Loading...
2009-10165 G/TB I- ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT city O,f Capital Improvement Projects Encinitas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep leni slim ent/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 11, 2011 Attn: Bank of America—North La Costa Branch 6992 El Camino Real Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: Anita Blanchard 1066 Neptune Avenue APN 254-291-27 CDP 02-169 Grading Permit 10165-GI Final release of security Permit 10165-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a release of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Accounts have been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and are hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 24702-07647 in the amount of$ 8,843.75 and Account# 24702-07646 in the amount of$ 26,531.25. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sincerely, Debra Geis art ay mbach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Anita Blanchard Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 1-104 paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT city of Capital Improvement Projects Encinitas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stonnwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 10, 2011 Attn: Wells Fargo 276 A N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: James B. McInnis SR Seperate 1070 Neptune Avenue APN 254-291-26 CDP 02-169 Grading Pen-nit 10165-GI Final release of security Permit 10165-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Accounts have been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and are hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 8939838986 in the amount of$8,843.75 and Account# 8939838978 in the amount of$26,531.25. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sincly, j Debra Geishairf� y L mbach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager James McInnis Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 �4D� recycled paper SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONwc. March 9, 2009 Mr. Jim Knowlton- Geopacifica City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Updated Geotechnical Report Letter 1064, 1066 & 1070 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Jim: Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) has prepared this update letter for the final completion of the subject project. The remaining work to be performed consists of the infilling of the mid bluff slope area with imported fill and geogrid, construction of a keystone containment wall along the south boundary of the 1066 property, removal of the retention system's surface concrete located at the top of bluff and aesthetic hand sculpted shotcrete on exposed surfaces of the seawall and side keystone walls. This letter serves as an update for all previously submitted geotechnical reports for the project. Pertinent recommendations presented in the earlier reports, as they relate to the work remaining,are still valid. If you should have any questions,please call us at(760) 633-3470. Very truly yours, S L T GINEERI#G CONSTRUCTION, INC. J J 517 Robert D. Mahony, C.E.G., G.E. P of Engineer Senior G Engine io Nr��Fy�. No.QE 554 m O[ tio.iv 84' D(P.004 31� • p(p.08/31/0' '1 ate` °i..• l w T',.�~ 56 wy I01,Suite 5,E Califomia(760)633-34 .(760)633-3472 ^^ OF Q` SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONINC. March 9, 2009 Mr. Jim Knowlton - Geopacifica Y City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Updated Geotechnical Report Letter 1064, 1066 & 1070 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Jim: Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) has prepared this update letter for the final completion of the subject project. The remaining work to be performed consists of the infilling of the mid bluff slope area with imported fill and geogrid, construction of a keystone containment wall along the south boundary of the 1066 property, removal of the retention system's surface concrete located at the top of bluff and aesthetic hand sculpted shotcrete on exposed surfaces of the seawall and side keystone walls. This letter serves as an update for all previously submitted geotechnical reports for the project. Pertinent recommendations presented in the earlier reports, as they relate to the work remaining, are still valid. If you should have any questions, please call us at(760) 633-3470. Very truly yours, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. Q�pFESS10^,q 1 V- NA J W. Niven, R.C.E. ' ��V�Fy Robert D - G. ��ART M�CN O Project Engineer ;� Senior njc�l 57517 V—NO.GE 554 m N0.EG 847 —i 1'2.31-0 ¢ �p 3p � M EXP0"1/10 74 560 N. lit I,Suite 5,Fncinitas ornia(760)633-3470 d 76 0 633 47Z srq IV11- `Q- ��Fit '� ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT city of Capital Improvement Projects EY initas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 10, 2011 Attn: Wells Fargo 276 A N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: James B. McInnis SR Seperate 1070 Neptune Avenue APN 254-291-26 CDP 02-169 Grading Permit 10165-GI Final release of security Permit 10165-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Accounts have been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and are hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account # 8939838986 in the amount of$8,843.75 and Account# 8939838978 in the amount of$26,531.25. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Singmly, Debra Geish hyL ach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager James McInnis Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 ��� recycled paper SOIL rcnelnienlnc consviucclon. October 30, 2001 ED Ms. Anita Blanchard 1066 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Mr. James McInnis 1070 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of the Coastal Bluff Properties, 1066 and 1070 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California. In accordance with your request, Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., has completed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the coastal bluff along the western part of your properties. This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the stability of the coastal bluff and an engineering evaluation for the most appropriate stabilization methods applicable for the specific on-site bluff conditions. The following report documents our findings and presents conclusions and recommendations concerning geotechnical aspects of the coastal bluff. The most significant geotechnical issue v_ affecting the properties are the presence of a friable, clean, sand layer in the lower middle section of the bluff, and the on-going erosion and significant slope failures that have recently occurred in the middle and upper areas of the coastal bluff. The sudden, unexpected bluff failure that has resulted in an immediate threat to the residential structures had a source failure within the friable sand layer. Continued on-going erosion of the middle and upper bluff with the presence of a steep middle and upper bluff and the friable clean sand layer create a condition for additional sudden, and continuing, failures. Absent timely mitigative repair of the bluff, these failures will likely impact the residential structures on your properties in the near future. Accompanying this report are engineering drawings and calculations for the repair of the bluff. We trust this report will meet with your expectations and present needs. If you should have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTUCTION, Inc. �pFESSlQ Or1Alb "t'...�, N w. Ni �FS °. < Niven P.E. m Ebert D. oW.( .1ic AAD ' ua O 5761 EXP. 'EG 847N-fi * .12-31- 0031i1 0 _. A L1 560 N. Highway 101 Suite 5, Encinitas California 92024 • (760) 633-3470 • FAX (760) 633-3472 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 1066 AND 1070 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the findings of Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC) preliminary geotechnical assessment of the coastal bluff at 1066 and 1070 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California. The site location is shown on the attached vicinity map, Figure 1. The evaluation was conducted at the request of the owners' of the subject properties subsequent to recent failures at the site, and was completed in accordance with our proposal to provide professional engineering services. This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the necessary repairs to the bluff in order to protect the subject residential structures. 