c z w z z w Z z C= u. // z • C Q �/ ° w c o w 0- N w d Q ° G N a ° ° �\ ° w V N 1- /� C p (= O Z �� ❑ ° 0 W ❑ LL C3. Z Z O CD a W W W v _ W O Q t /d� �� F Q ►_ ❑ Z ..1 Y a w Q O w m 0 O �- _ C) Z X 3 ° o Z �^ 0 w U 4 y ?' LL a a = a w Q do \� /i z_ a ° o z Z ❑ L) '`� c w w Z �., :n w m Q 0 LL " ° N a o Q v j �— N o o N a o w z ° o� �� F= n a < —J a c o c W LL Z w = 3 Z � V � a ? Q �7 °� w w � Z _ w G a Q w lJ w �� Y W w W kn C3 a w w> W O z z O w ^ � �j �i �T. w U ) 1 V Z -- Z Q W w a z to Z -z LL ^ Pv in LL L o CD c CL c c r= \ c a. � °" u c r w tv Y PLATE EG- L U — I� U LL ¢ N w 1' j w N N Z Q Q w U 1 N Z LL .1 1 O ❑ LA w p Y O z w i Ln \� O x a. x ¢ � C Z �� Q w W C cm .. G ` cz W W en - O a Q 4 O >C 6 V w / O 4 Cl ¢ �� \ m w �-- Z �, m W m . ll1 z ° . 0 0 - c Ln � W N 4 Z w a_ c� O w w W C) of � < m CD 0 w w LLI Co w LL z Z Z w O m C N ��! ♦ C Z N p O Ln W e LL y /� N% o? Z a Q o¢ c w � \ 3 a C 0 w N � � o a. U J N Y C Q c� u ¢ J J // 2 O Z U Z ti N T a. Q a x w c ¢ to m a_ ¢ N W ul z c z o C W I — w c w c -_ > N `�- c D _ Q w �`+ W C C a c u U LL U H N U a. F w w _ N H -r = C C 7 Q `'- q_ Q T U ] N C Q � N �'' X U Q C f! 1 C W Q C W U } W C_ C ~ LU Q > W > Q PLA EG - 110 TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) NATURAL GRA25 _ 5' MINIM M PAO GRADE OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT� COMPACTED FILL 3 • M I N IM U M �\ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING CUT -FILL LOT (DAYUGHT TRAN. \ ' M . NATURAL GRADE cF \�' �' iNJMUM PAO GRADE vN- OVEREXCAVATE COMPACTED FILL /� vt�• O� AND RECOMPACT / / / \ \ /// 3-MINIMUM 14 / UNWEATHERED EEDROCK OP. APPROVI =O MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING NOTc- =0E=_.==_ OVEF=: /ATICN MAY SE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINE= AND /OR ENGINE= .RING GEOLGGiST IN STEcr Ct: T— =ILL T FANSI T ION AR EAS. P LATE E EG --- -4 4 OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROO< SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. VEIW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (El co co c 15L IA) 20'MINIMUM (B) m (G) Oo I F) cc 15' MINIMUM oo co W 5' MINIMUM (C) BEDROCK R APPROVED MATERIAL VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) 10= 0 • MAXIMUM (8) • 3' MINIMUM � (G)� a 10' MINIMUM 10' MINIMUM $' MINIMUM (C) BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. (8) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100' MAXIMUM. (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERNG GEOLOGIST, WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED OIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIALS OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. (D) ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHALL BE AS RECOMMENOED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (E) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. IF) VOIDS IN WINDROW SMALL BE FILLED BY FLOODING GRANULAR SOIL INTO PLACE. GRANULAR SOIL SHALL BE ANY SOIL WHICH HAS A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USC 29 -1) DESIGNATION OF SM. SP. 5' /;. GF. OR GW. 'ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL EE COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION. (G) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW, WINDROW SHALL SE PROOF ROLL ED WITH A G DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. (HI 0' /': R0CK IS C] NED A LARGER T`4AN 1_, ANO L H. AN L =T IN SIZ`. PLATE EG-- �2 ROCK D15POSAL PITS FILL LIFTS COMPACTE0 OVER _ ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT f GRANULAR MATER • .. LARGE ROCK 1 COMPACTED FILL I SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO G= COMMENSURATE I WITH ROCK SIZE. I I � NOTE: 1. LARGE ROCK IS DEFINED AS ROCK LARGER THAN 4 FEET IN MAXIMUM SIZE. 2. PIT IS EXCAVATED INTO COMPACTED FILL TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO 1/2 OF ROCK SIZE. 3. GRANULAR SOIL SHOULD BE PUSHED INTO PIT AND DENSIFIED SY FLOODING. USE A SHEE ?SFOOT AROUND ROCK TO AID IN COMPACTION. 4. A MINIMUM OF L FEET OF REGULAR COMPACTED FILL SHOULD OVERLIE EACH. PIT. S. PITS SHOULD BE SEPARATED BY AT LEAST 15 FEET HORIZONTALLY. o. PITS SHOULD NOT SE PLACED WITHIN 20 FEET OF ANY FILL SLOPE. 7. PITS SHOULD ONLY SE USED IN DEE AREAS. PLATE EG -13. SET T LEMEV T PLATE AND RISE, DETAIL t. S T E= F L A TE STANDARD - . /L' PIP= NIPPLE viEL ^ED TO TOP OF PLATE. 3/4' X 5' GALVANIZED PIPE. STANDARD PIPE r THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENOS AND ADDED IN 5' INCREMENTS. 3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADD IN 5' INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. F(NAL GRADE � I I MAINTAIN 5* CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. � s �MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN ?'VERTICAL r -r V LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND ACCEFTEO BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 1 5' 5' I I I 1 I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5' 5' 1 I VERTICAL WITHIN A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE. A A' �-', r'_� `-- • • BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT SAND • PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1' BEDDING OF COMPACTED NOTE: 1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE ANO WITHIN 5' (VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD BE HAND COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINE ER. 5' RADIUS AFTER 5'(VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER. L. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTAELISHING THE INITIAL READING. � IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TD T•"E SE T TL =MEN T PLAT OR EXTENSION RE FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA. CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD EE RESPONSIBLE OROE= FOR P,ESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING MA "' o VI ^1 AT T..� AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION Y „c r 0 Ot ZISC==TION GF T:-E SOILS =14G;NE PLATE EG- i 4 TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT FINISH GRAOE 318' DIAMETER X 6' LENGTH CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT o' DIAMETER X 3 1/2' LENGTH HOLE 3'-8' CONCRETE BACKFILL PLATE EG -15 TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM SIOE VIEW I' Y VEHICLE SPOIL PILE TEST P!T � =�� '� •"•'� ( NOT TO SCALE ) TOP VIEW Los 100 F w W LL. O 50 F—=T 50 Fc=T (rLA! SPOIL - �t'T PIT; ve4c . I T �� - ?• I i i PILE I FUG APPROXIMATE MITER LL OF TraT PIT ul ( NOT TO SCALE ) PLATE E G 1 6 OVERSIZE ROCK .DISPOSAL VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINI GRADE 110' MINIMUM (E) b co . < 15' MINIMUM (A) c0 20' MINIMUM (6) CIO - (G) 00 00 oo CD c� _1 5'MINI (A m oo aclF) 5' MINIMUM (C) BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE • 10' MINIMUM (E) i 100' MAXIMUM (E )_, 15' MINIMUM 3' MINIMUM 15' MINIMUM 25' MINIMUM (C) FROM CA WALL • MINIMUM (C) BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET, (5) HEIGHT ANO WIDTH MAY VARY DEFENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINOROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100' MAXIMUM. (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. WINDROWS MAY SE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMP =TENT MATERIAL OR cEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE l5 AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. (Q) ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHOULD 6E AS RECOMMENDED ?Y THE SOILS eivGii�ECrc ANO /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS IS NCT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. IE) CL EAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRE NCHES. FOUNOATI0NS AND SWIMMING T=OOLS. (F ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL EE COMPAC i 3 c i0 90% = ELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENGED. (G) AFTER FILL BETWEEN ` INOROWS IS PLACED ANO COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW. WINORCW SHOULD c= ?ROOF ROLLED WITH A GOZ =m OR ::nUIVAL = _N VIEWS AR` OIAGRAMMA TIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH o D ANO VOIDS SHOULD SE COMPLE i FILL.E= IN. PLAT t f APPENDIX F HOMEOWNERS MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES GUIDELINES FOR THE HOMEOWNER Tips for the Homeowner Homesites, in general, and hillside lots, in particular, need maintenance to continue to function and retain their value. Many homeowners are unaware of this and allow deterioration of their property. In addition to one's own property, the homeowner may be subject to liability for damage occurring to neighboring properties as a result of his negligence. It is, therefore, important to familiarize homeowners with some guidelines for maintenance of their properties and make them aware of the importance of maintenance. Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times that amount. When vegetation or other objects are removed that hold soil in place, the soil is exposed to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding. The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the homeowner's investment, and should be employed throughout the year. 1. Care should be taken that slopes, terraces, berms (ridges at crown of slopes), and proper lot drainage are not disturbed. Surface drainage should be conducted from the rear yard to the street by a graded swale through the side yard, or alternative approved devices. 2. In general, roof and yard runoff should be conducted to either the street or storm drain by nonerosive devices such as sidewalks, drainage pipes, ground gutters, and driveways. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. 3. All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Terrace drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. During heavy rain periods, performance of the drainage system should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and ponding, if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible. 4. Any leakage from pools, water lines, etc. or bypassing of drains should be repaired as soon as possible. 5. Animal burrows should be filled inasmuch as they may cause diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow soil failures. 6. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever a homeowner plans a significant topographic modification of the slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be contacted. 7. If plans for modification of cut, fill or natural slopes within a property are considered, an engineering geologist should be consulted. Any oversteepening may result in a need for expensive retaining devices. Undercutting of the bottom of a slope might . possibly lead to slope instability or failure and should not be undertaken without expert consultation. 8. If unusual cracking, settling, or earth slippage occurs on the property, the homeowner should consult a qualified soil engineer or an engineering geologist immediately. 