The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-1565 G l Ci o NGINEERING SER VICES D EPARIIIENI Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Sand Replenishment/Sto l rmwater Operation s e Subdivision Engineering February 20, 2007 Traffic Engineering Attn: Union Bank of California 200 D Street Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Tony Finn and Laura Hutchins APN 256-371-09 Grading Permit 1565-GI Final release of security Permit 1565-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements and control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has Haled°sled project, therefore, a full release of the remaining security deposit is merited. the The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled b y the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 0219105574 in the amount of$28,875,00. p or. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions o r concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or i Department. n was ting, attention the Engineering Sincerely, Debra Geisha Engineering Technician J e ach Subdivision Engineering ance Manager Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Tony Finn and Laura Hutchins Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 AU recycled paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT f:YZL'ZY1ltl� Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Sand Replenishment/Stormw ter Operations Compliance Subdivision Engineering February 10, 2005 Traffic Engineering Attn: Union Bank of California 200 D Street Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Tony Finn and Laura Hutchins APN 256-371-09 Grading Permit 1565-GI Partial release of security Pernut 1565-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has a roved Rough Grade therefore, a partial release of the security deposit is merited. pp The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Fina Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. ncial Account# 0219105566 in the amount of$86,625.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the s Engineering or co c s, please Department. SIM ly, Q Debra Geishart Engineering Technician Ja)Le ach Subdivision Engineering fq'nance Manager Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Tony Finn and Laura Hutchins Debra Geishart File ch recycled gape' ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP .�,� GFO�ECHNICA:Hl��i SrAN61�JRALA ARCH�IEC,HRA�CCNSL'I IAViS F-0A RESIDENLIA�S COMMERCIAL CONSi RUC iiC 2121 Mon tiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839.7302 • Fax: (760) 46U-7477• Email: ENGDGQa aol.com + HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS S STUDY -- FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Q�OFESS/O�ql � C4; 2 rT 1 unqlF OF CA�1�� Dated: August 14, 2003 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN PROJECT NAME: FINN RESIDENCE CDP#: _ GRADING PLAN NUMBER: DATE:August 14, 2003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION New Single Family Residence to be located on 104 Neptune Ave. in the City of Encinitas, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION The work proposed will consist of the development of the presently developed lot located 104 Ave. Total lot area is acres 0.18 acres. Presently the lot sheet flows from the building ad d street. Once at the street, runoff flows along curb and gutters along Sylvia St. The work Neptune includes the demolition of the existing residence at 104 Neptune Avenue. The residence own to the proposed footprint at 102 Neptune are to remain as-is. The proposed improvements consist of the development a new single family residence with a basement and attached garage at 104 Neptune Avenue. existing surface runoff will be conveyed via sheet flow, and private pvc storm drains to vegetated s s, and of subgrade detention dry wells for dissipation. enue. The wales, and PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT Watershed less than 0.5 Square Mile therefore use the Rational Method per the Count y of San Diego Hydrology Manual Offsite Tributary Area = 0 acres Onsite Tributary Area: Pervious Surface C= 0.40 A = 0.27 acres Iwo = 3.75 in/hr from County