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation was to study the recent significant failures at the subject location, determine the subsurface bedrock and soil conditions, present useful information relevant to the coastline erosion processes in the area, evaluate the current stability of the bluff, and in turn, the safety of the two residential structures, and to outline geotechnical considerations and recommendations pertinent to restoring stability to the residential structures at the subject properties. The scope of our geotechnical evaluation includes the following: ■ Review of geological and topographical maps and literature pertaining to the sites and vicinity. (See appendix A). -- ■ Geological reconnaissance to observe, measure and map portions of the coastal bluff pertaining to the existing site conditions. ■ Excavate test borings, log and sample soil and bedrock units, and laboratory testing of representative soil and geologic units. ■ Present site topographic plans and provide geological cross-sectional profiles of the coastal bluff properties. ■ Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained relative to existing bluff stability. (See Appendix B). ■ Preparation of this report. SOIL imanrcaine consviucclon,n, Page 2 October 30, 2001 3.0 BLUFF/SITE DESCRIPTION The subject coastal bluff properties are located at 1066 and 1070 Neptune Ave in the City of Encinitas (refer to the site location map, Figure 1). The eastern property line at the site is located along the westerly side of the Neptune Avenue roadway. Residential housing exists on the properties to the north and south of the subject properties. The bluff top area of the property is bounded on the west by an approximate 75-80 +/- feet (above sea level) high coastal bluff; with an overall gradient exceeding 45 degrees on average (for the site topographic setting refer to Figure 2). Geological cross-sections are presented as Figure 3. The property bluff investigation for 1066 and 1070 Neptune Avenue was conducted in the fall of 2001; however, geological studies of sea bluff retreat have been conducted in the area from 1969 through 1983 (see reference 1 — reports by Artim and by Kuhn) as well as a site specific subsurface study in 1979 (see reference). The studies by Artim and by Kuhn relied on and utilized aerial photographs from the 1930's through the 1970's. The two sites consist of relatively level building pad areas (elev. 83 +/- feet, MSL), with street level at about 90 +/- feet, MSL. The top of the sea bluff is at about elevation of 81 +/- feet (MSL). The approximate 80-foot high coastal bluff slopes at an overall average exceeding 45 degrees (from the base of the bluff to the top of the upper bluff edge. At present, because of beach sand replenishment there is a beach sand level to about 8 feet with cobble and gravel berm debris along the upper edge of the replenishment area. The covered section is known, based on the previous work published in reference 1, to contain local adverse oriented planes, joints, and fractures with an existing likelihood for future failures along these weak zones if the work proposed is not initiated. The lower section of the bluff is underlain by a Eocene unit, mostly dark gray siltstone and fine sandstone. The unit has been designated to be the Eocene Santiago Formation (reference 5), but has also be designated Ardath Shale. The upper part of the bluff is inclined at about 50 +/- degrees from horizontal and is underlain by Pleistocene terrace deposits. Although there is evidence for movement and/or failure or disruption along the lower exposed section of the bluff, the recent sudden and unexpected failure appears to have been entirely within the Pleistocene unit. As exposed on the bluff face, there are two distinct tension cracks, the most significant one being approximately 24 feet from the top of bluff(see Figure 20. During field exploration, we also encountered an approximate 5-foot thick friable clean sand layer near the base of the Pleistocene section. This sand layer is similar in appearance to a sand layer identified as the failure mechanism in other local coastal bluff failures. SOIL 'cnGn'e'e41ne consciucoonm. Page 3 October 30, 2001 We note that a similar failure event occurred in 1979 as cited in reference 3. Other similar type events can be projected to continue in the future. The unstable geologic composition of the lower bluff and the friable clean sand layer, as well as the over steep mid and upper bluff, are the primary cause of the instability of the bluff on the subject properties. 4.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Our field exploration included drilling one boring on the upper pad area, one boring near the base of the bluff, as well as site reconnaissance visits. The boring B-1 was advanced to a maximum depth of about 63 feet utilizing a 4-inch auger equipped for soil sampling. The elevation of the top of boring was estimated to be 81 +/- feet. The drill rig and operator were provided by South Coast Drilling Company. A representative from this office was present to log the boring, observe groundwater conditions at the time of drilling, collect soil samples, and oversee the drilling and sampling operation. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained using a 2.5-inch inside diameter sampler driven with a 140-pound hammer free falling through a distance of 30 inches. Blow counts, expressed as blows per foot of penetration, were measured and recorded on the boring log. Disturbed, bulk samples were also obtained from the boring excavation cuttings. Pleistocene soils were encountered to a depth of about 63 feet, with bedrock at the base of the boring (elevation of about 18 +/- feet —MSL). The boring was backfilled at the completion of drilling and sampling operations. The subsurface soils were visually classified in accordance with the procedures of ASTM D2488. The boring B-2 was drilled using portable 3 and 4-inch diameter hand auger equipment. The elevation of the top of the boring was estimated to be about 25 feet +/-. The upper 2 feet was noted to be slope and failure debris. From about 2 feet to 7 feet, the soil material encountered appeared to be dense, but very friable, light tan, slightly silty, fine to medium grained sand. From about 7 to 11 feet uniform dense silty sand, with very small gravel at about 11 feet to 11 '/2 feet. Bedrock encountered from 11 1/2 to 12 feet (elevation of about 14 feet+/- MSL). The log of the borings is presented in Appendix C, with the location of the borings presented on Figure 2. In addition, geological reconnaissance work was conducted to assess the geological conditions of the bluff face including adjacent areas with potential for impact to the subject properties. SOIL inuneevne conscRucclon. Page 4 October 30, 2001 5.0 GEOLOGIC UNITS AND STRUCTURE _. Based on our knowledge and our onsite observations, the subject property appears to be underlain by Eocene-aged Formation units overlain by Quaternary-aged terrace deposits. The approximate limits of these units, as observed from our investigation, are shown on the site plan and cross section(see Figures 2 and 3). Eocene Formation — The Eocene units encountered in the borings and as exposed in the sea cliff at the base of the coastal bluff underlie the entire site at depth (below the terrace deposits). The Eocene unit at these locations generally consists of dark gray siltstone with clay-imbued fine- grained sandstone. The formation varies from thin bedding locally to apparent massive with multiple thin clay layers and or seams. Certain of these seams appear remolded and are the likely cause of slope bluff failures just south of the subject property. The unit, although very dense, is also subject to failure in vertical and undercut sea cliff, because of the presence of local adverse joints and fractures. At the site, the contact of the unit with the overlying Pleistocene unit is at approximately 14 to 18 feet sloping east to west. Terrace Deposits — Quaternary-aged terrace deposits un-conformably overlie the Eocene unit and comprise more than 75% to 90% of the bluff face. As a unit, the terrace deposits consist of orange-brown to light brown, dense to very dense, but locally very friable, slightly silty to fine-to medium-grained sand. Because of the local friable and light to non-cemented nature of these materials, the deposits are subject to failure as sand flows and slumps when saturated in over steep slopes, and/or as a result of gravity. An upper veneer of dark, reddish-brown, slightly cemented terrace deposits occur along the upper part of the property. This section has been compared to a weathered soil profile. °- Beach Deposits — At present, a variable thickness of unconsolidated sand with cobble has been placed as a beach replenishment deposit to an elevation of approximately 8 feet, with cobble and debris above that elevation. This should be considered very temporary. During the storms of 1982-1983, a thickness of more than 6 to 12 feet of sand and cobble beach deposit was completely removed by storm waves and surge. During that period of time, the wave cut bedrock platform was exposed with only local thin sand an/or cobble cusp features sporadically along the wave cut platform. Geologic Structure — The bedrock exposed in the sea cliff has been mapped as nearly flat in orientation with only slight visible overall attitude. However, local thin clay layers and remolded clay seams are known to exist within