9. The most common causes of slope erosion and shallow slope failures are as follows: • Gross neglect of the care and maintenance of the slopes and drainage devices. • Inadequate and /or improper planting. (Barren areas should be replanted as soon as possible). • Excessive or insufficient irrigation or diversion of runoff over the slope. • Foot traffic on slopes destroying vegetation and exposing soil to erosion potential. 10. Homeowners should not let conditions on their property create a problem for their neighbors. Cooperation with neighbors could prevent problems, and also increase the aesthetic attractiveness of the properties. Winter Alert It is especially important to "winterize" your property by mid - September. Don't wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need winter protection. Final landscaping can be done later. Inexpensive measures installed by mid- September will give you protection quickly that will last all during the wet season. • Check before storms to see that drains, gutters, downspouts, and ditches are not clogged by leaves and rubble. • Check after major storms to be sure drains are clear and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as necessary. • Spot seed any bare areas. Broadcast seeds or use a mechanical seeder. A typical slope or bare area can be done in less than an hour. • Give seeds a boost with fertilizer. • Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and leaves, bark chips or straw. • Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes. • Check with your landscape architect or local nursery for advice. eAwp7Vorms \hmeown1.gde Page 2 • Prepare berms and ditched to drain surface runoff water away from problem areas such as steep, bare slopes. • Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking the surface to loosen and roughen soil so it will hold seeds. CONSTRUCTION 1. Plan construction activities during spring and summer, so that erosion control measures can be in place when rain comes. 2. Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site design will help ypu avoid expensive stabilization work. 3. Preserve existing vegetation as much as possible. Vegetation will naturally curb erosion, improve the appearance value of your property, and reduce the cost of landscaping later. 4. Use fencing to protect plans from fill material and traffic. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable asphalt or porous paving blocks. 5. Minimize the length and steepness of slopes by benching, terracing, or constructing diversion structures. Landscape benched areas to stabilize the slope and improve its appearance. 6. As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation on all areas that are not paved or otherwise covered. TEMPORARY MEASURES TO STABILIZE SOIL Gr ass provides the cheapest and most effective short -term erosion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To find the best seed mixtures and plants for your area, check with your local landscape architect, local nursery, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable environment for starting and growing plants. Easy -to- obtain mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips, and straw. Straw Mulch is nearly 100 percent effective when held in place by spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber (tackifliers), by punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tacking a netting over it. e: \wp7\forms \hmeown1.gde Page 3 Commercial applications of wood fibers combined with various seeds and fertilizers . (hydraulic mulching) are effective in.stabilizing sloped areas. Hydraulic mulching with a tackifier should be done in two separate applications: the first composed of seed fertilizer and half the mulch, the second composed of the remaining mulch and tackifier. Commercial hydraulic mulch applicators — who also provide other erosion control services — are listed under "landscaping" in the phone book. M ats of excelsior, jute netting, and plastic sheets can be effective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with the soil and fastened securely to work effectively. Roof drainaae can be collected in barrels or storage containers or routed into. lawns, planter boxes, and gardens. Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mosquitos. Excessive runoff should be directed away from your house. Too much water can damage trees and make foundations unstable. STRUCTURAL RUNOFF CONTROLS , Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent ways to transport water across your property so that it doesn't cause erosion. To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dumping it to nearby lots, streets,: streams and channels, you need ways to reduce its volume and speed. Some examples of what you might use are: 1. Rip -rap (rock lining) - to protect channel banks from erosive water flow. 2. Sediment trap - to stop runoff carrying sediment and trap the sediment. 3. Storm drain outlet protection - to reduce the speed of water flowing from a pipe onto open ground or into a natural channel. 4. Diversion dike or perimeter dike - to divert excess water to places where it can be disposed of properly. 5. Straw bale dike - to stop and detain sediment from small unprotected areas (a short term measure). 6. Perimeter swale - to divert runoff from a disturbed area or contain runoff within a disturbed area. 7. Grade stabilization structure - to carry concentrated runoff down a slope. eAwp7Vorms \hmeownl.gde Page 4 APPENDIX G PROCEDURES FOR TIEBACK SOLDIER BEAM INSTALLATION APPENDIX G PROCEDURES FOR TIEBACK SOLDIER BEAM INSTALLATION 1. Caissons are to be machine drilled. Caissons are to be accurately located so that the soldier beams are in the proper relation to the face of the new retaining wall. Protection shall be provided against sloughing or caving as required. 2. Place soldier beams or reinforced steel cage as required. 3. Fill caissons with concrete (lean for wood lagging or as designed for gunite lagging). 4. Start excavating and placing lagging between beams in lifts. 5. Excavate down to level of the top tieback. Drill anchor hole to design depth, install hollow stem rod or strands, pour or inject concrete to anchor penetration length, and backfill above grout to back of shoring beam with lean slurry. 6. When anchor grout in penetration length has attained minimum design compressive strength, stress rod to 150 percent of the required loads per structural design. a. Anchors shall be stressed straight and true. Kinking or sharp curvature in anchors under tension shall be cause for rejection. b. Road (or strand) shall show no excessive movement during testing, and the testing jack shall be capable of holding the test load with no excessive bleeding off of pressure. 7. Unless otherwise approved by the Foundation Engineer, 10 percent of the anchors shall be tested to 200 percent of the design load. In addition, a representative sample of these tie -back anchors shall be tested for a time period of 24 hours. The Foundation Engineer shall specify the number and location of these anchors in an addendum report. 8. The Foundation Engineer shall inspect and approve the testing of all anchors. He shall keep a record of all test loads and total anchor movements and certify to their accuracy. This record shall be kept on the job -site and shall be available for inspection by the Building Inspector. 9. Report Steps 4 to 6 next tieback below, as needed. 10. Continue excavating and placing lagging in lifts until bottom of excavation has been reached. Acceptance Criteria for Temporary Tieback Earth Anchors All tieback anchors shall be installed and tested conforming to the criteria presented in this section. Installation Tieback anchors shall be installed at the angle of declination and alignment indicated in the approved shoring plans with a tolerance of 3± degrees at the bearing plate ans within 300 millimeters (12 inches) of the planned point of entry. The contractor shall provide all equipment and instrumentation necessary for the inspector to verify placement of concrete within the anchor zone. • The grout pump shall be equipped with a pressure gauge capable of measuring pressures of at least 1,000 kPa (150 psi). • The quantity of grout and the grout pressure shall be recorded by the contractor. • The grout shall be injected from the lowest point of the drill hole. Backfilling the unbonded zone of the tieback shall be accomplished by a method acceptable to the geotechnical engineer. • Grout placed above within the unbonded zone shall not be placed under pressure. • The grout at the top of the drilled hole shall stop 150 mm (6 inches) from the back of the shoring. Tiebacks spaced closer than 2'/2 diameters center -to- center shall be drilled and placed alternatively. Testin The allowable design capabilities of all tiebacks shall be verified by a program of proof tests and performance tests. The contractor shall provide all equipment and instrumentation necessary for the inspector to verify the adequacy of the tiebacks. • A dial gauge or vernier scale capable of measuring displacements to 0.0254005 mm (0.001 inches) precision shall be used to measure tieback anchor movement. it shall have 152 mm (6 inches) travel. Skelly Engineering Appendix G File: eAwp7\2200\2296a.pgi Page 2 • A hydraulic jack and pump shall be used to apply the test load. The jack and calibrated pressure gauge shall be used to measure the applied load. The pressure gauge shall be graduated in 500 kPa (100 psi) increments or less. The load shall be raised or lowered from one increment to another immediately after anchor movement is recorded unless noted otherwise therein. • The stressing equipment shall be placed over the tieback anchor tendon in such a manor that the jack, bearing plate, and stressing anchorage are axially aligned with the tendon and the tendon is centered within the equipment. A minimum of 3 percent of all tiebacks shall be performance tested to 200 percent of the design load for 24 hours by the following pressure. • A nominal alignment load not exceeding 10 percent of design load shall be applied and axial elongation with respect to a fixed reference independent of the shoring established. • The axial load shall be applied in increments of 25 percent of the design load. Each incremental load shall be maintained for a period of 1 minute with the axial elongation measured at the beginning and end of this period, and the load released to the alignment load and the axial elongation shall be measured following each successive maximum. For example, the load sequence as a percentage of design load would be: alignment load, increase to 25 percent of design load, release to alignment load, increase to 25 percent of design load, increase to 50 percent of design load, release to alignment load, increase to 25 percent of design load, increase to 50 percent of design load, increase