Intensity-Duration Design Chart, attached Q = CIA = (0.40)(3.75)(0.27 acres) = 0.41 cfs Impervious Surf ` C= 1.0 A = 0.11 acres I100 = 3.75 in/hr from County Intensity-Duration Design Chart, attached Q = CIA = (1.0)(3.75)(0.11 acres) = 0.41 cfs Q PRIORTO DEVELOPMENT = 0.41 + 0.41 = 0.82 CFS Page H1 PROJECT NAME: FINN RESIDENCE CDP#: GRADING PLAN NUMBER: DATE:August 14, 2003 Offsite Tributary Area: None POST DEVELOPMENT Onsite Tributary Area: Pervious Surface Negligible, includes planter areas Impervious Surface C= 1.0 A = 0.38 acres _ lloo = 3.75 in/hr from County Intensity-Duration Design Chart, attached Q = CIA = (1.0)(3.75)(0.38 acres) = 1.43 cfs Additional Q,00 due to development : 1.43 - 0.82 = 0.61 CFS POST DEVELOPMENT Offsite runoff will be captured by a localized area drain system throughout and side yards. Runoff will flow from area drains in 6" dia. the proposed redeveloped rear catch basins. Catch basins will outlet onto vegetated grass swales. Swales shall flow at a 0.5-1%rench, beneath t maximum slope tightlined to a subterranean c pipes at a minimum of 1% to new 18"x18" detention. he driveway for primary infiltration and —. As part of project development the proposed design includes areas of onsite bio-filtration. T are provided at the outlet of pvc private storm drain lines at landscaped areas, on either side of the Proposed driveway. These specific landscaped areas will include a combination of drought These areas and low lying ground covers and/or grasses along a vegetated swale. Where ground cov ers include grasses, grasses shall not be mowed close to the ground and maintain a minimum of o 6 tolerant palms vegetation, so as not to impede the filtering function of the swale. 4 to 6 inches of -- The proposed swale will direct runoff to a infiltration and temporary detention trench beneath driveway. Runoff will flow via a solid 4 inch pvc line with vertical tees, angled perpendicular horizontal tightline. Drop down tees will allow flow into a gravel trench, wrapped the for dissipation into adjacent soils. to the Aped in filter fabricenvelope, As a backup overflow, a tightline will be provided to the existing curb & gutter improvements Neptune Avenue and Sylvia Street will be added to the top of the gravel trench. Grass buff detailed along the front of the driveway and walkways to provide biofiltration of surface runoff the driveway. buffer strips will s off from across See the attached calculations for hydraulic pipe and swale sizing and hydrology analysis. PVC private storm drains were conservatively sized to handle over 50% of the total onsite runoff. Y Page H2 HYDROLOGY 0.4 -p [ 04- i - b , i °J � 3 V Z7 j �LO L CJ = O i tp rtJ ') +� > 3 E b C c ^ y 0 .1.3 Qj O p o > Cn 4-J L C O L C7 M _O > CJ 4- O•� (1)t� f (a p Cn C O O C� L L- -r- .a- N CJ 2 - O 4-J 4M) C 4-4- O C Q' S_ T lO N.� tY A wu= 4j CJ r-- rp C CS C •� �•� L w y O O C Q + N O Ca 4-0 4J V O O i O ''' .r. ''' C O It tm C>t C �C •r r k-•C• K CJ Qj Q 47 N Qj C., U S_ U V O CJ•r C �- E V � L L'7 i r_2 4-J i S_ :3 r +'Ca � Q N Q L O C .r- p E Cu .r It Q 4• f0_ b v to r.c L .iC V r CJ i-3 !a tL N k (`I E C b to a• •- C ., . v0! to •'� U M Z •O E C N Cj =•— +� N p ++ irk 4J r-r' •� V 4J, O C N 'r7 rp CJ } f N N tLN1-� D C++ +.a ;pi GL O Q It itU U 3 - •�- ^ ^ to 0- IQ d-S H C:j CL C111 mr t1) ¢ p^ - M � c� 6-Hour Precipitation (inches) I a to°, to .�D Cl Cv y, try S r+ Nr C7 4-A C tp . i •.-/ ff-+--- •`-r I I 111 r•l C) Cd -7 -tom ► I - , T .}'�I • ; •'; 1 1 I • ' .rC.. . � ' I —•I• I -� � I � I I I 1 - •�'. .d i f I f I �-i 1.,,' p K d .o ,� N � o. !• I I : ::Ili;: ;It I I I I � e ATTI"1T TV '~ ^• LJjv Ln NN cm S _ LM l :h , 4= lqr Cm CN cm LW ca LLJ f C=j CD �J G ra cv C7 W z !+ < W Ic > f z H Lxj < o ° < z U � o (z- co o �. �y O 4 F' z O U. LLJ —�- u C Vf O U J W _1 fr1 z V D C N F•� W z � H N J < U4 a us '-f ni I _ C4 Ott / M•� n •/ �/� 1- 1 CD co Lij CD j 6rJ � ��,3•� � M ��.� \,cam' vv 6 CD CLCA C114 CN CID uj CN _ sp cz a O ` 4, z O m 04 j 2 N V Z — O z K > u cl < �' X o p � } ►-4 I- UWO c) I A p y oo = - Q N •y M - - •.... - Y W < w Z LL J L H 110 Cl -v p O O a � u M ly Z F+ M OM W p Q < O v vi ou cc c, j < wJ >. Q J p U- O y M w u I w a TT-A-7 T ft Sin /� kr t �0hrt'�i' '0:38 mi FINN- Pt�ot I.E 3-1) TopoQua(lt Cohn right O 1999 Del_ornle Yarmouth, NIE 04096 Datum: NY'(;S84 FINN, PLA-rJ Al ipa eucaaa Par F Is Is if par Is i ii ,� +, 7 1`3= -_'-y I m}y •'yam ■+• r + • f_ '■ f 1y 4�•j I t.