the nearby area. SOIL meneemne consvtucaon.. Page 5 October 30, 2001 Adverse joint and fracture planes have also been observed nearby to the site. Many of these planes appear to be tight and thin; however, with exposure and lateral relief of the slope face, the planes become open and subject to wave impact. Failures along these planes have a characteristic "domino effect" in the sense that the bedrock breaks and/or fails in large chunks as topple due to the vertical nature and orientation of the fractures and joints. Upon failure, the sections directly behind and adjacent to the plane are subject to immediate failure. _ 6.0 ACTIVE FAULTING/SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Our review of geologic literature pertaining to the general site area indicates that there are no known "active" faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the property. An "active" fault is defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as one, which has "had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years)." Indications of active faulting were not observed in the subject coastal bluff or in nearby exposures. The nearest known active faults are the Rose Canyon fault located offshore approximately 5 miles west of these properties, the Coronado Bank fault located offshore approximately 15 to 20 miles south and west, and the Elsinore fault located approximately 30 +/- miles northeast of the property. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 90 miles north-northeast of the site. For the purpose of this report, the Oceanside Thrust Fault, and the Newport-Inglewood Zone of Deformation are considered part of the Rose Canyon offshore fault. A series of minor faults have been observed in the base of the sea bluff with most striking northeast to southwest. However, in the nearby areas, these faults are not known or documented to extend into and displace the overlying Pleistocene terrace deposits, thus, are not considered to be "active" faults as defined by the CDMG. The principle consideration for most structures in southern California are surface rupturing of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically-induced ground settlement or liquefaction. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered minimal to nil since no active faults are known to cross the site. The potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced ground settlement at these properties due to an earthquake is low. However, ground shaking from a probable local event will likely cause significant bluff failures. The seismic hazard most likely to impact these properties is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major active faults. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault located offshore approximately 5 miles west of the site. A maximum probable event on this portion of the Rose Canyon fault (magnitude 6.5) could produce moderate to severe ground shaking at the site. SOIL consciucrlon. Page 6 October 30, 2001 _. In general, the role seismic shaking plays in bluff retreat is dependent on bluff conditions at the moment of shaking. Steep, undercut bedrock projections along the base and over steepened parts of the terrace deposits may fail and some raveling of the poorly indurated bluff-face terrace __. deposits may also occur during ground shaking, especially on un-vegetated portions of the bluff face. During times of heavy precipitation with the presence of perched ground water there will be a higher potential for deep-seated to severe failure of the bluff with the occurrence of maximum probable local event on the Rose Canyon Fault. 7.0 TSUANAMI AND STORM WAVES Tsunamis are sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides or volcanic action. Submarine earthquakes are common along the edge of the Pacific Ocean and coastal areas are subject to potential inundation by tsunami. Most of the 19 tsunami recorded on the San Diego tidal gauge (between 1854 and 1872 and 1906 to 1977) have only been a few tenths of a meter in height. The largest recorded San Diego area tidal gauge excursion (approximately I meter of about 3.25 feet) was associated with the tsunami of May 22, 1960 and was recorded at La Jolla (Scripps Pier). This tsunami was generated by a Richter magnitude 8.5 earthquake in Chile. For comparison, the diurnal range of tides at San Diego Bay is 1.7 meters (approximately 5.5 feet). During the winter of 1997-1998 (October through April), storm waves were observed to break with wave run-up to elevations of +20 feet. These conditions were observed during times of high tides and during storm wave events. Such events can occur again. In the event of a significant earthquake on the Coronado Bank or Rose Canyon, the bluff at this site could be subject to significant tsunami damage. 8.0 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER No groundwater was observed in either test boring, however, localized groundwater has been __. observed seeping in places especially along the contact of the Eocene bedrock with the overlying Pleistocene deposits. We note that seasonal perched groundwater levels and conditions can fluctuate due to factors such as rainfall amounts, rainfall intensity, temperatures, or other factors. Changes in this perched groundwater condition can affect the stability of the upper bluff area. The runoff of surface water on the properties appear to primarily drain towards the west as sheet flow and controlled runoff from Neptune Avenue could breach the site and flow over the edge of the coastal bluff. It appears that some of the upper bluff surface-water flow may have locally rilled the bluff-face soils and likely has contributed to some of the upper terrace erosion. SOIL consciucamn, 0\5D Page 7 October 30, 2001 9.0 COASTAL BLUFF RETREAT The coastline in the vicinity is relatively straight to slightly meandering. Mechanisms for sea cliff retreat at this property include, but are not limited to, slow abrasion and undercutting by marine erosion (wave action) of the Eocene bedrock. Storm surf, surge, and higher tides contribute to the process of marine erosion. Other factors affecting the rate of retreat of a sea cliff at the toe of a coastal bluff include degree of fracturing, jointing, sea cave and scour formations, consolidation of sediments, steepness of slope, groundwater and surface water conditions, and vegetation or lack of vegetation. In response to the landward retreat of the sea cliff, the overlying coastal bluff becomes undermined and also retreats landward. During storm surf and higher tides, the base of the terrace deposits at the site are also subject to rapid erosion. Other mechanisms contributing to bluff retreat include failure of overhanging bedrock projections, shallow failure of over steepened parts of the bluff-face terrace deposits, and rilling and raveling of the terrace deposits. Parts of coastal bluffs are also exposed to precipitation, wind, pedestrian/animal erosion (including foot traffic and burrowing rodents), variations in landscape, landscape maintenance, - and other activities by humans. The rate and magnitude of coastal bluff retreat at a specific site is dependent on a variety of factors, both natural and manmade. Under favorable conditions, the geological formations at this property could be inherently stable. However, the conditions at the site have deteriorated significantly over a relatively short period of time. These changes are due to the effects of the changed oceanographic factors including rapid erosion, retreat of the lower bluff from storm generated wave activity and severe storms. LL Between October 1997 and March 1998, in the Encinitas and Solana Beach area, we witnessed the nearly complete removal of the beach deposits. We also witnessed numerous massive failures and erosion of the sea cliffs in the area. Dramatic changes occurred within a few days event. In some cases, caves had formed and failed within a few days time span. In some areas, we estimated that the base of the sea cliff retreated from less than about 2 to 3 feet to more than 3 to 7 feet during the time interval of October 1997 through April 1998. There were some areas where total retreat was estimated to be 10 feet. SOIL Encinrce:lnc consciucrlon. Page 8 October 30, 2001 Based on public information (Reference 1), the long term rate of sea cliff retreat has been calculated from less than I inch to more than 6 inches per year. These rates are based on long- term measurements with the understanding that rapid episodic retreats may occur within a single year. For the Encinitas area, the lower bluff was calculated between the years 1968 through 1983 to have a retreat rate on the order of 1 to 3 inches per year (i.e. 1 foot every 4 years, and 10 feet every 40 years). However, it is difficult to predict the exact future and the magnitude of bluff-edge retreat that may occur in one year, especially since severe erosion is generally episodic in nature and is dependent on the intensity of storms and combined high tides (or man's detrimental actions). It is probable that several feet of coastal bluff-edge retreat could occur at one time or over a short period of time. Erosion / failure along coastal bluffs is a naturally-occurring process that is affected by human actions. The sudden and unexpected failure on this site and others in the area was due, in large measure, to the absence of beach sand and the resultant impact of wave and cobble on the lower bluff. One fact remains: without construction of mitigation devices, the bluff edge at the subject site will continue to retreat landward at an accelerated rate — and it will impact the residential - structures. The residence set back distances, measured from the topographic map (at its full scale and at the closest section to the bluff) are approximately 25+- feet. Other exterior improvements are closer than 25 feet. These values are significantly less than the 40-feet minimum setback value required for present new developments; (see the Coast Bluff Overlay Zone, developed by the - California Coastal Commission). 