to 75 percent of design load, release to alignment load, etc. • Upon reaching 200 percent of design load, the load shall be maintained for a period of 24 hours. The axial elongation from the time of application of the 200 percent load to conclusion of the 24 hours shall not exceed 0.50 inch. Total axial elongation from the initial alignment load application to the conclusion of the test shall not exceed 4 inches. • If movement exceeds 0.50 inch after 24 hours, the tieback may be rejected or the load may be reduced starting with 150 percent of the design load or lower and maintained for additional 15- minute increments at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer until a load resulting in a movement of less than 0.10 inch during a 15- minute interval is determined. Once the geotechnical engineer has determined the sustainable load, the down -rated design load shall be taken as the sustainable load divided by 1.75. • Upon completion of the test period, the load shall be incrementally reduced while taking measurements. Skelly Engineering Appendix G File: eAwp7\2200\2296a.pgi Page. 3 In addition to the above - performance tests, a minimum of 10 percent of all tiebacks shall be proof tested to 200 percent of design load for 30 minutes by the following procedure: • A nominal alignment load not exceeding 10 percent of design load shall be applied and axial elongation with respect to a fixed reference independent of the shoring established. • Axial load shall be applied in increments of 25 percent of design load. The load sequence - as a percentage of design load would be: alignment load, increase to 25 percent of design load, increase to 50 percent of design load, increase to 75 percent of design load, increase to 100 percent of design load, increase to 125 percent of design load, increase to 150 percent of design load, increase to 175 percent of design load, increase to 200 percent of design load. • Upon reaching 200 percent of design load, the load shall be maintained for a period of 30 minutes. The axial elongation from the time of application of the 200 percent load to the conclusion of the 30 minutes shall not exceed 0.25 inch. Total axial elongation from the initial alignment load application to the conclusion of the test shall not exceed 4 inches. • If movement exceeds 0.25 inch after 30 minutes, the tieback may be rejected or the load may be reduced starting with 150 percent of the design load or lower and maintained for additional 15- minute increments at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer until a load resulting in a movement of less than 0.10 inch during a 15- minute interval is determined. Once the geotechnical engineer has determined the sustainable load, the down -rated design load shall be taken as the sustainable load divided by 1.75. • Upon completion of the test period, the load shall be incrementally reduced while taking measurements. All remaining anchors shall be proof tested to 150 percent of design load for 15 minuted by the following procedure: • A nominal alignment load not exceeding 10 percent of design load shall be applied and axial elongation with respect to a fixed reference independent of the shoring established. • Axial load shall be applied in increments of 25 percent of design load. The load sequence as a percentage of design load would be: alignment load, increase to 25 percent of design load, increase to 50 percent of design load, increase to 75 percent of design load, increase to 100 percent of design load, increase to 125 percent of design load, increase to 150 percent of design load. • Upon reaching 150 percent of design load, the load shall be maintained for a period of 15 minutes. The axial elongation from the time of application of the 150 percent Skelly Engineering Appendix G File: eAwp7\2200\2296a.pgi Page 4 load to the conclusion of the 15 minutes shall not exceed 0.10 inch. Total axial elongation from the initial alignment load application to the conclusion of the test shall not exceed 4 inches. • If movement exceeds 0.10 inch after 15 minutes, the tieback may be rejected or the load may be reduced and maintained for additional 15- minute increments at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer until a load resulting in a movement of less than 0.10 inch during a 15- minute interval is determined. Once the geotechnical engineer has determined the sustainable load, the-down -rated design load shall be taken as the sustainable load divided by 1.75. If the deflection measurements are acceptable to the geotechnical engineer; the tieback anchor shall be locked -off at no less than 110 percent of the rated design load. • The anchor may be completely unloaded prior to lock -off. • After transferring the load and prior to removing the jack, a lift -off reading shall. be made. • The lift -off load shall be within 10 percent of the required lock -off load (110 percent of the design load). If not, the anchorage shall be reset and the lift -off measurement repeated until a satisfactory reading is obtained. Skelly Engineering Appendix G File: eAwp7\2200\2296a•pgi Page 5 SOIL snclnsnlnc conspucamn, October 9, 2001 Department of Engineering City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California RE: Bruce Residence Bluff Repairs 630 Neptune Avenue 24- Hour Emergency Name/Phone Contacts Attention: Mr. Greg Shields, P.E. We have prepared the following list of responsible persons and the phone numbers that may be contacted in case of an emergency at the Bruce construction site. In case of an emergency, please contact the person(s) listed below. 1. John W. Niven - office (760) 633 -3470 home (760) 740 -9159 mobile (760) 801 -6079 2. Tom Chalfant - office (760) 633 -3470 mobile (760) 275 -5955 3. Robert Mahony - office (650) 367 -9595 home (650) 359 -5536 mobile (650) 222 -8236 If you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact us at (760) 633 -3470. Very truly yours, �- hn . Niven, P.E. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. C: Engineering Inspection Lifeguard Services 560 N. Highway 101 Suite 5, Encinitas California 92024 • (760) 633 -3470 • FAX (760) 633 -3472 .CC i - 1= t -2�91 ©S :42 NM • P.01 87ATEOF CALIFORNIA -TME RESOURCES AGENCY • OIIIAT DAVIT OsronOr CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION - 7 0 : BAN DIEGO A42A 7870 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 BAN DIEGO, CA 11MR -4402 (!15) 747.2370 EMERGENCY PERMIT Applicants: Craig Bruce 630 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, Ca 93024 Date: j apttem4, r 2e 1. 20o1 Agent: Bob Trettin Emergency Permlt No, - -1 LOCATION OF EMERGENCY WORK: On the public beach below 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, Son Diego County, WORK PROPOSED: Construction of an approximately 32 ft. -high, 50 ft.-long and 2 ft.-wide tiedback concrete seawall which Is proposed to be colored and textured to match the surrounding bluff. As part of construction, the existing unpermitted rock rip -rap at the toe of the slope will be removed. This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your representative has requested to be done at the location Ilsted above. I understand from your information and our site inspection that an unexpected occurrence in the form of upper and mid -bluff sioughaa and expandina fracture within the lower sandstone bedrock requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services. 14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 13009. The Executive Director of the Coastal Commission hereby finds that; (a) An emergency exists which requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary permits and the development can and will be completed within 30 days unless otherwise specified by the terms of this permit; (b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action has been reviewed If time allows; (c) As conditioned, the work proposed would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 197x1, The work is hereby approved, subject to the conditions listed on the attached page. Sincerely, P ETER M. DOUGLAS Executive Director By: DEBORAH LEE Deputy Director QC T- 1,0 -2001 05:4- AN • • F . k+ Emergency Permit Number: 6- 01.118 -0 Onto: 09121/01 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The enclosed Emergency Permit Acceptance form must be signed by the PROPERTY OWNER and returned to our office within 15 days. 2. Only that work specifically described in this permit and for the specific properties listed above is authorized. The construction, placement, or removal of any accessory or protective structure, including but not limited to, stairways or other access structures, walls, fences, etc. not described herein, are not authorized by this permit. Any additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. if during construction, site conditions warrant changes to the approved plans, the San Diego District office of the Coastal Commission shall be contacted immediately prior to any changes to the project In the field. 3. The work authorized by this permit must be completed within 30 days of the date of this permit (i.e., by October 21, 2001). Within 80 days of the date of this permit (i.e., by November 20, 2001), the permittee shall apply for a regular Coastal Permit to have the emergency work be considered permanent. If no such application Is received, the emergency work shall be removed in Its entirety within 150 days of the date of this permit (I.e., by February 20, 2002), unless this requirement Is waived in writing by the Executive Director. 4. The subject emergency permit Is being Issued In response to a documented emergency condition where action needs to be taken faster than the normal coastal development permit process would allow. By approving the proposed emergency measures, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission is not certifying or suggesting that the structures constructed under Ynis emergency permit will provide necessary protection for the blufftop residential structures. Thus, In exercising this permit, the applicant agrees to hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for damage to public or private properties or personal injury that may result from the project. 5. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary authorizations and /or permits from other agencies (e.g. City of Enolnitas, Dept. of Fish & Game, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Parks and Recreation, State Lands Commission.) 6. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director, for review and written approval, final plans for the proposed seawall that have been reviewed and approved by the City of Encinitas Engineering Department. Said plans shall be In substantial conformance with the plans submitted with this application dated 5/12/00 by Sall Engineering Construction, Inc.), except they shall be revised as follows: a. The proposed extension of the existing mid -bluff wall (at approximately elevation 45 MSL) shall be deleted. b. Sufficient detail regarding the construction method and technology utilized for connecting the subject seawall to adjacent seawall structure(s). Q I_ T 10 - 200 1 05'44 AM • • _ P. 0:3 Emergency Permit Number; 6- 01.118 -G Cate: 09/21101 C. Sufficient detail regarding the construction method and technology utilized for texturing and coloring the seawall and tiebacks. Said plans shall confirm, and be of sufficient detail to verify, that the seawall color and texture closely matches the adjacent natural bluffs, Including provision of a color board indicating the color of the fill material. d. The seawall shall conform as closely as possible to the natural contour of the bluff. If during construction, slope conditions or bluff profiles substantially change, work shall be stopped and consultation with the City of Encinitas and Commission staff shall occur before work resumes. e. During construction of the approved development, disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. All excavated beach sand shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be used for backflll or for any other purpose as construction material, f. Within 60 days of completion of the seawall, the existing unpermitted riprap on the beach shall be removed. The permitter shall first Identify the location where the rock Is to be placed. If the site is located within the coastal zone, a separate coastal development permit or permit amendment shall first be obtained from the Coastal Commission or Its successors In Interest. 7. Pre - construction site conditions shall be documented through photographs of the bluff at the time of construction and submitted with any required follow -up coastal development permit. If you have any questions about the provisions of this emergency permit, please contact Gary Cannon at the Commission's San Diego Coast Area Office at the address and telephone number listed on the first page. (0:1Sen D1e9*XEmer9encVl"1 -118 -G Bruce EP.doc) ;7C,T,- 3.v-�bCal ©S :44 AM • • P. 04 STAY6 OF CALIFORNIA -THE RPSOU14419 AGENCY GRAY DAVIII. GOftMOY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 9AN DIEGO AREA 7070 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, QUITE 109 SAN DIEGO, CA SZIDb1102 (010) 707.2970 EMERGENCY PERMIT ACCEPTANCE FORM TO: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108.4402 (619) 767 -2370 RE: Emergency Permit No. 6 INSTRUCTIONS: After reading the attached Emergency Permit, please sign this form and return to the San Diego Coast Area Office within 15 working days from the permit's date. I hereby understand all of the conditions of the emergency permit being issued to me and agree to abide by them. I also understand that a regular Coastal Permit is necessary to permanently authorize the emergency work. I agree to apply for a regular Coastal Permit within 60 days of the date of the emergency permit (i.e., by November 20, 2001). Signature of property owner Name Address Date of Signing OC.T.= !, 0 -2001 05:45 Art — - -- ...__.. - -- — _. • P.05 I � VIN> A I W Vd 1700 aweuarrfrneeraa• o,an>Na�i +� S�IV13a 'SN011.03S d�(116 Lf3M01 Ol StliMd3a „os � b e� I g f ill n i 4fi M gd 1t s j S ` { j �� fa t{{t ii R�4 4F!7��7 ■ ■!j} ++ j] t f t YR ¢ e' g 411 g 333 d�t '1 IV, I ► rl.r$ + rl��i d� .i1 �fii E�� t � w� �: ] ? tirYY � YYYY I I I I I 1 1 I I a rYrr ' � asaE sasE S I I I I I I I ! � '4 I � i I I ��CCCCC ••J.. f, � IB I a t I IS ' [ P-r� X111 ;I 11 I TI � 11 t ,I I YI JOB SOIL ENGINEERING CONST111TION, INC. SHEET NO. pr 927 Arguello Street - - 7-C REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY DATE (650) 367 -9595 CHECKED BY � DATE - FAX (650) 367 -8139 SCALE ., F � , ''_. (- C ........... .........................:..... ......................... L S =ter t-t-+ r i= N �, �`r rt� �• v Ate i �, '� r P: G v{ C. r r— r -- 1 E-+-4 0A r' r,4 S C-� QP�FESSIpNq O pNA< � <F �Q yo N E 554 Z rn _ .06-30-0 cJ' rECHN�G q�F OF C A\ - \F �� NIOW 201 WO) 205 (PAW) JOB SOIL ENGINEERING CONSATION, INC SHEET NO. OF II 927 Arguello Street 1= 4-t REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY DATE (650) 367 -9595 2, " FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY T DATE SCALE ot C. ....... ............. TT` TL- C O v .J Ft1F �_ _ �.-C ply (�,: -- { S f'r1J S j 7-41-1 L f /tom- LE/ -f� t ✓C7. l �- -✓� E, J J .............. . ►`+T to -,A C--l- o 4-l�� j ' 1 P' ...................... ................... ROW 201 -1 (S.* SImLt) 205.1(PaW) SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRAION, INC. JOB SHEET NO. OF 927 Arguello Street o - -7 - REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY DATE (650) 367 -9595 -` CHECKED BY DATE FAX (650) 367 -8139 SCALE le .................... V ,F es , C! - Z IL r- ........................... .... ............................... . • 1 � tl � -.�r.i brt� -?a *-a � s t�->•- �: •.� __ 7.� �.,� 5 ` `T� � ^t • � v c � -, :_ T v (._ 7 fa s o std S TeM Lk 7 All Z � L-ZDa F r �j PRODUCT 204- 1(SM11 StdM) 205-1(PWMI JOB SOIL ENGINEERING CONST TION, INC SHEET NO. OF 1 ' 927 Arguello Street �Af - REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY ✓�1 DATE S, �- 2 � (650) 367 -9595 CHECKED BY DATE Z — Z 0 �1 FAX (650) 367 -8139 SCALE CD ....................... .... ............................... . `�. G3S -cam" S 'sa ....... ............... . r• . .............. ............................... . FRODIM.T 201- 1(Smic Shft) 205-1(PaM) 1 Tom I Sim Nona- Cross Ulth"t@ WoMM load reliuw Yieb Working was reWlw Grade nat section toad to the ultim toad load to the yield bad dis. W" Fes- F 0.75 F ' Q6Fr ' A 1, . A. F„ 11-6 F 41.7 F„ 11.8 f„ 12.0 t - A. (F itf,n.67f KSf MO a4 ir1. K1P KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP K1P KIP KIP Wmm nan map kN kN kN kN kN kN kN M _ kN J } 1 50 - 1 0.65 127.5 79.7 75.0 70.8 63.8 104.6 78 62.8 $9.8 � $3511030 26.5 551 566 355 334 316 284 460 385 276 263 15O I 1.25 1 57.5 117.2 110.3 104.2 93.$ 153.8 115.4 92.3 81.9 835/1030 32.0 804 828 518 487., 460 414 671 $03 403 384 1 50 1.318 1.S$ 237.0 148.1 139.4 131.7 119.5 194.3 145.7 i 116.6 ' 1110 835110301 36.0 1018 1048 555 617 583 524 850 637 1 S10 486 1 178 1 Q.85 15..3 , 94.6 89 .0 84.1 75.7 132.9 99.7 79.7 ( 75.9 ! 1080/1230 26.5 551 678 424 399 377 339 595 446 357 ( 340 178 1 y+ 125 222.5 139.1 130.9 123.6 111.3 195.4 146.6 117.2 111.7 1 1080/1230 32.0 804 989 618 582 S49 495 888 651 521 406 17a 13/8 1. 56 251.2 17.5.8 10.4 1562 140.6 246.9 135.2 148.1 141.1 106011230 3 6.0 1013 1252 783 736 696 626 10x9 824 659 62 Table 2 !, 4tvirisrrand Ameaw with 9x6' de.. 270 ksi and Sr 1570/1770 strand resoectm" (7ochnreee/ Dau) Na.pl Norm -Cross Ultimate Working load rotative YiNd Working bid Native 3101tds rW isection load to the ultimate fond food to the yield load din. f arq ls r F 0.75 F 0 6 F A. t„ - A. F F, l F, AA F.12.0 t - A (FJ1.33) (F F inch _ sq. in. KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIA KIP KIP mm n7m= kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN 1 0.6 0.217 58.5 36.6 345 32.6 29.3 4 9A 37.4 29.9 ` 28.5 1 Q6 140 248 155 146 138 124 220 165 132 126 4 t 0.6 0.868 234.4 146.5 137.9 1302 117.2 1992 149.4 4 119.5 113.8 ' 4 0.6 $60 991 619 583 551 496 819 659 ' 527 S02 9 0.6 1.953 527.3 329.6 310.2 292.0 263.7 448.2 336.2 i 268.9 2561 9 0.6 ) 1260 2230 1394 1312 1239 1115 1978 1487 I 1187 j 7130 12 0.6 I 2.604 703.1 439.4 413.6 390.6 351.6 597.6 443.2 358.6 { 341,5 80 112 0.6 16 2974 1858 1749 1 1652 1487 2638 1983 ; 1583 i 1507 1 15 0.6 t 3255 878.9 549.3 517.0 438.3 439.5 747.0 560.3 448.2 426.9 1S 0.8 2100 3717 2323 2186 2065 ` 1658 3297 2479 1978 1884 19 0 -6 ii ' 4.123. 11112 695.8 654.8 818.4 ! SS6.6 946.2 709.7 567.7 5407 .19 0.6 I 2660 4708 2943 2769 2616 2358 I 4176 3132 2506 2386 27 0.6 5.857 1582.2 988.9 . 930.7 679.0 791.1 1344.6 1008.5 , 8088 768.3 127 0.6 3780 6691 4182 3936 3717 3346 5935 4457 ( 3561 3391 f 37 0.6 8.029 2168.2 t 355.1 12754 12046 1084.1 1842.6 1362.0 1105.6 1052.9 ,37 0.6 5180 9169 5731 i 5393 5094 4584 8133 6100 4880 4647 : 61 0.6 13.237 3574.6 2:!34.1 2102.7. 1985.9 1787.3 3037.8 2278.4 1822.; 1735.9 6a 0.6 x540 19111: 9888 8892 8398 S 7558 13408 t0056 8045 766? . _. 1 MoN' 1 O n�.0ML% on* Or more atn►nQS Irnm 'no t:d"� W12 %RIO$ 4;00' sbpr. anchor ter000ns 01 sn ,n - AiC .+�w.� r a►v an.:n�. ienerons t"wn o+eerenc s ite saaM w t %�•h as n sww n s:.. w.. Y rO &2& Can b/ I&Mep. . JOB SOIL ENGINEERING CONST TION, INC SHEET NO. OF 927 Arguello Street / REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY I-� DATE 9'ZO (650) 367 -9595 ; DATE 9 -20 FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY SCALE ACA-, ................. 1,-t C� — C C !" v s � .... .. I N �� I �� LSD -+ 1� n ^E� Pry- j tf �►m-� �k .4-'tz � . Z �s� .� �r ��, _ °rte. � � � '�� • �, � A- C k 7 VC /� �L) '1 t N ` ► _ Z `) R�OULT 201- 11Siple Shtls120S I (PddtA) SOIL ENGINEERING CONST &ION, INC SHEET NO. OF II 927 Arguello Street - 2 REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY DATE Ol (650) 367 -9595 CHECKED BY DATE Z 0 — FAX (650) 367 -8139 SCALE ....... ............................... - I-la vcJ � ut��' Lr � � �� r � �- -�-F�p °..�� r� f �- • � L�C,� I �_ z Z) �� y � tom_ -�•-� t� r� '• 47 � L IN j ............................... .................. ............................... . p s 1 C7 N it-S n=r�o u ' C S T S'l N1�11�F 15 M' 17 h-4 PRWUCT204 -, (Wo Slkels) 205-1 (Padded) • • AML- I T SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTIINTION, INC SHEET NO. OF �! 927 Arguello Street r REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY DATE 9 7 (650) 367 -9595 FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE w- -r , Z .......... ............................... _ zi J -f4'l L G S I� P�.� S � _- ,Z'1 -� _Ulm (F �� - 7 L �J Z C i t - h w -k h = 1 [-t . 1-f . I _ PRWXT 2*1(S.gk SMft) 2M -1(PaW ) 615 N T JOB OF V SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTOTION, INC. �I SHEET NO. 927 Arguello Street a - G '27 REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY �� DATE ••• C � J 'Z (650) 367 -9595 CHECKED BY- FAX (650) 367 -8139 SCALE • --�-�� s � c� - rte { �� - ��:.:�_%s - 1 � ti• T .�� _ � v►-�, k ' f c" f6 J SP(� ............... .......... ............................... . U CA ............................... PROM 204 -100 SOMIS) 205.1 IPS M) JOB SOIL ENGINEERING CONSATION, INC SHEET NO. OF !I 927 Arguello Street REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY DATE (650) 367 -9595 FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY ��'� � DATE SCALE ........... ............................... . N t- N E:-_ - r- Ij = _ Z . '-S t� VSO •�_ `�) _s T� G��.�r -I �-�_ _ �?�- S � - T � �- - _ ................ ............................... yam vs_ t yr_ Z h(a� S t �o .•�_ lam+ E - I 1 2- _ Gf 1 j v fi�fi'F S ck ` L / S � T tt�S ! 