■l + w ■ ■ {� s It r t , S h n ■ * _ f r� 5 4 , : ... i� �� .i • ■ mist 16; It Is 1� C01�rnty Park • f' py-y _' = k Y� s t1► 1 •■. � { t xJF�i T i f. ' '� •I. `'• iQt Aim ,. ti • w n N 1\ 1- -- -r--`—� �: tl 1.. y r -. 5 C^ 7: _ • _ � � 4 � •;;a ``ter; i °°!f1i e Beac srh yfi_ -5 f. s � •c - _____ •fig- �. N��°2-5' t 3 U fnpu!hinrlc( u1i�ri ht 1999 Ih'Lnrnu'l;u'nimiih,lIF iUll9(� �;nurr,•U.ila I 'S 12,800__ -- 500 fl Scalc: i:12,800 Delat: 13-0 Dahnn:M;S84 HYDRAULICS STROM DRAIN PIPE SIZING Vegetated Swale -- Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:lhaestadlfmwlfinn.fm2 Worksheet VEGETATED SWALE _. Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data — Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Bottom Width 0.50 ft Discharge 145 cfs Results Depth 0.43 ft Flow Area 0.76 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 3.20 ft Top Width 3.07 ft Critical Depth 0.36 ft Critical Slope 0.023313 ft/ft Velocity 1.90 ft/s Velocity Head 0.06 ft Specific Energy 0.48 ft Froude Number 0.67 Flow is subcritical. 08/14/03 08 02 58 AM Haestad Methods Inc 37 Eiookside Road Waterbur FbvvMaster v5 15 y CT 06708 1203)755-1666 Page I cf 1 Vegetated Swale -- Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel — Project Description Project File c:\haestad\fmw\finn.fm2 Worksheet VEGETATED SWALE Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Bottom Width 0.50 ft Discharge 145 cfs Results Depth 0.43 ft Flow Area 0.76 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 3.20 ft Top Width 3.07 ft Critical Depth 0.36 ft Critical Slope 0.023313 ft/ft Velocity 1.90 ft/s w_ Velocity Head 0.06 ft Specific Energy 0.48 ft Froude Number 0.67 Flow is subcritical. 08/14/03 08 02 58 AM Haestad Methods. Inc 37 Brookside Road Waterbury CT 06708 FlowMaster v5 15 Y 203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Vegetated Swale Table (Channel Slope v Discharge) Rating Table for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:lhaestadlfmwlfinn.fm2 Worksheet VEGETATED SWALE Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Constant Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Left Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Bottom Width 0.50 ft Input Data Minimum Maximum Increment Channel Slope 0.005000 0.020000 0.005000 ft/ft Discharge 0.60 1.45 0.20 cfs Rating Table Channel Discharge Slope Depth Velocity cfs) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft/s) 0.60 0.005000 0.34 1.17 0.60 0.010000 0.29 1.52 _ 0.60 0.015000 0.26 1.76 0.60 0.020000 0.25 1.96 0.80 0.005000 0.38 1.26 0.80 0.010000 0.33 1.63 0.80 0.015000 0.30 1.90 0.80 0.020000 0.28 2.12 1.00 0.005000 0.42 1.34 1.00 0.010000 0.36 1.73 1.00 0.015000 0.33 2.01 1.00 0.020000 0.31 2.24 1.20 0.005000 0.46 1.40 1.20 0.010000 0.39 1.81 1.20 0.015000 0.36 2.11 1.20 0.020000 0.34 2.35 1.40 0.005000 0.49 1.46 1.40 0.010000 0.42 1.88 1.40 0.015000 0.39 2.19 1.40 0.020000 0.36 2.44 08/14/03 08 04 34 AM Haeslad Methods. Inc FlowMaster v5 15 37 Brookside Road Waterbury. CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Vegetated Swale Table (Channel Slope v Discharge) Rating Table for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:lhaestadlfmwlfinn.fm2 Worksheet VEGETATED SWALE Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel De th Constant Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Left Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Bottom Width 0.50 ft Input Data Minimum Maximum Increment Channel Slope 0.005000 0.020000 Dischar a 0.005000 Tuft 0.60 1.45 0.20 cfs Ratin, Table Channel Discharge Slope Depth Velocity - cfs ( Vft) (ft) (fus) 0.60 0.005000 0.34 1.17 0.60 0.010000 0.29 1.52 0.60 0.015000 0.26 1.76 0.60 0.020000 0.25 1.96 0.80 0.005000 0.38 1.26 - 0.80 0.010000 0.33 1.63 0.80 0.015000 0.30 1.90 0.80 0.020000 0.28 1. 