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our geotechnical investigations at the subject sites, it is our opinion that these residences are in an emergency condition relative to complete destruction from sea cliff retreat and bluff failures. In the present state, the slope has a high to critical potential for continued immediate failure that will impact the residences. In our opinion, the present condition constitutes an emergency situation to your property, and we recommend that you begin immediately to take all actions necessary to restore bluff stability and protection to yourself and your property. It is recommended that emergency repairs, consisting of the construction of a lower bluff seawall across both of the subject properties and an upper tied back shotcrete wall across the 1070 property is the minimum emergency repair required to protect the primary residential structures at the sites. It is our opinion that a primary threat to the subject residences consists of the imminent failure of the upper coastal bluff, and undermining of the foundation system supporting the residential structures. SOIL rcneinrcoune consvtucclon.. Page 9 October 30 2001 The emergency construction of a lower coastal seawall and construction of a tied back shotcrete wall at the subject properties is the only viable method of initiating mitigation for this urgent concern. The seawall will act to both counteract the slide, support the existing bluff slope and to prevent erosion from wave actions. Due to the existing extent of mid and upper bluff failure, the upper bluff tied back shotcrete wall is necessary as an emergency measure at 1070 Neptune, in combination with the lower wall, to restore an adequate factor of safety against sliding for the post construction condition (see slope stability results). The slope stability analysis presented in Appendix B and the criteria presented in the text of this report provides the basis for our engineering design work. It is our further opinion that the over-steepened upper bluff materials (caused, in part, by recent failures on the mid and upper areas of the bluff) and the continuing failure of the landslide debris are factors that also require the proposed mitigation to be implemented on an emergency basis if the primary residences are to be protected from imminent damage / failure. The proposed repairs are the minimum emergency measures that will mitigate these concerns. Recommendations: It is recommended that the proposed seawall be designed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 -. pounds per cubic foot assuming the backfill has a minimum friction angle of 32 degrees with a sloping backfill. The loading on the wall may be assumed to be triangular. Tiebacks for the lower wall should be designed accordingly, using a minimum bond stress of approximately 20 pounds per square inch within the bonded zone. The bonded zone for the tiebacks should be considered that portion of the anchor, which is embedded into the underlying Eocene formation or Torrey sandstone. A minimum embedment of 20 feet into the formational material is recommended. We anticipate that the tiebacks will be installed in bore holes a minimum of 40 feet in length. It is recommended that the diameter of the borehole for the tiebacks be a minimum of 6 inches in diameter and the tiebacks should be drilled at an approximate angle of 25 to 30 degrees from horizontal. Drilled soldier piles for the lower wall shall be installed at a minimum horizontal spacing of 8 - feet on center. The wall may require temporary wood or steel plate lagging between the piers in order to facilitate the installation of the shotcrete wall. The use of lagging will be evaluated by the engineer in the field during construction. The minimum embedment length into the formational materials is recommended to be 10 feet. An allowable bearing capacity 10,000 pounds per square foot may also be used in the design of the drilled vertical piers. The drilled piers should be designed by a civil engineer familiar with this type of retaining structure. The concrete used should have a slump of five to six inches to promote the filling of voids in the shaft wall. Pier shafts should be dewatered and cleaned of loose sloughed material prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The shafts should contain no more than six inches of standing water unless a tremie extending to the shaft bottom is used to place the concrete. SOIL cnanaEvnc consvtucclon.. Page 10 October 30, 2001 Unless shaft diameters are large enough that falling concrete will not hit the wall or reinforcing steel, free fall of concrete should not exceed about six feet. Any casing required for drilling should be pulled back as the concrete is being placed. At least a 4-foot head of concrete should be maintained in the casing while it is being pulled. We recommend that a sub-drain system be provided behind the earth-retaining walls to intercept and remove water from behind the wall. In order to protect the residential structures at the site from imminent damage or loss due to an upper bluff failure, it is recommended that an exposed upper bluff retaining wall system, consisting of a tied back shotcrete wall be constructed across the residential lot fronting the coastal bluff at 1070 Neptune. This tied back wall in conjunction with the lower wall will restore an adequate factor of safety against sliding for the residential structure. Based on our slope stability analyses, it is necessary for the upper shotcrete wall tiebacks, two rows, to be installed at 8 foot centers with a design capacity of 40 kips each. The minimum depth of the said tiebacks should be 40 feet. The upper bluff retaining wall system should be restrained using tiebacks. It is recommended - that tiebacks be drilled in a borehole of 8 inches and be a minimum of 40 feet in length. The said tiebacks should be designed assuming a minimum unbonded length of 15 feet and a minimum bonded length of 25 feet. Tiebacks for the upper bluff retaining wall system should be designed -- using a minimum bond stress of 15 pounds per square inch. The wall shall be constructed of colored sculpted reinforced shotcrete to match, to the extent possible, adjacent bluff areas. It is recommended that all surface drainage be directed away form the top of bluff and drained to Neptune Avenue in non-eroding subsurface drainage pipes. All permanent irrigation systems should be removed and capped a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff face. It is also recommended that the owner of the property provide drought resistant vegetation on the re-graded bluff face materials in order to prevent future erosion. A landscape contractor or architect should be retained for specific recommendations on planting. It is recommended that foot traffic be kept to a minimum on the re-graded bluff face and, if possible, the planting should be performed by hydroseeding. The Sand Implementation Act is a well intended means of replenishing the beach sands, which in turn does diminish the impact of waves and erosion to the sea cliff'sea bluff profile; however, that action will not create equilibrium to the already severely impacted sea cliff/sea bluff profile at your property. SANDAG projects that sands placed on this section of coastline may not survive the winter and will, at most, remain through the summer of 2002. There is also no guarantee that additional storm waves and storm surge will not remove imported sands in a matter of days. We also note that, in the specific case of your properties, the existing failure of the over steep middle and upper bluff will continue to fail to a point that the residential structures are impacted with or without the presence of a thick sand beach at the base of the lower coastal bluff. SOIL cnclnEE:unc consvqurlonm. Page 11 October 30, 2001 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS Because of the steep bluff, the previous and ongoing failures, and further large-scale failures that will likely