2 (( PRODUCT 204- 1(Sagle Sleets) 2D5-1(PaM) JOB _ r!fiT v t-E f�li SOIL ENGINEERING CONATION, INC SHEET NO. OF-- 927 Arguello Street q c, REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY DATE / - 7 7 0 (650) 367 -9595 CHECKED BY �` �� DATE Z o FAX (650) 367 -8139 SCALE 4 S ±+�T� S T co s `, S C��I a f�l _. M ,4 L -� P Pg00M 204-1(SioOk &Wb) 205- 1(Pa&W) • SOIL • munrininc consviucuon. BRUCE RESIDENCE 630 NEPTUNE AVENUE BLUFF REPAIRS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 1. RUBBER TIRE LOADER 2. RUBBER TIRE BACKHOE 3. TEXOMA TRUCK MOUNTED DRILL RIG 4. AIR COMPRESSORS 5. FLAT BED TRUCK & TRAILERS 6. GENERATORS 7. PORTABLE LIGHTS 8. PICK -UP TRUCKS 9. CONCRETE TRUCKS 10. CONCRETE PUMP & TRUCK 11. GROUT PLANTS 12. CONVEYORS 13. WATER TRUCK 14. HIGH PRESSURE WATER JET PUMP AND TRUCK 15. BOOM TRUCK / CRANE 16. LOW BOY TRANSPORTS 17. TRACK MOUNTED DRILL RIG & CRANE 560 N. Highway 101 Suire EnciniraS California 92024 7cl- . o33 -: 470 FAX .'760' 633 -3 -�72 • Soli • Encininin - - - - - - -- consriumot ,,. October 9, 2001 Department of Engineering City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California RE: Bruce Residence Bluff Repairs 630 Neptune Avenue Concrete Mix Design Submittal Attention: Mr. Greg Shields, P.E. Attached, please find concrete mix designs (68P, SH -68P & 375PAE) for the seawall which are submitted for your review and approval. All mix designs meet or exceed the minimum concrete design specifications for this project. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact us at (760) 633 -3470. Very truly yours, J hn W. Niven, P.E. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. C: Engineering Inspection J 560 N. Highwoy 101 Suire 5. Encinlros Colifornio 9202 • :760) 633 -3470 FAX 760i 633 -3472 ent by: SUPERIOR ;EaCY ',iIx 76074O9557; .21"11 /CO 2:48F%','J #845;°3ge 2/4 Superior Ready Mix 1508 W. Mission Rd Escondido, CA 9202` (760)745 CDNCRETE MIX DES :GN MIX ID SH -68P ] 4000 PSI 12/11/00 CONTRAC70R SOIL ENGINEERING CONS'fRU PROJECT . &?3 NEPTUNE, ENCIN17AS S,OURC CF CONCRETE SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCR L.P. CONS - ;RUCTION TYPE = SHOTCRETE _ = PER CUBIC YARD (SATURA7EG, S E -DRY ) YIELC , C:' F'T MI7SUSISHI TYPE II /V CEMENT. LB 75 3.83 SU ?ERICR 3LEND :DASHED CONCRETE SAND, LS 200 12.22 SUPERIOR 3/8" RCCK, LS as a-,24 WATER, LB ( CAL -US) 34 40.7) 5.45 TC-AL AIR, 0 1. 1.0 0.27 L 27.00 MASTER SUIL4Eti:: POZZ 322N, OZ -US _'•o .O WATERiCEMEN- RATIO, LSSiLB 0.4 SLUMP, IN ..'.'.0 c (',NCRE7E :,N:" WEIGHT, PCF -46. ;REPARED BY i SUPERLCR RELCY '1I, CONCRETE L_P_ ent b Y• SUPERIOR =,,EaC ' '.SIX, 7607409557; 1 2/11100 2:48PA; j gLfg #845; Page 3 %a .. • MIX #SH -68P MIX ANALYSIS %11X VOLUME, CU FT O COARSENESS ( 0 / (Q + I ) ) 6 WORKABILITY 4 W - ADJUST 4 PERCENT MORTAR 1 TCTAL FINENESS MODUL.JS O 4 - - -- --------- --------- `J , 1 I 1 1 1 * I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 /` - I 1 - I +. I I 1 ( 1 3�K --- - - - - -- --------- ,-- - - - 7 — . ...-- L3C ------- - -; —.. ....:....---- ; - - - - -- ---- - - - - -; � 1 1 1 1 Y ; 25 I I--------- '--------- ' - - - -- ---- - - - - -' ' x — L MIX <> — ELATES ; :JO a 4 60 40 0 C O A R S E N E S S [ Q/( O 3 MATERIALS CHARACTERISTICS STONE D DENSITY, SP G 2.62 63 * +SASSING 3/8 SIEVE 45.0 .O PASSING # 8 SIEVE 1.0 .0 FINENESS MODULUS 5 .84 .93 PERCENT OF AGGREGATE 30.0 .0 NO SEVER= EXPOSURE ent ny: SUPERIOR PEACY MIX :-.?. 7607409557; 12/11/00 2:49PM;j X845; °age 4 i 4 • MIX #SH -68P FULL GRADATION ANALYSIS SIEVE STONE SAND PASTE TOTA GGR 1 -1/2 100 100 -0 1 100 100.0 3/4 100. 100.0 1/2 100.0 100 200.0 3/8 95.0 100.0 99. 98.5 # 4 20.0 98.0 83 74.6 # 8 :.O 83.0 73- 58.4 # 16 - 63.0 63. 44.1 # 30 - 39.0 53. 27.3 # 54 - 18.0 43 - 12.6 4 100 - 6-0 38 4-2 200 - 2.9 100.0 36 2.0 # 325 - - 94.0 33 - L_quid - - 59.9 21. uRADATION CHART 100 r 1 1 1 I 90 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I l 1 I I ----- ------ E $ p R i i i i i O X G I 1 1 I 1 I 1 X 1 1 I 1 N 60 1 1 I 1 I 1 I T X 1 I 1 1 1 , 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 i 50 '- '-- -' -' -- - -_ ----- p 1 1 t I I Q i x I 1 r' I 1 1 1 1 1 A 40 --- �—i - - -� - -- - - -- , i - - -, — X - - - - -, X )t I 1 1 l 1 I I - 1_ - -•- 1 - 1 � 1_ _ I S30 --- ,— ,--- , —, - -- , - - - - -, - -- , , -__—, — 1 N 20 '---- -' - - -' J t I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I G 1 1 t I i { I 0 I 1 1 lo 1 1 1 I ! 1 l I I I I t 1 I I I ! 1 1 1 0 , I 1 1 3 1 3 # # # # # 1 2 3 L SIEVE / // 4 t3 1 3 5 O 0 2 i 5 4 2 8 6 0 O O 0 4 x - ALL COMPONENTS o - AGGREGATES * - BOTH w Superior ReedY Mix 1508 W Mission Rd Escondido, CA 92029 (760)745 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN MIX ID = 375PAE [ _ 4000 PSi 09/27/00 CONTRACTOR SOIL ENGINEERING PRCSECT : Dt E _ RESIDENCE SCURCE OF CONCRETE SUPERIOR READY .MIX CONCRETE, L.P. CCNSTRUC7!CN TYPE VARIOUS PLACEMENT : 4" PUMP /PLACE WE =GHT' PER CUBIC YARD (SATURATED, SURFACE - DRY) YIELD, CU F7 AST"' -CISO TYPE II /V CEMENT (MITSUBISHI), LB 705 3.59 AS T t' -C33 WASHED CONC . SAND (SUPERIOR), LS 1320 8.04 ASTN -C33 #57 ROCK (SUPERIOR), LS 1286 7.87 ASTC'. -033 $18 ROCK (SUPERIOR) , LB 321 1.97 WA TER , LB GAL -US) 29S C 35.3" 4.7 TOTAL AIR, 3-0 T/- 1 .O 0.81 TOTAL 27.00 MASTER BUi�-CERS POZZ 32_ OZ -JS 28 .20 MASTER 8UILOERS MICRO AIR, OZ -US 1.8 :DATER /CE'`EN7 RATIC , LBS /LB O .4 SLUP!P , IN 4.00 CONCRETE UN - T :-:E : GH T , PC F 145-5 :zEP 4RED P•SY jPERIOR REAC _X CCNt,RE7 _ , L , P • MIX #t375PAE • MIX ANALYSIS MIX VOLUME, GU FT 27.00 COARSENESS ( 0 Q + I ) 70.9 WORKABILITY W - A03US7 41'2 PERCENT MORTAR 58.6 TOTAL FINENESS MODULUS 5.10 45 '--------- ;--------- ;--------- ' 40 ' ---------'---------;---------;--------- W 0 K35 --------- --------- - - ----- - - i - .. .......:. A i _ - .......: i 30 ---- - - - - - i ... ..... i --------- i--------- ; Y 25 " ' - --- - - - - -- -------- -; - - -- + + ; x - TOTAL MIX ; o - AGGREGATES ; BOTH 20 --------- --------- --------- '--- ----- ^- '---- - - - - -' 100 80 60 40 20 O C O A R S E N E S S 0/ ( 0 + I) MATERIALS CHARACTERISTICS STONE 1 STONE 2 SAND DENSITY, SP G 2.62 2.62 2.63 PASSING 3/8 SIEVE 1.0 93.0 100.0 PASSING # 8 SIEVE - 1.0 83.0 FINENESS MODULUS 7.14 5-84 2,9i PERCENT OF AGGRE3ATE 44.0 11.0 45.0 NO SEVERE EXPOSURE • MIX #375PAE • FULL GRADATION ANALYSIS y SIEVE STOVE 1 STONE 2 SAND PASTE TOTAL AGGR - - --/2 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - 100.0 100.0 y j 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 3/4 84.0 95.3 93.0 1/2 25.0 100.0 78 .2 67.0 3/8 1.0 93.0 100.0 70.7 55.7 # 4 1.0 22.0 98.0 64.9 47.0 « 8 _ 1.0 83.0 58.6 37.5 4s 16 - - 63.0 52.6 28.4 « 30 - - 39.0 45.4 17 . f # 50 - - 18.0 39.2 8.1 100 - - 6.0 35.6 2.7 20C - - 2.9 100.0 34.7 1.3 # 3G5 _ - - 94.1 31.8 - L:qu'_� 60.7 20.5 - GRADATION CHART 100 *--- *- ;--- ;- ;--- ;----- ;----- , - - - - -, , , - - -, 90 - - - - -, ... ' - - - -- , - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - -..- 80 --- ,---- x -, - - -, 1 R 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 i t f C 70 E N 60 1 1 f I 1 1 I 1 T F 1 I 1 - - - -- - -- -"-• 1 X x , 30 S 1 I 1 r I O 1 - - - ' N 2 0 , O - -- - - -• -, - - - - -, ----- ------ # #! 1 2 3 L SIEVE 3 5 0 O 2 i 6 0 O 0 0 5 a x - ALL COMPONEN75 v AGGREGATES - BOTH • Superior ReadY Mix �. 1508 W_ Mission Rd Escondido, CA 92029 (760)745 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN 1IX ID 68 P C ) 4000 PSI 09/27/00 CONTRACTOR = SOIL ENGINEERING pRO.7EC7 = 'arU -'ZESIDENCE S URCZ OF CCNCRE SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRE"-, L.P. CONSTRUCTION TYPE VARIOUS PLACE?'ENT 3/8 PUMP WE:GH7S PER CUBIC YARD (SATURATED, SURFACE -ORY) YIELD, CU rT ASTM -C1 =0 TYPE IZ /V CEMENT (M:TSUBISHI ). LS 752 3.83 ASTM -C33 WASHES CCNC. SAND (SUPERIOR), LS 174% 10.65 ASTM -C33 #8 ROCK (SUPERIOR), LS 1781 5 .8 2 .DATER , -B ( GAL -US ) 385 ; 46. ) 6.17 TOTAL AIR + 2.0 TOTAL 27.00 RASTER BUILDERS PCZZ 322N, OZ -US 30.08 .JATER /C =MEN- RAT'-C, LBS /LB 0.51 SLUMP , IN 6.00 :C`1CRET LNI7 .JF:GH -7, PZ= :42. REPARE 8Y JPERIOR :CNCRETE , _ .'P 7 MIX #69P MIX ANALYSIS M T X VOLUME, Cl) FT 27.00 COARSENESS (Q / (Q + I 3.8 WCRKABILITY 54.0 W ADJUST 59.0 PERCENT MORTAR 72.0 TOTAL FINENESS MODULUS :3.96 45 --------- ;--------- '--------- '--------- ' 40 ------ ' ' I I W K35 ;---- - - - - -' '----- - - - - I- _............ A i ... L30 ;---- - - - - -; .......... - -- ;----------'--------- T T 1 1 I Y 25 1 . . . . I .--- - - -- -- 1 1 , 1 I ' x - TOTAL `1 L X ; 1 , , o - AGGREGATES ; * - BOTH ; ' - •- • - - - -- - 1 - ' - -- - I 1 i00 80 60 40 20 O C O A R S E N E S S [ O( O + I. MATERIALS CHARACTERISTICS STONE SAND DENSITY, SP G 2.62 2.63 % PASSING 3/8 SIEVE 95.0 100.0 % PASSING # 8 SIEVE 1. 8300 FINENESS MODULUS 5.84 2.93 PERCENT OF AGGREGATE 35.3 64.7 NC SEVERE EXPOSURE MIX #68P FULL GRADATION ANALYSIS SIEVE STONE SAND PASTE TCTAI_ AGGR 1 -1/2 - - - - -- -- 100.0 100.0 1 100-0 100.0 3 100.0 100.0 1/2 100.0 100.0 100.0 3/8 95.0 100.0 98.9 98.2 # 4 20.0 98.0 82.0 70.4 # 8 1.0 83.0 72 54.0 4 It - 63.0 63.9 40.7 # 30 - 39.0 54. 25.2 is 50 - 18.0 46.1 2:.6 100 - 6.0 41.4 3.9 # 200 - 2.9 I00.O 40 .2 :.9 is 32.5 - - 94-6 36.9 - Liq;_id - - 63.7 24.9 - GRADATION CHART 1 OC IK - - -* ,► SIC -ac - -- ; - - - -- ; - - - - -- ; - - - -- ; - -- ; - - - - -- 1 I 1 1 I ' - - - - -' - - - -- ' .. ... -- ' - - - - -- E 8C - - - - -- -----'---'------ ' R C I ' - - - -- ' - -- ' E N60 I 1 I 1 I 1 - - -�._' - - -- -' - - -' - - - - - -' ' -•- -' -- -- ' 1 F' A 40 --- ; - ;---;-;---;-----;----- 0 ----- ; --- ; ----- - x---- -x - - -; J 30 1 I 1 r , { 1 1 / 1 1 I t N 2o i -- _ ' - ' 1 1 r _ - - -_ ' - - - -_ ' - - - -- - -- ' -- - - - - -' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I G 1 ? 3 # # # # # 1 2 3 _. SIEVE / // 4 S 1 3 5 O 0 2 i 4 g a 0 O O 0 5 A x - ALL COMPONENTS v - AGGREGATES BOTH • . SOIL EnclnErnine consviucclon , October 9, 2001 Department of Engineering City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California RE: Bruce Residence Bluff Repairs 630 Neptune Avenue Traffic Control Plan Attention: Mr. Greg Shields, P.E. We have prepared the attached traffic control plan for access to the job site across the public beach (Moonlight Beach). Please review the attached plan and if you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact us at (760) 633 -3470. Very truly yours, P ohn. Niven, P.E. Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. i i C: Engineering Inspection I, Lifeguard Services I I i �I 560 N. Highway 101 Suire 5 -ncin ras California 1-2- A== TZ =A VALL, MKL RaAL ARM OMM MIUM T� LA a paw= vasZT3ALL WA04 RaAO • ARiA TIW STR= MRrA c trccccE n cwqmm • ' AMM Pao 1 • ROT -1 ESLTlS1O iiAAQ�I�� Ra71 1 �AAlmn STALLS • AREA r • • • �• �� O Emrnm _ U=rva r C7iZ CMAAQ r2M •• S7f3LT 4TH AA01� � a1 �Qas lQTQ '� T1+t SLI�y� � �1•.O P� TII tsiVCL = .n UTC= TDB. G* ne WOOL Aam �ma Q fT AO� 0 Tim1 .. VON A G r am "� ��t �aR TH" ms vent W X No ZAM MM 712 3 W M= IM A MMOM am s7mw WO TTM Cr 1LAa Ate. $C ant MEWN CM PLAN m R ST =T TII THE 9LASi v a-. at COMCI aT US= WM :2m Ann A/PMMl3ATL ZM , MGM [ARMMM T= Mm/Qt nUML2M TVA ?