0.005000 212 00 - 0.42 1.34 1.00 0.010000 0.36 1.73 1.00 0.015000 0.33 2.01 1.00 0.020000 0.31 2.24 1.20 0.005000 0.46 1.20 0.010000 1.40 0.39 1.81 1.20 0.015000 0.36 1.20 0.020000 2.11 0.34 2.35 1.40 0.005000 0.49 1.40 0.010000 1.46 0.42 1.88 1.40 0.015000 0.39 1.40 0.020000 219 0.36 2.44 08/14/03 - 08 04 34 AM Haeslad Methods. Inc 37 Brookside Road Waterbury. CT 06708 (203)755-1666 FlowMaster v5 15 Page l of i Vegetated Swale Cross Section -- Cross Section for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:lhaestadlfmwlfinn.fm2 Worksheet VEGETATED SWALE Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel De th Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Depth 0.43 ft Left Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Bottom Width 0.50 ft Discharge 145 cfs 0.43 ft 0.50 ft 1 V H 1 -- N TS 08/14/03 08 04 50 AM Haestad Methods, Inc 37 Brookside Road Waterbrrr y CT 06708 (203)755-1666 FlowMaster v5 15 Page 1 of 1 Vegetated Swale Cross Section Cross Section for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\fmw\finn.fm2 Worksheet VEGETATED SWALE Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Depth 0.43 ft Left Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 3.000000 H : V Bottom Width 0.50 ft Discharge 1.45 cfs 0.43 ft 1 0.50 ft V N H 1 NTS 08/14/03 08 04 50 AM Haestad Methods Inc ?7 Brookside Road Waterbury_CT 06708 (203) 765-1666 FlowMaster v5 15 Page 1 of I ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECNNICAL,CIVIL STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSUL TAN TS FOR RESIDENTIAL&COMM ERCLATE CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480 7477 • E-mail: ENGDG(, aol.com GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS, FOR THE PROPOSED NEW FINN RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA EDG Project Number 022903-1 Original Printing: November 20, 2002 Amended: April 19, 2003 PREPARED FOR: Tony Finn c/o Lloyd and Associates Attn: Mike Lloyd 2138 Curtis Drive Vista, CA 92084 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE . . . . . . . page SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . " " " " " 3 BLUFF DESCRIPTION 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION . . " " " " ' • . . . . . 4 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE • . • . • • . . • • • • • • • • " " " " 5 FAULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 TSUNAMI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HISTORIC RESEARCH SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • 7 COASTAL BLUFF RETREAT . . . . . . . . . . . " " " " " " ' • • • • • 7 COASTAL BLUFF-EDGE RETREAT RATES . . . . 8 SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATION 9 GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS ' ' ' ' • • • • • • • 10 BLUFF RETREAT . . . . . . . . . • • • • • * _ 11 SLOPE STABILITY EROSION • • " " " " " • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 BLUFF TOP SETBACK . " " " " " " ' • • • • • • . • . . 12 PROPOSED BUILDING CONSTRUCTION • • • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • • • • 13 SEISMIC CONSIDERATION . . . . . . . " " 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EARTHWORK . . . . . . 13 FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 RETAINING WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . MISCELLANEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ATTACHMENTS Site Vicinity Map Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . " " " Figure No. 1 Site Plan/Location of Exploratory Borings Figure No. 2 Boring Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 3 1960 Aerial Photograph " " " Figure Nos. 4 & 5 Cross Sections . . . . . . . . " " " " " " Figure No. 6 Geologic Map . . . . . . . Figure Nos. 7-8 References Figure No. 9 Grading Specifications Appendix A Laboratory Test Results " " " " " " " Appendix B Slope Stability Analysis . Appendix C Photos 1 - 6 Appendix D Appendix E SCOPE This report presents the results of our limited geotechnical investigation and geologic evaluation for the proposed new residence, which will replace the existing residence,to be demolished as part of the proposed construction at 104 Neptune Avenue, in the City of Encinitas, California. Please see Figure No. 1, Site Vicinity Map", and Figure No. 2, "Site Location Map". The purpose of our study was to evaluate