occur in the cliff face in a short period of time, the safety factor at the base of the cliffs is a very important issue. Contractors, engineers, pedestrians, i.e., any human activities, should be aware and warned of the cliff face conditions. The present condition of the sea cliff/sea bluff profile constitutes an active hazard to properties and persons living and/or working above the sea cliff/sea bluff profile. The present condition also constitutes a hazard to persons along the base of the sea cliff/sea bluff profile. This hazard along the base of the sea cliff is estimated to extend up to 25 feet seaward or the base of the sea cliff. Potential failures from the top of the sea cliff/sea bluff profile may extend onto the beach area from about a few to more than 20, or more, feet. Any large-scale landslide and failure from the mid and upper bluff will not only give little indication prior to failure, but can easily kill or severely injure those in its path. 11.0 LIMITATION AND CHANGING CONDITIONS This geotechnical evaluation report addresses the coastal bluff conditions at the subject property and is based on our document review, our subsurface investigation and laboratory testing, our observations of the geological conditions exposed in the coastal bluff at this locality. This report assumes that the geologic/soils conditions do not deviate appreciably from those observed and/or encountered. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the subject site coastal bluff locality. The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in conditions of this region can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man at this vicinity. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, from legislation or the broadening of knowledge in the fields of geotechnical engineering or geology. Hence, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. SOIL mener:mnc conscucclon.. 0\/1D Page 12 October 30, 2001 If there are questions regarding the information contained herein, we should be contacted. We will not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information herein. Our services consist of professional consultation and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed by us. Attachments: Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Site Topographic Plan Figure 3 —Geologic Cross Sections Appendix A—References Appendix B— Slope Stability Analysis Appendix C—Log of Boring and Laboratory Test Results SOIL enunesvne consviucrlon. FIGURES Site Location Map 1066 & 1070 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California -5 Le Co Ave Ex to Ave 4 P - _ G) `;Q g� Capri. NAO P� \ n x aJ Leu di —1- 1070 Neptune Ave , Normandy ..Encinitas,CA 92024 `� Bnttan Rd CD , m � CD ucadia I i-'Laucavd. m Pueb(a St L p thOne -.. CD \ O SIv' Sm ......__ -�ncinita N \ Encinitas Blvd e Sr to 0 ml 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 J Figure 1 k 90.03 h 7 9,3 00 "t k 90 f 9 �I K1 I l 9.19 j 9 �'• b N 9pk s I I Of z I a I k o Ebr-.I I 9.3 cNn 19.3;p I – 10" 6 90 2k Z I to N $ Z vi I m m I .. D DV R HL I i < Q E TI SYST M I Z / I � •a i k I 88.89 *' a AaAholt z ft.8;, 0 i AC I� U 89..9,3 pl J I k 88.90 k 80. 3f ?1? 89.71 I I U I Q I k � eg•e� I.ECFIm_ of BEACH SAND Qla SLOPE FAILUR Qt PLEISTOCENE Ebr EOCENE BEER UPPER EDGE F I G U R E 2 -–�–- INDICATES DIR — GEOLOGIC C01 i i ELEV. SI DENCE, I CE) RESIDENCE, (M.S.L.) JEPTUNE AVE I L 66 NEPTUNE A� (PROJECTED) 80 80 (E) CAISSON 10' DEEP (?) 70 70 PROPOSED TIEBACKS 60 60 50 50 BRACE DEPOSITS 40 Qt 40 PROPOSED SEAW TOP OF WALL EL 30 30 20 FRIABLE 20 SAND W/ COBBLE - 10 10 ;ENE FORMATION Ebr p 0 PROFILE SECLE U URE 3 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. California Coastal Commission, 1985, California's Battered Coastline, Annual meeting, San Diego, California, sponsored by San Diego Association of Geologists. 2. Davis, James F., 1997, Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117. 3. Eisenberg, L., 1983, Pleistocene and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe quadrangles, in Abbott, P.L., ed., 1985, On the manner of Deposition of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists, fieldtrip guidebook. 4. Geocon, Inc., 1979, Soil and Geologic Investigation for McInnis Property, Leucadia California: project no. D-2048401, dated December 28, 1979. 5. Weber, F.H., 1982, Geologic map of north-central coastal area of San Diego County, California, showing recent slope failures and pre-development Landslides: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFT 82-12 LA. 6. 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. SOIL imenrcaine consctucclon. APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Presented herein are the results of our bluff slope stability analyses for the subject site. The purpose of the analyses was to find the minimum factors of safety with respect to sliding for the existing (before construction of the seawall, backfill and upper tied back shotcrete wall) and the post construction conditions. Our analyses selected a left termination point, beginning approximately 10 feet east of the residence located at 1070 Neptune, to begin our searches for the most critical failure surfaces. This point was selected because of the presence of a caisson foundation system for the vertical support of the 1070 residence exists. The analyses were performed for both static and seismic conditions utilizing the Modified Bishops Method of Slices (GSTABL7 computer program) and the results are discussed herein. The location of the assumed most critical bluff cross-section A-A', shown on Figure 1 and the cross-section, is shown on Figure 2, 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 were based on laboratory testing (attached), and on our past experience working in the area, and are presented in the table below: Material Total Unit Cohesion Friction Weight(pcf) (psf7 Angle (degrees) Terrace Deposits(Upper- 110 100 36 Bluft) Eocene Formation(Peak 115 550 21 Strength) Friable Terrace Deposits 110 0 32 (near base of bluff above Eocene) Slide Debris 110 0 32 Rock Fill 135 0 40 SOIL consctucaon. 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 X-Section A-A' Calculated Factor of Safety Existing Bluff Analysis Before Seawall Construction Static Analysis- 1.16 Pseudo-Static Analysis- 0.86 Bluff Analysis After Construction of Lower Wall, Backfill&Upper Tied Back Shotcrete Wall Static Analysis- 1.55 Pseudo-Static Analysis- 1.12 SOIL Enenrcicslnc consnucrlon,nc O\/1D 0 N M • O O N O N \. N d t`� M if M C cc co CO 0 N C � N Z W C.0 Q m �f•r r Q r O a V Q N N XL w o � It- CD v IT- 06 w co o C) co r 0 C) O N co 04 r� Y O O _ co - _ N L N N O M \� N CL Q �� t rn N M \:� N M m tko C 0> t QT -_ - - . ..... ... ... ... ... ...... .. .. i._ _.___ _ _ ... _-.. LL m m e I! V-1 Q j �t+�l J r ar-I ca O N H J N @ U) V d d Z 0 0 0 O M V CD d N U a ^0000 O L X -Q�N Comm O W LL I� ~ ° ° r O - v�,o°oo CO U _ Qlnoo0 IL rl or U- � �� 0000 ew0 uC)LiLnLo _ N GO C.0 -di> 0000 HCC aLo 000 D CO 0 N C7 V' O N @ .o `0 U)0 `O IN �/1 CO O c7 In CO r-ti r- �/ N N N N N N N N C'O ��rrrrrrrrr - CO L U-0 N OIL f O O LU N tOG N Co '. Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop _. or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/12/01 Time of Run: 8:39AM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:mcilA. Output Filename: C:mcilA.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:mcilA.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 1066&1070 X-Section A-A' Existing Static Analvses BOUNDARY COORDINATES 14 Top Boundaries 21 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 35.00 116.00 39.00 1 2 116.00 39.00 125.00 40.00 1 3 125.00 40.00 141.00 45.00 1 4 141.00 45.00 145.00 48.00 1 5 145.00 48.00 153.00 53.00 2 6 153.00 53.00 156.00 55.00 2 7 156.00 55.00 168.00 65.00 4 8 168.00 65.00 182.00 75.00 4 9 182.00 75.00 191.00 85.00 4 10 191.00 85.00 202.00 95.00 4 ` 11 202.00 95.00 205.00 105.00 3 12 205.00 105.00 210.00 111.00 3 13 210.00 111.00 236.00 111.00 3 14 236.00 111.00 310.00 111.00 3 15 170.00 55.00 188.00 63.00 3 16 188.00 63.00 196.00 73.00 3 17 196.00 73.00 200.00 84.00 3 18 200.00 84.00 202.00 95.00 3 19 156.00 55.00 170.00 55.00 2 20 170.00 55.00 310.00 55.00 2 21 145.00 48.00 310.00 48.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 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. 1 115.0 120.0 550.0 21.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 110.0 115.0 0.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 110.0 115.0 100.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 0 4 110.0 115.0 0.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random -- Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 100 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 145.00(ft) and X = 168.