�i ARVM FLAB 71 Val 3 - N® n7M Pat=!. THE U=XMM r 1ST %71m= 1 am ff marm tm7S =.% *e Alm � SD�JIi I , = == S!� RQiLATT1a FM DIY ACAS �CS TML t]D< L1� $ OSZ l CR W SOIL TRAMC CONTROL PLAN X NEOING CC:J i rtUC7'N. MC_ g1YGIArZJT LOWER SLUFF SEAW CONSTRpG7717Nr PLATE MOONLIGHT 6EAC:� i ENC;NITAS. CA. yQ ��(1 i T IH r�- bLAi 1<f B2- h- CIcl.4 CANYf�(1 TI'T7 t� T /�� I O INIFiCj S. 1 6 `/ S J�PoR� �IaE-�IUE� (o G ect \ Pt10 l t Eb 1T 1S TEAP� -SEA To �h?1Ea.l� \ no ,SOv'7 - S� • (�eM STT �T L�Oh1 . -- � 1 A7.�7 � Te d + uw S A P-Pt —X . Sb - L \ (� qp E S 1 �AG�fC 4 i i . °le t�C�A -N � , ' � Ex7En10 M IDgf..uF ` � j '� �'� �� EQoSIOnJ WALL c&,tNT+4 FA C E SF.A iO FEET "J To Ett, SIbE. �E U N AT i CrY:? 1 AL � n ak , , �Q i- QF✓ a ��oSt oh1 'Jol�Tiz.ol.. 1�� q'Y � � . • . Recording Requested By: ) City of Encinitas ) _ When Recorded Mail To: ) City Clerk ) City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE Assessor's Parcel Project No.: 7291 -TE No. 256- 051 -11 J Case No.: 00 -024 MUP A. Mr. Craig Bruce and Mrs. Kelly Bruce ( "OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 630 Neptune Avenue ( "PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of 7291 -TE by the City of Enrinitas ( "CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: See Attachment B which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees that OWNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. E. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the other party. F. Failure of OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: OWNER,- Bruce Dated 1 2 D I jeaL Ife11y p ag ce Dated ra1g uce ( Notarizati n of OWNER signature (isat CITY OF ENCINITAS Dated by (Notarization not required) Leroy Bodas Director of Engineering Services CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT I State of C a l i f o r n i a i County of San Diego On Nov. 28, 2001 before me, Laura Lynne, Notary Public Date Name and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Public ") personally appeared Kelly Rene Bruce AND Craig Aaron Bruce Name(s) of Signer(s) �(kiIlyc�v�v�Grtir(�� - [X proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s)AgVare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sbtedthey executed the i same in)�jpftj�their authorized capacity(ies), and that by tis6hmWheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), LYNNE or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, ) LAURA CI0M1ton# 1256192 executed the instrument. Z Nallay RAft - Cditmta San 011090 WITNESS my hand and official seal i , NMCorrmBq�iesMar1g2a04 � ignat ire of Notary Public 1 1 1 OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. I Description of Attached Document r I Title or Type of Document: C REGARDING REAL PROPERTY � N 28, 2001 5 � Document Date: Number of Page: N/A attachments) Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Kelly Rene Bruce Craig Aaron Bruce Signer's Name: Signer's Name: �I 91 Individual - o w n e r Individual -owner ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General El Attorney -in -Fact El Attorney-in-Fact ❑Trustee ❑ Trustee _ El Guardian or Conservator - El Guardian or Conservator IVINO H." ❑ Other: Top of thumb here ❑ Other: Top of thumb here ( �I �I Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: self self �S © 1995 National Notary Association - 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 - Canoga Park, CA 91309 -7184 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1- 800 -876 -6827 ATTACHMENT A TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PROJECT NO. 7291 -TE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 13 in Block "E" of South Coast Park No. 3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926. Also; that portion of Block "F ", South Coast Park Unit No. 3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926, as described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 13, Block "E ", said South Coast Park No. 3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 13, Block "E" to a point on the Easterly line of that tract of land as conveyed by the South Coast Park Land Company to the County of San Diego, by deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, Page 256 of Deeds; thence Southerly along the said Easterly line of the County land, to its intersection with the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 13, Block "E "; thence Easterly along said Westerly prolongation to the Southwest corner of said Lot 13, Block "E "; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 13, Block "E" to the Point of Beginning. Excepting therefrom that portion, if any, heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide of the Pacific Ocean. ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE PROJECT NO. 7291 -TE OWNER'S DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS 1. For claims that are alleged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from any bluff failure or erosion associated with the PROPERTY or the plans, design, construction or maintenance of OWNER' s improvements, OWNER unconditionally waives all present and future claims against CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees, and agents. This waiver does not apply to claims that are alleged to have arisen out of the sole, active negligence or deliberate, wrongful act of CITY. 2. It is further understood and agreed that all of OWNER'S rights under 41542 of the Civil Code of, the State of California and any similar law of any state or territory of the United States are hereby expressly waived. 9 1542 reads as follows: 1542. Certain claims not affected by general release A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor. 3. OWNER agrees to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents harmless from, and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs, including all costs of defense thereof, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly with, any acts or omissions of OWNER or OWNER's agents, employees, subcontractors, officials, officers or representatives. Upon demand, OWNER shall, at its own expense, defend CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all such liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs. OWNER' s obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, alleged defects in the plans, specifications and design of the improvements; but does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of a defect in the plans, specifications or design that is a result of a change required by CITY to the OWNER's proposed plans, specifications or design so long as such change is objected to, in writing, by OWNER, and the writing and filed with the City Engineer more than ten days prior to the.commencement of work. OWNER's obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, alleged defects in the construction of the improvements; alleged defects in the materials furnished in the construction of the improvements; alleged injury to persons or property; and any alleged inverse condemnation of property as a consequence of the design, construction, or maintenance of the improvements. By approving the improvement plans, specifications and design or by inspecting or approving the improvements, CITY shall not have waived the protections afforded herein to CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents or diminished the obligation of OWNER who shall remain obligated in the same degree to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents, harmless as provided above. OWNER,s obligation herein does not extend to liabilities, claims, demandst causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of the CITY's intentional wrongful acts, CITY's violations of law, or CITY's sole active negligence. 4. OWNER hereby agrees not to develop in any manner the PROPERTY except as authorized by CITY's ordinances and then only in accordance with issued permits. Among other things, but without limitation, this shall prohibit the alteration of land forms, removal of vegetation and the erection of structures of any type, except as permitted or authorization by CITY. 5. This Covenant does not Preclude OWNER taking emergency, protective measures as approved.by CITY. 0 • Recording Requested by: City of Encinitas When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS Assessor's Parcel Project No: . 7291-TE Number: 256 -051-11 Case No: 00-024MUP A. Mr. Craig Bruce and Mrs. Kelly Bruce ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 630 Neptune Ave., Encinitas, CA 9202 ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is legally described as follows: See Attachment "All which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of 7921-TE OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: No protest shall be made by the owners to any proceedings for the installation or acquisition of street improvements, including undergrounding of utility lines, under any special assessment 1911 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, or any other applicable state or local law, and whether processed by the City of Encinitas or any other governmental entity having jurisdiction in the matter and for the purposes of determining property owners support for same. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, waiver.doc 10-31-01 successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees that OWNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. E. If either party is required to incurs costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, from the other party. F. Failure of the OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. G. Upon OWNER's satisfaction of OWNER's duties and obligations contained herein, OWNER may request and CITY shall execute a "Satisfaction of Covenant". H. By action of the City Council, CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against OWNER. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: OWNER - Bruce Dated >> �� o / - I --, JyK ru ce Dated (Notarizat OWNER signature s attach ) Craig Aaron Bruce ATTACH NOTARY HERE CITY I AS Dated �l 2g 0 � by (Notarization not required) Leroy Bodas, Director of Engineering Services waiver.doc 10 -31 -01 S ATTACHMENT " A " TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY PROJECT NO. 7291 -TE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 13 in Block "E" of South Coast Park No. 3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926. Also; that portion of Block T ", South Coast Park Unit No. 3, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 17, 1926, as described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 13, Block "E ", said South Coast Park No. 3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 13, Block "E" to a point on the Easterly line of that tract of land as conveyed by the South Coast Park Land Company to the County of San Diego, by deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, Page 256 of Deeds; thence Southerly along the said Easterly line of the County land, to its intersection with the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 13, Block "E "; thence Easterly along said Westerly prolongation to the Southwest corner of said Lot 13, Block "E "; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 13, Block "E" to the Point of Beginning. Excepting therefrom that portion, if any, heretofore or now lying below the mean high tide of the Pacific Ocean. waiver.doc 10 -31 -01 CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOS ACK NOWLEDGMENT i State of California i ; County of San Diego � On Nov. 28, 2001 before me Laura Lynne, No tary Public i ' Date Name and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Public ") personally appeared Kelly Rene Bruce AND Cra Aar Bruce f Name(s) of Signer(s) ) CJi�r�rj X1 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) ( whose name(s) Ware subscribed to the within instrument r and acknowledged to me that M94OKe /they executed the same in his/)lar /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by ioishbjea(their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), LAURA LYNNE or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, ` v Cock# 125618 Z executed the instrument. ( f 111401111" ry Aubw - CoiksNo i Z W ft"OkwCom* Z m 1a J WITNESS my hand and official seal. MVCW1 i i Laura Lynn Signature of Notary Public I OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY WAIVLK OV PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS N 2 8 2001 3 (includes . Document Date: ' Number of Pages ) N/A ' Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:I Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Kll Rene Bruce Craig A Bruce e Signer's Name: y Signer's Name: ® Individual -owner IN Individual -owner ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer i� Title(s): Title(s): ( ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ' i =1 Trustee _ ❑ Trustee _ ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Top of thumb here ❑ Other: Top of thumb here i IS 1 Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: i self self © 1995 National Notary Association - 8236 Remmet Ave.. P.O. Box 7184 Canoga Park, CA 91309 -7184 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1- 800 - 876 -6827 • SOIL • 'cnClnisinC conscRucclonmc October 9, 2001 D\10 TO: Director of Community Services Department, City of Encinitas FROM: John W. Niven Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. SUBJECT: Contractor Responsibility This correspondence is provided to acknowledge that Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC), will be liable for any costs to correct damages to the beach or adjacent areas resulting from permit work undertaken by SEC for Coastal Development Permit No. 6- 01- 118 -G, bluff repairs at 630 Neptune Avenue. In addition, SEC recognizes that construction debris washing onto the beaches (during the period of time that SEC is constructing this project) within one -mile north or south of the work site shall be the responsibility of SEC and shall be removed at no expense to the City of Encinitas. Construction debris is defined as any lumber, piling, crates, boxes, containers and other objects which, could be used for construction identical to that being used on the project site. Debris also includes any pre - existing items excavated at the site such as reinforcing steel, concrete and bricks. ?f 0. t0— /D -o/ hn W. Niven, P.E. Date Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. 560 N. Highway 101 Suite 5, Encinitas California 92024 - (760) 633 -3470 - FAX (760) 633 -3472 CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of —CALIFORNIA ) County of SAN DIEGO before me, fl On OCT,10 2 001 LAURA LYNNE NOTARY PUBLIC Date Name and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Public ") personally appeared JOHN W. N I VEN P.E Name(s) of Signer(s) Dpersonally known to me - OR to be the person( #) whose name(* is /ar* subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he,IaM1 Oop executed the same in his /NArM" authorized capacity"), and that by his /hiss/1Fpur signature(s) on the instrument the person(M, ilA1MA L�N11E or the entity upon behalf of which the person(*) acted, i � executed the instrument. WITNeSS my hand a official seal. Signal r f Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the do and could revent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this rm to notTier docuriRA NNE i Description of Attached Docume y Corlxnlsdm # 1256182 ( p ment Z Notary PuW _ corona Title or Type of Document: MvGorr San M cow* 2Md �- Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: I ❑ Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee _ E) Trustee E Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Top of thumb here ❑ Other: Top of thumb here I Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: I f © 1995 National Notary Association • 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park, CA 91309 -7184 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1- 800 -876 -6827 T Y O F E N C I N I Tdb S 1�GINEERING SERVICES DEPARTPMNT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 7291TE PARCEL NO. 256 -051 -1100 PLAN NO.: 7291GR JOB SITE ADDRESS: 630 NEPTUNE AVENUE APPLICANT NAME BRUCE, CRAIG AND KELLY MAILING ADDRESS: 630 NEPTUNE AVENUE PHONE NO.: 760 - 943 -8821 CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 92024 - CONTRACTOR : SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PHONE NO.: 760- 633 -3470 LICENSE NO.: 268082 LICENSE TYPE: A INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: GULF UNDERWRITERS INS CO. POLICY NO. : GU2824509 POLICY EXP. DATE: 7/01/04 ENGINEER : JOHN NIVEN -SOIL ENG CONSTRUCTION PHONE NO.: 760 -633 -3470 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 11/28/01 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 7/01/04 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR: RON BRADY ------------------- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS --------------------- ------- 1. PERMIT FEE .00 2. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 700.00 3. SECURITY DEPOSIT 2.500.00 ------------------- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ----- ----------------- ACCESS TO JOBSITE ACROSS MOONLIGHT BEACH STATE PARK /SEASIDE GARDENS PARK /ENC. BEACH PARK /STATE LANDS WESTERLY OF MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE /PONTO BEACH STATE PARK. DOCS ATT'D:COV RE GRANT OF BEACH ACCESS /HOLD HARMLESS FOR BLUFF FAILURE, STD /SPL CONDITIONS, CONTR LIABILITY LETTER, BEACH ACCESS/ BARRIER /EQUIPMENT PLANS. WORK SCH /MUP DEF'D. CACC PMT 6 -01- 118 -G. - - -- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. - :2[ !=' * e- Z 9 Lo SI ATURE DATE IGNED 7G 0 PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER / 2. /AGENT 3. OTHER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPLICANT FEES ACTION FORM DATE APPLICANT NAME APPLICANT ADDRESS Tw— PERMIT NUMBER RECEIPT NUMBER cP o l CHECK NUMBER CASHIER INITALS DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CODE ACCOUNT NUMBER Agreement/Covenant AC 10140000- 345.0100 CN 10t Conxlmction Exempt Oryan'rzations EX 101 - 0000345-0400 Grading Plancheck GR 101. 0000-345.0700 Grading inspection GI 101-0000 -�45- 0800. . Final Map Processing FM 101- 0000 - 3450500 Parcel Map Processing PM 101 Permanent Encroachment PE 101 40000 - 345 -1100 Improvement Plancheck IR 101 - 0000345 -0900 Improvement inspection II 101 - 0000 - 345 -1000 Temporary Encroachment Q�i—D 101 -0000- 345 -1200 Street Vacation VA 10140000 - 345.1500 Street Name Change SN 101- 0000-345.1300 A.P_N. Report PN 1014000-345-2100 Security Deposit t� CASHIER: SEE NOTES ON BACK TOTAL � • D D Permit Coordinator SEP -27 -2001 THU 15:54 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:619767 2884 P:01 dr California Coastal Commission San Die o Coast Area 7575 Metropolitan Drive Suite 103 San Diego, CA 92108 F AX Date: 4 k LIM) 10 1 - Number of pages including cover sheet: To: C � From: Eon% 40% C • Phone: Phone: (619) 767 -2370 Fax phone: Fax phone: (619) 767 -2384 CC: REMARKS: ❑ Urgent For your review C] Reply ASAP ❑ Please comment SEP -27 -2001 THU 15:54 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:619767 2984 P:02 STATE We CAUF ONNIA -TNE RESOURCES AGENCY • • aRAV DAVIS, Gomm" y s:�sw+wMa CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92109.4402 (819) 787.2370 EMERGENCY PERMIT Applicants: Craig Bruce 630 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, Ca 92024 Date: September Z1, 2001 Agent: Bob Trettin Emergency Permit No. 6 -01 -118 -G LOCATION OF EMERGENCY WORK: On the public beach below 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. WORK PROPOSED: Construction of an approximately 32 ft.-high, SO ft :long and 2 ft. -wide tledback concrete seawall which Is proposed to be colored and textured to match the surrounding bluff. As part of construction, the existing unpermitted rock rip -rap at the toe of the slope will be removed. This letter constitutes approval of the emergency work you or your representative has requested to be done at the location listed above. I understand from your Information and our site inspection that an unexpected occurrence In the form of upper and mld -bluff sloughage and egg ndino fracture within the lower sandstone bedrock requires Immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services. 14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 13009. The Executive Director of the Coastal Commission hereby finds that: (a) An emergency exists which requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative or ordinary permits and the development can and will be completed within 30 days unless otherwise specified by the terms of this permit; (b) Public comment on the proposed emergency action has been reviewed if time allows; (c) As conditioned, the work proposed would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The work is hereby approved, subject to the conditions listed on the attached page. Sincerely, PETER M. DOUGLAS Executive Director By: DEBORAH LEE Deputy Director SEP -27 -2001 THU 15:55 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:619767 2864 P:08 Emergency Permit Number: 6- 01.118 -G Date: 09121/01 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The enclosed Emergency Permit Acceptance form must be signed by the PROPERTY OWNER and returned to our office within 15 days. 2. Only that work specifically described in this permit and for the specific properties listed above is authorized. The construction, placement, or removal of any accessory or protective structure, including but not limited to, stairways or other access structures, walls, fences, etc. not described herein, are not authorized by this permit. Any additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. If during construction, site conditions warrant changes to the approved plans, the San Diego District office of the Coastal Commission shall be contacted immediately prior to any changes to the project in the field. 