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 246.00( t) and X = 310.00 (ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) 16.00 (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 c:\sted\mcila.Of,IT Page 2 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 145.00 48.00 2 159.59 54.58 3 173.89 61.74 4 187.90 69.47 5 201.59 77.76 6 214.93 86.59 7 227.91 95.95 8 240.50 105.82 9 246.58 111.00 Circle Center At X = -11.2 ; Y = 413.8 and Radius, 397.7 *** 1.158 *** -- Individual data on the 20 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 8.0 612.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 3.0 565.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 3.6 1074.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.8 328.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 7.6 4123.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 5.9 4434.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 8.1 7248.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 5.9 6777.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 3.1 4385.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 5.6 9002.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 3.4 5867.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 1.6 2906.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 0.4 765.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 3.0 6922.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 5.0 14481.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 4 .9 14126.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 13.0 28164.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 8.1 10573.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 4.5 3432.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 6.1 1730.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.50 55.42 2 171.46 61.09 3 186.01 67.74 4 200.09 75.34 5 213.63 83.86 6 226.58 93.26 7 238.87 103.51 8 246.74 111.00 Circle Center At X = 79.6 ; Y = 281.3 and Radius, 238.6 *** 1.196 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.75 51.59 2 166.06 56.25 3 180.94 62.13 4 195.30 69.18 5 209.04 77.38 6 222.08 86.65 7 234.33 96.94 8 245.71 108.19 9 248.13 111.00 Circle Center At X = 100.7 ; Y = 243.5 and Radius, 198.4 *** 1.208 *** Page 3 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.50 55.42 2 170.59 63.01 3 184.52 70.87 4 198.30 78.99 5 211.93 87.38 6 225.39 96.03 7 238.69 104 .93 8 247.38 111.00 Circle Center At X = -228.9 ; Y = 787.7 and Radius, 82 *** 1.232 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 145.00 48.00 2 159.33 55.11 3 173.51 62.53 4 187.53 70.24 5 201.38 78.25 6 215.05 86.56 7 228.55 95.15 8 241.86 104.03 9 251.83 111.00 Circle Center At X = -181.5 ; Y = 724.1 and Radius, 750.8 *** 1.246 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.50 55.42 2 170.15 63.76 3 183.79 72.12 4 197.43 80.50 5 211.05 88.89 6 224.66 97.30 7 238.26 105.73 8 246.73 111.00 Circle Center At X = ****** y = ****** and Radius, ****** *** 1.257 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.75 51.59 2 165.83 56.95 3 180.57 63.16 4 194.94 70.19 5 208.89 78.03 6 222.38 86.65 7 235.35 96.01 8 247.77 106.10 9 253.15 111.00 Circle Center At X = 63.8 ; Y = 319.9 and Radius, 282.1 *** 1.266 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 145.00 48.00 2 160.36 52.50 3 175.37 58.02 4 189.98 64.56 5 204.11 72.06 6 217.69 80.51 7 230.68 89.86 8 243.00 100.07 9 254.50 111.00 c:\sted\mcila.017IT Page 4 Circle Center At X = 86.4 ; Y = 276.5 and Radius, 235.8 *** 1.270 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.75 51.59 2 166.01 56.41 3 180.91 62.25 4 195.37 69.08 5 209.35 76.87 6 222.76 85.60 7 235.55 95.21 8 247.67 105.66 9 253.07 111.00 Circle Center At X = 87.3 ; Y = 279.3 and Radius, 236.4 *** 1.273 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 162.25 60.21 2 176.03 68.35 3 189.79 76.50 4 203.55 84.66 5 217.30 92.84 6 231.05 101.04 7 244.78 109.25 8 247.69 111.00 _ ****** y = ****** and Radius, ****** Circle Center At X - *** 1.314 *** O N O O N N CD N N U-) M 01 O rn o O .� - a � N � o a ° c� r O T CD •y C �%':1 W � J aW N V w r H r O ti O r Co co CO CD CD ca O r 0 v f •. 0 0 ! O O N co O N r r 0 O 00 N Cl) E, O C r cn M \ N C. 0 W \; U.) O m O ° \ 0 °IL \ ,CV, ° a�Z d N 'O w N LL Co — — — m � o W cc CN ; N��a -20000 r ,- a 0N v U(L :3 C U w o ?rn0000 N C14 1 N CO fl r 0 r O O V ci ) N �.�O O O U. O O C 1` U- d 0000', � T m vouoO�� O N _ to D C nLO 000, I- E : : 0 j,z�NM Cl)~ O !/) N O C ca N-0 U- W Ham, ' LL Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *k A O'O N pIt•— $. O N 00 O W ' co c: Ast eel\r.cil OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices (Based on STABLE-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/12/01 Time of Run: 9:05AM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:mcile. Output Filename: C:mcile.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:mcile.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 1066&1070 X-Section A-A' Existing Pseudo Static Analyses BOUNDARY COORDINATES 14 Top Boundaries 21 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 35.00 116.00 39.00 1 2 116.00 39.00 125.00 40.00 1 3 125.00 40.00 141.00 45.00 1 4 141.00 45.00 145.00 48.00 1 5 145.00 48.00 153.00 53.00 2 6 153.00 53.00 156.00 55.00 2 7 156.00 55.00 168.00 65.00 4 8 168.00 65.00 182.00 75.00 4 9 182.00 75.00 191.00 85.00 4 10 191.00 85.00 202.00 95.00 4 11 202.00 95.00 205.00 105.00 3 12 205.00 105.00 210.00 111.00 3 13 210.00 111.00 236.00 111.00 3 14 236.00 111.00 310.00 111.00 3 15 170.00 55.00 188.00 63.00 3 16 188.00 63.00 196.00 73.00 3 17 196.00 73.00 200.00 84.00 3 18 200.00 84.00 202.00 95.00 3 19 156.00 55.00 170.00 55.00 2 20 170.00 55.00 310.00 55.00 2 21 145.00 48.00 310.00 48.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 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. 1 115.0 120.0 550.0 21.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 110.0 115.0 0.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 110.0 115.0 100.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 0 4 110.0 115.0 0.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 (psf) - A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 100 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 145.00(ft) and X = 168.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 246.00(ft) and X = 310.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 (ft) c:\sted\mcile-0`JT Page 2 16.00(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) 1 145.00 48.00 2 159.59 54.58 3 173.89 61.74 4 187.90 69.47 5 201.59 77 .76 6 214 .93 86.59 7 227.91 95.95 8 240.50 105.82 9 246.58 111.00 Circle Center At X = -11.2 ; Y = 413.8 and Radius, 397.7 *** 0.862 *** Individual data on the 20 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 8.0 612.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.8 0.0 0.0 2 3.0 565.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.9 0.0 0.0 3 3.6 1074.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 161.1 0.0 0.0 4 0.8 328.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.2 0.0 0.0 5 7.6 4123.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 618.5 0.0 0.0 6 5.9 4434.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 665.1 0.0 0.0 7 8.1 7248.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1087.2 0.0 0.0 8 5.9 6777.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1016.6 0.0 0.0 9 3.1 4385.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 657.9 0.0 0.0 10 -5.6 9002.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1350.4 0.0 0.0 11 3.4 5867.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 880.2 0.0 0.0 12 1.6 2906.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 436.0 0.0 0.0 13 0.4 765.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 114.7 0.0 0.0 14 3.0 6922.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1038.4 0.0 0.0 15 5.0 14481.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2172.3 0.0 0.0 16 4.9 14126.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2119.0 0.0 0.0 17 13.0 28164.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4224.7 0.0 0.0 18 8.1 10573.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1586.0 0.0 0.0 19 4.5 3432.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 514.9 0.0 0.0 20 6.1 1730.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 259.6 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.50 55.42 2 171.46 61.09 3 186.01 67.74 4 200.09 75.34 5 213.63 83.86 6 226.58 93.26 7 238.87 103.51 8 246.74 111.00 Circle Center At X = 79.6 ; Y = 281.3 and Radius, 238.6 *** 0.893 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.75 51.59 2 166.06 56.25 3 180.94 62.13 4 195.30 69.18 5 209.04 77.38 6 222.08 86.65 c: \sted\mc [ T Page 3 7 234.33 96.94 8 245.71 108.19 9 248.13 111.00 Circle Center At X = 100.7 ; Y = 243.5 and Radius, 198.4 *** 0.906 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.50 55.42 2 170.59 63.01 3 184.52 70.87 4 198.30 78.99 5 211.93 87.38 6 225.39 96.03 - 7 238.69 104.93 8 247.38 111.00 Circle Center At X = -228.9 ; Y = 787.7 and Radius, 827.2 *** 0.910 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 145.00 48.00 2 159.33 55.11 3 173.51 62.53 4 187.53 70.24 5 201.38 78.25 6 215.05 86.56 7 228.55 95.15 8 241.86 104.03 9 251.83 111.00 Circle Center At X = -181.5 ; Y = 724.1 and Radius, 750.8 *** 0.918 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.50 55.42 2 170.15 63.76 3 183.79 72.12 4 197.43 80.50 _.. 5 211.05 88.89 6 224.66 97.30 7 238.26 105.73 8 246.73 111.00 Circle Center At X = ****** Y = ****** and Radius, ****** *** 0.927 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.75 51.59 2 165.83 56.95 3 180.57 63.16 4 194 .94 70.19 5 208.89 78.03 6 222.38 86.65 7 235.35 96.01 8 247.77 106.10 9 253.15 111.00 Circle Center At X = 63.8 ; Y = 319.9 and Radius, 282.1 *** 0.939 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 145.00 48.00 2 160.36 52.50 3 175.37 58.02 4 189.98 64.56 c:\sted\mcile.00T Page 4 5 204.11 72.06 6 217.69 80.51 7 230.68 89.86 8 243.00 100.07 9 254.50 111.00 Circle Center At X = 86.4 ; Y = 276.5 and Radius, 235.8 *** 0.945 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.75 51.59 2 166.01 56.41 3 180.91 62.25 4 195.37 69.08 -- 5 209.35 76.87 6 222.76 85.60 7 235.55 95.21 8 247.67 105.66 9 253.07 111.00 Circle Center At X = 87.3 ; Y = 279.3 and Radius, 236.4 *** 0.946 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 162.25 60.21 2 176.03 68.35 3 189.79 76.50 4 203.55 84.66 5 217.30 92.84 6 231.05 101.04 7 244.78 109.25 8 247.69 111.00 Circle Center At XY = ****** and Radius, ****** *** 0.966 *** I CD _. N CD • O F N \ to \ ov N LL f+ cr) V co CO _ ' i1 N O F4 Z Q o Q � O a a 'w It d ° co o - � w X � m C) U p ca p o c0 o r ° Q � I C) - - o N m W N cn ',:,; O N O N z L U 00 Cd N 0 d CL Q V O q In � 7 O m �. 00 �'. p te) O 1 CD �\ V moo \ 11 L Z ^ �nA ,t�' C d Q m - -.-- — — v ----- — LL m ait m r cc O Q '' Z00000 N v V V U ' V) - m � � I o a�-p-�00000 �, �-_ Q o N V II- I �Q�N�MMM y O i O CL O O ^ r V U I' •N �� 0 00 L 2 nLon00000 LL r o c `n U- �O 0 0 0 0 0 'cc t0 ouiuiuiLO' - p co c �� 00000 �O 0 r N M V'Lf) E- .______ •O N C U -... O LLI �-LL �CnWO(O U O CO MM(O W co(D O 0(O(O(O(O(O LL -- --- -- --- i __. U N.0 O'O N r- Of=•- 0 0 Co N coo 1 Cl CNI LU N c: As��.. ,�._-4�.OUT Page *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices (Based on STABLE-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/12/01 Time of Run: 8:58AM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:mci4a. Output Filename: C:mci4a.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:mci4a.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 1066&1070 X-Section A-A' After Construct Static F.S. BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 26 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 35.00 116.00 39.00 1 2 116.00 39.00 125.00 40.00 1 3 125.00 40.00 141.00 45.00 1 4 141.00 45.00 145.00 48.00 1 5 145.00 48.00 148.00 50.00 1 6 148.00 50.00 148.10 56.00 2 7 148.10 56.00 202.00 95.00 2 8 202.00 95.00 205.00 105.00 3 9 205.00 105.00 210.00 111.00 3 10 210.00 111.00 236.00 111.00 3 11 236.00 111.00 310.00 111.00 3 12 148.00 50.00 153.00 53.00 4 13 153.00 53.00 156.00 55.00 4 14 156.00 55.00 168.00 65.00 5 - 15 168.00 65.00 182.00 75.00 5 16 182.00 75.00 191.00 85.00 5 17 191.00 85.00 202.00 95.00 5 18 156.00 55.00 170.00 55.00 4 19 170.00 55.00 188.00 63.00 3 20 188.00 63.00 196.00 73.00 3 21 196.00 73.00 200.00 84.00 3 22 200.00 84.00 202.00 95.00 3 23 153.00 53.00 166.00 53.00 4 24 166.00 53.00 170.00 55.00 4 25 170.00 55.00 310.00 55.00 4 26 145.00 48.00 310.00 48.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 5 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. 1 115.0 120.0 550.0 21.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 135.0 135.0 0.0 40.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 110.0 115.0 100.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 0 4 110.0 115.0 0.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 5 110.0 115.0 0.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 202.90 98.00 40000.0 8.0 20.00 40.0 2 206.67 107.00 40000.0 8.0 20.00 40.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. c:\sted\mci4a.0 Page 2 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random -- Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 200 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 148.10(ft) and X = 148.10(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 246.00(ft) and X = 310.00 (ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) 14.00 (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 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.14 61.09 3 173.99 66.66 4 186.62 72.70 5 199.02 79.20 6 211.17 86.16 7 223.05 93.56 8 234.65 101.39 9 245.95 109.65 10 247.66 111.00 Circle Center At X = 17.7 ; Y = 409.6 and Radius, 376.9 *** 1.546 *** Individual data on the 19 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 13.0 3827.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 4.5 3046.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 2.3 1871.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 6.0 5556.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 8.0 9082.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 4.6 5923.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 4.4 5912.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 7.1 10167.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0.9 1418.1 0.0 0.0 19.7 -17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 1.0 1495.4 0.0 0.0 29.7 -26.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 2.0 3076.2 0.0 0.0 97.0 -75.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 3.0 6016.8 0.0 0.0 271.7 -161.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 5.0 13168.2 0.0 0.0 919.8 -277.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 14 1.2 3227.8 0.0 0.0 298.1 -26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 11.9 27637.0 0.0 0.0 3822.4 1052.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 11.6 17258.3 0.0 0.0 2426.9 2172.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 1.3 1352.8 0.0 0.0 197.4 238.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 10.0 5455.4 0.0 0.0 999.0 1563.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 1.7 126.2 0.0 0.0 130.9 233.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.95 58.03 3 175.56 61.31 4 188.82 65.80 5 201.62 71.48 6 213.85 78.30 7 225.41 86.19 8 236.21 95.10 9 246.15 104.95 Page 3 10 251.24 111.00 -- Circle Center At X = 133.0 ; Y = 208.6 and Radius, 132.4 *** 1.556 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 162.07 56.87 3 175.85 59.35 4 189.25 63.41 5 202.09 69.00 6 214.19 76.03 7 225.40 84.42 8 235.57 94.04 9 244.55 104.78 10 248.63 111.00 Circle Center At X = 147.8 ; Y = 176.0 and Radius, 120.0 *** 1.562 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.32 60.60 3 174.34 65.75 4 187.14 71.43 5 199.69 77.63 6 211.97 84.35 7 223.97 91.57 8 235.65 99.28 9 247.01 107.47 10 251.51 111.00 Circle Center At X = 44.3 ; Y = 375.8 and Radius, 336.2 *** 1.575 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.14 61.09 3 174.02 66.59 4 186.71 72.49 5 199.21 78.80 6 211.50 85.50 7 223.58 92.58 8 235.42 100.05 9 247.02 107.89 10 251.33 111.00 Circle Center At X = -4.5 ; Y = 466.7 and Radius, 438.1 *** 1.602 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 -- 2 161.36 60.50 3 174.42 65.53 4 187.27 71.09 5 199.89 77.15 6 212.25 83.72 7 224.34 90.78 8 236.14 98.33 9 247.62 106.34 10 253.76 111.00 Circle Center At X = 43.7 ; Y = 385.5 and Radius, 345.6 *** 1.605 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) c:\sted\mci4a.ObT Page 4 1 148.10 56.00 2 162.07 56.95 3 175.85 59.40 4 189.29 63.33 5 202.22 68.69 6 214.50 75.42 7 225.98 83.44 8 236.52 92.65 9 246.00 102.95 10 251.94 111.00 Circle Center At X = 146.5 ; Y = 184.5 and Radius, 128.5 *** 1.605 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.57 59.80 3 174.84 64.27 4 187.87 69.39 5 200.63 75.15 6 213.09 81.54 7 225.21 88.54 8 236.98 96.13 9 248.35 104.30 10 256.75 111.00 Circle Center At X = 78.9 ; Y = 327.6 and Radius, 280.3 *** 1.626 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 160.92 61.62 3 173.62 67.53 4 186.17 73.72 5 198.59 80.18 6 210.86 86.93 7 222.97 93.94 8 234.93 101.23 9 246.72 108.78 10 250.01 111.00 Circle Center At X = -95.0 ; Y = 628.4 and Radius, 621.9 *** 1.629 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 162.10 55.86 3 176.00 57.55 4 189.55 61.05 5 202.53 66.29 6 214.72 73.19 7 225.89 81.62 8 235.87 91.44 9 244.47 102.49 10 249.46 111.00 Circle Center At X = 156.3 ; Y = 161.8 and Radius, 106.1 *** 1.664 *** O N co • O \\ N cc OD CD o 0 Z 4 a � a ~ J 1 d a m V = U 0 N �+ W r N U x O t- o O T co 0 co co r O _ et - -- O 0 Cp Cl O N 000 O W N 0 --- N O - O - N r w SO N c� Q fl N O cc CL CL 00 O M � AA O � �,�\� T" o C)Lo • I moot �,aA in 11 Z �OV°ao �� �. 1\ C Gt tct O N �+ W �- - CO U. m o .`` st d m ar- � z CN h Q mN =Z 0 0 0 0 0 �� 0 a L , C vi cow O O o- p�00000 - - --- - - W V,c+)chM LL v A 8 y000OO V X o� n�o0oo L c � � ��c00000 06 Co O N O i cn 00000 Oiuilri000' v H j n;: ~ O U C-6S @ O __. fO� Ow N C'D i W I-LL U)C4 V Lo lO Co I-I-fl-O N... aL L)-0 Nr- co i coo CD co °v o �ui N H c:Asted\n:ci4t_ .Cr-T Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Version 1.0, January 1996; Version 1.15, April 2000 ** --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Modified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices (Based on STABL6-1986, by Purdue University) Run Date: 10/12/01 Time of Run: 8:59AM Run By: JWN Input Data Filename: C:mci4b. Output Filename: C:mci4b.