3. The work authorized by this permit must be completed within 30 days of the date of this permit (i.e., by October 21, 2001). Within 60 days of the date of this permit (i.e., by November 20, 2001), the permittee shall apply for a regular Coastal Permit to have the emergency work be considered permanent. If no such application Is received, the emergency work shall be removed in its entirety within 150 days of the date of this permit (i.e., by February 20, 2002), unless this requirement is waived in writing by the Executive Director. y " tfrdfl�t311L'� cut io mot i1 trui , 6 - & VAi ittmZff ttPEsd' l�iC8r59a8tbt�1�T1 'dl1i'itrih1di uwaotai development permit process would allow. By approving the proposed emergency measures, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission is not certifying or suggesting that the structures constructed under this emergency permit will provide necessary protection for the blufftop residential structures. Thus, in exercising this permit, the applicant agrees to hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from any liabilities for damage to public or private properties or personal injury that may result from the project. 5. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain necessary authorizations and/or permits from other agencies (e.g. City of Encinitas, Dept. of Fish & Game, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Parks and Recreation, State Lands Commission.) 6. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director, for review and written approval, final plans for the proposed seawall that have been reviewed and approved by the City of Encinitas Engineering Department. Said plans shall be in substantial conformance with the plans submitted with this application dated 5/12/00 by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc.), except they shall be revised as follows: a. The proposed extension of the existing mid -bluff wall (at approximately elevation 45 MSL) shall be deleted. b. Sufflclent detail regarding the construction method and technology utilized for I connecting the subject seawall to adjacent seawall structure(s). SEP -27 -2001 THU 15:66 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:619767 2384 P:04 Emergency Permit Number: 6 -01 -118 -G Date: 08/21/01 c. Sufficient detail regarding the construction method and technology utilized for texturing and coloring the seawall and tiebacks. Said plans shall confirm, and be of sufficient detail to verify, that the seawall color and texture closely matches the adjacent natural bluffs, including provision of a color board indicating the color of the fill material. d. The seawall shall conform as closely as possible to the natural contour of the bluff. If during construction, slope conditions or bluff profiles substantially change, work shall be stopped and consultation with the City of Encinitas and Commission staff shall occur before work resumes. e. During construction of the approved development, disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. All excavated beach sand shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand, cobbles or shoreline rocks shall not be used for backf III or for any other purpose as construction material. f. Within 60 days of completion of the seawall, the existing unpermitted riprap on the beach shall be removed. The permittee shall first Identify the location where the rock is to be placed. If the site is located within the coastal zone, a separate coastal development permit or permit amendment shall first be obtained from the Coastal Commission or Its successors In Interest. 7. Pre - construction site conditions shall be documented through photographs of the bluff at the time of construction and submitted with any required follow -up coastal development permit. If you have any questions about the provisions of this emergency permit, please contact Gary Cannon at the Commission's San Diego Coast Area Office at the address and telephone number listed on the first page. (G:18en Dlegc \Emergency0- 01.1 -0 Bruce EP.doc) l i SEP -27 -2001 THU 15:55 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:619767 2884 P:05 STATE UP CALIFORNIA- -THE RESOURCES AGENCY • • GRAY GAVIB, 00109Ma CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION BAN 01[00 AREA 7876 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 109 SAN DIEGO, CA 92106-4402 (919) 797 -2970 EMERGENCY PERMIT ACCEPTANCE FORM TO: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 -4402 (619) 767 -2370 RE: Emergency Permit No. ,f:01 -118 -G INSTRUCTIONS: After reading the attached Emergency Permit, please sign this form and return to the San Diego Coast Area Office within 15 working days from the permit's date. I hereby understand all of the conditions of the emergency permit being issued to me and agree to abide by them. I also understand that a regular Coastal Permit is necessary to permanently authorize the emergency work. I agree to apply for a regular Coastal Permit within 60 days of the date of the emergency permit (I.e., by November 20, 2001). Signature of property owner Name Address Date of Signing i SEP -27 -2001 THU 15:56 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:619767 2384 P:06 i p � �o ro s .n•a r �r VINtl 7NnUON 00 S1IVA0 'SNO1103S 33f1i9 > 13MOI 01 S81Vd38 di fM,77N17N7 YOR I j b 1 l i l t i t i i rr 1 10 ( rr Ik'i`d; , Ifi )� 1� � :I 1 , �� , r t �s 1 � 4a1�19�� i',p111� add r ii� II II II ! I r 1 caal aaaE I , ' I I I I I I I I j I�` lit �� 1 I I._ j 1 I ♦ I R ► s ^— . S I 11 .... i a � �'! .•�� tl 1 I 1 t I - I I I v of i ,r.,' i. ::. „ .,,:<w M n 3 ? ._ .y ;.,•. d,. ., bq„at "'na •�,.`, ;. :<_ ,.i i 7 .%':x "z. r'^. ... �. ,x x ., w .. Sr, i .� s z.,.. rte. , _ #. v 'f € x.- k , � r, _a- . . ,. c , _ u �,- t lor .. « , ,,, , x ��... E , r r w �.. . ., � tea. _, _ �- , . - , : . ..'�C �.. .. . a .. ,if: .. , �. ti >_ , s. ,�.. ,. /� 11 :. .,!,• : , " 9 ,- m" 4 "5 > : ,, .,, t a. I :. re f l. . - .ar 11 r,� .. ' :x k .r`r°, *:�Its.'`y0 te "{ Ssn <- " �i'y ' . � , ,., , r ' ti' �., I �,t�f -�t`9 (0!L , NGINEER - r j X1C�t OLD£ -�''� {n9 N01fd ' '' :. ;� _ :,_: fz ., ti ,> �� ,,. OZ8 YJ 'SVSJ ''!i 311ftS tt3t �JIYiW�IH 'M 09Si' _, .. .., � ;' ,,. - , o d ,d : t90m -V # 3mm _ O . ♦� Q 11 r� �v i 0 �; 3 �, Q t/IN�q�I�b� s ° �'`� 'nsr '� -aos Noi1n�lsNO� Sb1INION3 o �� - - 0 N �/�� 3NC1.fd3N:.. � o., o x �,o pig ONIMNION3 d Z� W F , O N P i33HS . O 1. . . 1, � I ,I .� . - . . r � '-, 1. I aS 83AO .�j , . I � I � I., -11 � I . S 1 1�� I I 10311 o ,� " { T- 11- .� I I 111111"z '- �' -- � �1 i . - I � I - � � - � - - _ � I � 1: , -1 . I I I 11 . I � I - I . -1 � 11 - I- 1, - I I I,- L . . I � 1 I �� - � I I 1 1'' � � 11 �:� I , ' -- - I" . I , , I I a 0 1 . �111 - I -- � I I . -- I I --- --- � i, � -- � - I . 111. I � - � I I � 9 ;�� - - - - - � . - I 1�1' . I I I - - � I I - �� I.. � - I „ 11.1 r I - , -- --- � 0 - � xw �" -.-I, 11 - �' I I . I - � I . . I I I . I I � � � .1 1 . . � I I - . , I I I I I :' �. . .1. � - -- --- I., - 11 . I � I � I I . - I I . . � , I . . I . . - , I - I � I I I � . . I I I � - I -- � . � - � I . - . I � I I -- I I . I 11 � I � . . I I � 11 . ,) I '.� 11 11 I I � . � . . I I - I 1 .1 I �' I 1. . I I . - ,� I 111'' - I . ��'.' I I I � .. I � I . I - I - � �- � - . I � I ''- I 1. I I I � I I . I I 1. I . . . . " I'll - I - . - .'V' 11 ..- .� � . I'll . I. I �. . � I I I I I . � " �'.:- I I- I - � 1.� 11'�' �' I -� e, I � 11 . I -1 . I I --. I i . I I I I �. -'� I I . .Z . � " I'', . I I - � � I I I � I I I I - � I � 1-1 - - " -. � � I I I 1. . : � I - . I I - 11- I . � 11 .1 . . . I I I - I �' I I . I �' � L.- 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 � - -% . j I I �, I � "' � I . I - . I � .11 I . - - I , I , I I . 11 I I " � � I 1 -1 I .� � I I 1. I I I �. . - I L I I I .1 - - 11 I I - I - , 11 . ;� I . I � - - I I -1 I I � � I �- I I'll 1, - - �' - .1. - ,� I � I I I . I - � I � I I I I ''I 11 . l' - . I ,�� - � � , I . I I I . � I 1 1 ..,' - I " I I "I � � . . � ''I I I I I � 1 � � .- I I , 1. I '' �� ,�-� - t' I . 11 I'll � I I v . � , 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 I k . . . . . . . k ,:: , • i � 4ti ; . - Q. . . "" ,. ,. - - :, - , n , - - .. R , Cs F . ��' N . . SP I'll. . . e M v y k . , s . . P� t s - , 4 _..,, - �� , ,. �, . ,: ,.� � _, »,: ,;' ,ate.,., . >..,,' ,�:, s,_ -. -,; t 111 �j is Z - _ _ �-- Z Q � a p, .� i Q . ., , ., : Q W - 11 a W SP P .. � r = ME . LLJ I J `��•' " P ,q Y ""'� . N ,. - . Fj - :.: '7 .. - T - 1 " . ': , :1 I I I ". 1 15 1 - W ,, Z - . P� \v ,, CL W c 0 z . . - G - P p, V `° �'� I I I . I .I- -, " I,- . I . I - � I I I ql�r I . : I . I I � I � . I ,. " I � I - I I . I I . I . I (N ' . I . �' I 1 1 � . -. - . , . I I I I . - 0 . I I � � . = t • - - . . I � I I . . ci - � I I - �- . I �" � - � sa ti t6 I .� : , t ��w - . =- -- - ,: 1 1, o - �.1-1'111. I . � � � < - I 11 9 5 I t� 1� ,. . . 1 9' I 1. W, z' F -1 ' � I � � I . � 1. I - () - I 1, 1 4 _ 'z � � d ? l • r. �j - 11 i' 6 W ,. - r. •1• _ - :, . : - , l tr o I I I I i - 19 I" . , . 2 a : Q , a . v d 11 . A : , .. .. N: 11 1 , ,. , 1. Y _.,. _ , _ :. g_. v.us., _x , ,. _ - - .t, f N ,. ,� � _ _, , . A f ,,.:: r :, ,. .a ,..,.,,.. -_ - 1, - I I I I � 1. I I I . a . I I I , $ _. - i 9a.. :, a- -, i ,. r.. t , v � � I ' ' ' � '' , �' - I -�' � L I ", - ; p W' O r, : i I 11 IX I I � , . "'Z:�� Q N I I I � I � cc (5 w . a. . - AQ � -.',� -� i .'- 1. 11 ''. .11 I I I . - 1, � - .'.--�.' � -.' � . I I AQ - I :- - I � � - i I I � -;�' . -1 I . . . . I I I.. 1 -- I I 4 I W z �� I I � . . I 1- I 1. I � I 1 , � I -".' � . .1 I r I . � . * - ""*\ 0 I I.i I' I .1 � I I M � < - I . ; I I I � I � " - . I I a. F� I W a "� .. � I �� ... - . I '41, . I . --� I , I . 11 1, . I I I � . I I I I I ... I I I . I � .1 � - . . () . - I I � ��.' � .. " I I I - 'o I ."'' -, � , - . I I � ;� »� n I I I 1,11"i . I I 1-1 I - � I �'�'�. . I - . . (0) � m' I I I . I , I I I :.�'�'- . I � I I .. 1. I L I I I . . I . I - 1 . .. (J) I . � � - I � �'. I � . I .. � I ■ . . I . I - : , .. °, V ! �.L,.� - � -11, . , I I . o . �■� Z I- � I I � I � , .. I I I I . • _ �' "I, - - .�''' . 1 ; i �' I '� I . I � , 11 I i � . . I I 1110 � .1 . I , � I'� . I � . - . . I I �� ' -1111 " � I - � . � (C) � � . x . I . r ,. U 0 . . 7 , L Z . ,R r 1 �! I '. , w 1. . U) J ...,__ ' , �.1.,. .. I~ M: . , �-- L1J W t . . . . 11 W •, -. ., ;w� :- . _ _� .. .. A t 1. . Z Z V1 f� � tJ ! - a? `+ .'. �:. r W Q � •• :. ' A t., s - E t 99 u '.... M . � � '' . 1 .0 '' af :. O i `.y •� + - / , L F'-' , . - .. a f :.. 1. I - - . ' f - . T +:. ♦ - -1 _ LLt '4 Q ,, _ W CL �. w _ . CO �-� N � « . o m r . o - a. . • a z , , T - .. -. - 11 - • - - ,. NoText NoText