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:mci4b.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 1066&1070 X-Section A-A' After Construct Pseudo Static F.S. BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 26 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 35.00 116.00 39.00 1 2 116.00 39.00 125.00 40.00 1 3 125.00 40.00 141.00 45.00 1 4 141.00 45.00 145.00 48.00 1 5 145.00 48.00 148.00 50.00 1 6 148.00 50.00 148.10 56.00 2 7 148.10 56.00 202.00 95.00 2 8 202.00 95.00 205.00 105.00 3 9 205.00 105.00 210.00 111.00 3 10 210.00 111.00 236.00 111.00 3 11 236.00 111.00 310.00 111.00 3 12 148.00 50.00 153.00 53.00 4 13 153.00 53.00 156.00 55.00 4 14 156.00 55.00 168.00 65.00 5 15 168.00 65.00 182.00 75.00 5 16 182.00 75.00 191.00 85.00 5 17 191.00 85.00 202.00 95.00 5 18 156.00 55.00 170.00 55.00 4 19 170.00 55.00 188.00 63.00 3 20 188.00 63.00 196.00 73.00 3 21 196.00 73.00 200.00 84.00 3 22 200.00 84 .00 202.00 95.00 3 23 153.00 53.00 166.00 53.00 4 24 166.00 53.00 170.00 55.00 4 25 170.00 55.00 310.00 55.00 4 26 145.00 48.00 310.00 48.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 5 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. 1 115.0 120.0 550.0 21.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 135.0 135.0 0.0 40.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 110.0 115.0 100.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 0 4 110.0 115.0 0.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 5 110.0 115.0 0.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0(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) c:\sted\mci4b.O�T Page 2 1 202.90 98.00 40000.0 8.0 20.00 40.0 2 206.67 107.00 40000.0 8.0 20.00 40.0 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. 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 200 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 148.10(ft) and X = 148.10(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 246.00(ft) and X = 310.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) 14.00 (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 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.14 61.09 3 173.99 66.66 4 186.62 72.70 5 199.02 79.20 6 211.17 86.16 7 223.05 93.56 8 234.65 101.39 9 245.95 109.65 10 247.66 111.00 Circle Center At X = 17.7 ; Y = 409.6 and Radius, 376.9 *** 1.121 *** -- Individual data on the 19 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 13.0 3827.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 574.1 0.0 0.0 . 2 4 .5 3046.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 456.9 0.0 0.0 3 2.3 1871.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 280.8 0.0 0.0 4 6.0 5558.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 833.7 0.0 0.0 5 8.0 9082.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1362.3 0.0 0.0 6 4.6 5923.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 888.5 0.0 0.0 7 4.4 5912.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 886.8 0.0 0.0 8 7.1 10167.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1525.1 0.0 0.0 9 0.9 1418.1 0.0 0.0 19.7 -17.5 212.7 0.0 0.0 10 1.0 1495.4 0.0 0.0 29.7 -26.3 224.3 0.0 0.0 11 2.0 3076.2 0.0 0.0 97.0 -75.3 461.4 0.0 0.0 12 3.0 6016.8 0.0 0.0 271.7 -161.0 902.5 0.0 0.0 13 5.0 13168.2 0.0 0.0 919.8 -277.9 1975.2 0.0 0.0 14 1.2 3227.8 0.0 0.0 298.1 -26.7 484.2 0.0 0.0 15 11.9 27637.0 0.0 0.0 3822.4 1052.5 4145.6 0.0 0.0 16 11.6 17258.3 0.0 0.0 2426.9 2172.0 2588.7 0.0 0.0 17 1.3 1352.8 0.0 0.0 197.4 238.3 202.9 0.0 0.0 18 10.0 5455.4 0.0 0.0 999.0 1563.7 818.3 0.0 0.0 19 1.7 126.2 0.0 0.0 130.9 233.1 18.9 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.32 60.60 3 174.34 65.75 4 187.14 71.43 c:\sted\mci4b.00T Page 3 5 199.69 77.63 -- 6 211.97 84 .35 7 223.97 91.57 8 235.65 99.28 9 247.01 107.47 10 251.51 111.00 Circle Center At X = 44.3 ; Y = 375.8 and Radius, 336.2 *** 1.139 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.95 58.03 3 175.56 61.31 4 188.82 65.80 5 201.62 71.48 6 213.85 78.30 7 225.41 86.19 8 236.21 95.10 9 246.15 104.95 10 251.24 111.00 Circle Center At X = 133.0 ; Y = 208.6 and Radius, 153.4 *** 1.147 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.14 61.09 3 174.02 66.59 4 186.71 72.49 5 199.21 78.80 6 211.50 85.50 7 223.58 92.58 8 235.42 100.05 9 247.02 107.89 10 251.33 111.00 Circle Center At X = -4.5 ; Y = 466.7 and Radius, 438.1 *** 1.154 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.36 60.50 3 174.42 65.53 4 187.27 71.09 5 199.89 77.15 6 212.25 83.72 7 224.34 90.78 8 236.14 98.33 9 247.62 106.34 10 253.76 111.00 Circle Center At X = 43.7 ; Y = 385.5 and Radius, 345.6 *** 1.156 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 162.07 56.87 3 175.85 59.35 4 189.25 63.41 5 202.09 69.00 6 214.19 76.03 7 225.40 84.42 8 235.57 94.04 9 244 .55 104.78 10 248.63 111.00 c:\sted\mci4b.O�fT Page 4 Circle Center At X = 147.8 ; Y = 176.0 and Radius, 120.0 *** 1.166 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.57 59.80 3 174.84 64.27 4 187.87 69.39 5 200.63 75.15 6 213.09 81.54 7 225.21 88.54 8 236.98 96.13 9 248.35 104.30 10 256.75 111.00 Circle Center At X = 78.9 ; Y = 327.6 and Radius, 280.3 *** 1.170 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 160.92 61.62 3 173.62 67.53 4 186.17 73.72 5 198.59 80.18 6 210.86 86.93 7 222.97 93.94 8 234.93 101.23 9 246.72 108.78 10 250.01 111.00 Circle Center At X = -95.0 ; Y = 628.4 and Radius, 621.9 *** 1.170 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 162.07 56.95 3 175.85 59.40 4 189.29 63.33 5 202.22 68.69 6 214.50 75.42 7 225.98 83.44 8 236.52 92.65 9 246.00 102.95 10 251.94 111.00 Circle Center At X = 146.5 ; Y = 184.5 and Radius, 128.5 *** 1.190 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 56.00 2 161.09 61.21 3 173.96 66.73 4 186.70 72.54 5 199.30 78.65 6 211.75 85.04 7 224.05 91.73 8 236.19 98.70 9 248.17 105.95 10 256.10 111.00 Circle Center At X = -68.4 ; Y = 614.6 and Radius, 599.1 *** 1.202 *** APPENDIX C U fLI LLa A)C' BORING DIAMETER: Drilling company puTH(c457 t V Blow Dry Moisture Soil Class.S) Boring No. (S C S % t SOIL DESCRIPTION Q Counts Density Content( ) (U.S.C. S)(ft) Elevation '5RjJ SIt.7 j SA.-jOi �)27 TO S06H7Ly yv(o,S?' 5 �? -$211 SLr6fFTLj SrLTy , 1-in1E To tA4" S,a,.,p� Scr614R� �t 7_0 W0157- �EnJS� (As 10 50415p ©R6. I3et, S6t6HT'L� S(LT1 I rv,E Tb AF-0 floc 5t M. �E•vs E Td �F••�s� _ s•5 SIc7- ME0. 94,JC)/ mot5r, 25 30 LOG OF BORING Plate No. SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIOP 927 Arguello Street,Redwood City,CA 94063 Drilling company 5o�r-/ L L SST �C BORING DIAMETER:�(��j DATE Blow Dry Moisture Moisture Soil Class. l7 / )epth(ft) Counts Density Content(%) (U.S.C.S) Boring No./ conVd SOIL DESCRIPTION f c Elevation 30 i I I 35 i 40 I 45 50 55 @ Cv 3 EocF.,n1E e Ikk A-rk o,-\ 60 LOG OF BORING Plate No./ SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIOP 927 Arguello Street,Redwood City,CA 94063 DRILLING COMPANY: F.� RIG: DATE: BORING DIAMETER: 4 l� b�- DRIVE WEIGHT: DFAOP: U Depth Bag Drive Blows Dry Moist. Visual Soil TEST BORING NO. ELEVATION:/13' U (feet) Sample Sample per Density Content Log Gass toot (pcf) c%) (uSCS) SOIL DESCRIPTION ° sR J Depth Bag Drive Bows Dry moist- visual Soil TEST BORING NO. ELEVATION: (feet) Sample Sample per Density Content Log Gass toot (pcf) (%) (USCS) SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 TEST BORING LOG Project No. Name Figure NO. 2000 II � I II �, I , I I i I I i i II 1500 I I I I II i � I a_ it � 1000 i w Cn I I i I I � 500 II I , I I I II I I I I I I 1 0 1000 1500 2000 p 500 NORMAL STRESS(PSF) Boring Depth Shear Cohesion Friction Angle Soil Type Description Symbol Number (ft) Strength (psf) (deg) Silty SAND B-1 5.0 Peak 80 32 SM DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS • 1066-1070 Neptune Avenue ,� ®8z o®re Leucadia, California PROJECT NO. DATE FIGUR j E 200766001 9101 B"1 os @5 xts 5000 4000 a_ 3000 N W H N W 2000 2 N 1000 i i 0 p 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 NORMAL STRESS(PSF) Boring Depth Shear Cohesion Friction Angle ESoil ype Description Symbol Number (ft) Strength (psf) (deg) Silty SAND • B-1 20.0 Peak 160 34 M DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS //y o Dore 1066-1070 Neptune Avenue y Leucadia, California PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 200766001 9101 B'2 DS @20■Is RESULTS WEIGHTS T � < o cn CD cn 0 o _� cn m 0 c _. CD o �, -� ° CD Z °' n m D m C ll nm m N. C ° CD CD i ? 3(n CD o y � Cn � "� CD CD 'a CD m CCD c ,�' m .�' ° o o Z o 0 0 m m o � o o m � CD o o -n o m 0 o cn 0 — o 0 O m m m CD — Cn cn cn + ° —4 Fv CD CO OD N cn cn fD _. OD O CD -+ .p O A O C CA W W N CJ1 W W CD PO Ln O A N N A ? O O W W p cn cn W o p O CT CT O O I C- m n Z O N p O � O 'A m °O C X m m __. c z CD m D I C) a