the geologic and geotechnical conditions at the coastal bluff property and provide recommendations relative to the Proposed construction. The scope of our work has included the following: Review of aerial photographs, topographic maps, reports and project plans pertaining to the site and general vicinity. A list of the items reviewed is presented in Appendix A. Limited subsurface geotechnical investigation of onsite soil condition. Geologic reconnaissance to observe the existing site conditions including the coastal bluff and general vicinity. Photo documentation of conditions observed. Preparation of a generalized profile of the bluff face at the subject property, derived from a recent aerial survey of site. Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained including a computer-generated sloe e stability analysis of the coastal bluff. P Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our geotechnical evaluation. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION For the purpose of this report, the front of the residence is assumed to face east. The subject property consists of an irregular shaped lot located on the west side of Neptune Avenue at Sylvia Street, in the City of Encinitas, California. The property is bordered to the north and south by single family residences, to the west by a descending coastal bluff (approximately 60 feet high), and to the east by Neptune Avenue. The topography of the site is gently to moderately sloping, from a high point along the western property line to of bluff), to a low along Neptune Avenue. Drainage is accomplished via sheet flow runoff along the sides of the house. Currently the site is improved by a one story single family residence (hereafter referred to as the main residence)and a detached lower level garage with upper dwelling unit. improvements consists of masonry site wall flanking the north and south property�nesr terraced retaining walls at the front of the building, typical concrete walkways, a concrete patio at the south side of the residence, and a canopy covered concrete patio at the northwest corner of the site, immediately above the bluff. At the top of the bluff exists a FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA 13a-ge No.3 Job No. 022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS small +/- 12-18 inch high masonry type retaining wall (hereafter referred to as top of bluff wall) with viewing glass which delineates the yard and improved landscape (to the east from the natural bluff (to the west). Beyond the top of bluff wall to the west (on the bluff face) exists a series of small wood lagged type retaining structures, which have rotated outward slightly, and have been tied (via tension cables) back to the top of bluff masonry wall. The site walls at the north and south property lines extend to the to of bluff wall. At the connection point, the site walls are generally intact and show no obvious evidence of tension type cracking or other influences of bluff movement. Based upon conversations with the project designer and review of plans we understand the proposed site modifications will consist of the following: Demolition of the existing main residence and construction of a new building with a basement. The basement elevation of the building will lie roughly at elevation 56 foot and will require temporary retaining wall back cuts and the export of soil material. Rear portion of the building is designed with a cantilever upper deck type e p BLUFF DESCRIPTION Cross sections,a geologic map and photographs depicting the general configuration of:the bluff are provided in Figures 7 and 8 (Cross Sections); Figure 9 (Geologic Map); and Appendix E (Photos 1-6) . The following is a summary of the onsite bluff conditions. The bluff flanking the western side of the site consists of an approximately 21-foot high near-vertical sea cliff at the base of the approximately 60-foot high coastal bluff (see Appendix E, Photos 1-6). Flanking the southern side of the exposed bluff is an area of apparent fill (mapped by others as Landslide Deposits) placed for unknown reasons, and apparently prior to the development of the southern neighboring lot (pre 1960's). At the base of the fill is large rip rap. The exposed sea cliff portion of the bluff is not vegetated and generally t The protruding configuration of sandstone tributary to the site serves as ae natural reventment, protecting the bluff from concentrated erosion and undermining. Indications of sea cave development were not observed at the site. The portion of bluff overlying the sea cliff(approximately at an overall gradient of a pproximately 32 vertical feet)generally slopes pproximately 35 degrees(through Section A-A) and is vegetated with succulents. Old irrigation pipes (abandoned)and railroad tie retaining walls lie at the FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.4 Job No. 022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS upper section of the bluff, immediately beyond the property line. The uppermost 15 feet is steeper with a gradient varying from 50-60 degrees. This upper portion of the bluff is generally vegetated with ice plant. Bluff protection devices were not observed on the subject bluff and adjacent portions of the coastal bluff. The fill lying southwest of the site exhibited evidence of small surficial slides at the upper reaches of the slope. The fill is sparsely covered with dead ice plant. The fill shows no obvious evidence of significant sea wave scouring beyond the rip rap. The existence of the fill appears to pre-date 1960 aerial photographs. Others have mapped the feature as Landslide Deposits. In our opinion, the "fill' characteristics of the deposit are evidenced by the protrusion of the soil mass beyond the base of bluff, without obvious mass loss above. In general, it appears the feature consists of import fill pushed over the bluff face and buttressed with rip rap (too much soil at upper bluff to be Qls). FIELD INVESTIGATION Our field investigation of the property, conducted on September 18, 2002, consisted of a site reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation of existing conditions on site and adjacent public access lands and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Our subsurface investigation included excavation of two exploratory borings, logging of soil types encountered and sampling of soils for laboratory testing. Logs of the borings are presented in Figures No. 4 and 5 of this report. The locations of the test pits are given in Figure No. 3, "Site Plan/Location of Test Pits". SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Fill materials, placed during the original grading of the site, were encountered to an approximate depth of 30 inches below adjacent grade in our exploratory test pits. Soil types encountered within our test pits are described as follows: To soil• Topsoil materials were encountered to a depth of 24 inches below adjacent grade in our borings. Topsoil materials consist of rust brown, moist, medium dense, slightly silty sands. These materials are not considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements, but may be utilized as re- compacted fill during grading, if necessary, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Topsoil materials classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Soil Classification System,and based on visual observation,are considered to possess low to medium expansion potentials. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.5 Job No. 022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Terrace Deposits• Terrace Deposits (sandstone)were found to underlie the fill material within boring excavations. Terrace Deposits consist of rust brown, silty sand. These materials are considered suitable tforethe support structures and structural improvements pport of this report are followed. Terrace Deposits o classify as SW according din to the Unified Soil Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience, possess an expansion potential of low. Clean friable sands were encountered in boring B-1 from 9'-18' and B-2 from 10'- 20'. The clean sand layer has been modeled in our slope stability study, attached to this report as Appendix D. Torrey Sandstone Torrey Sandstone was found below Terrace Deposits within Boring 1. Torrey sandstone consists of tan, moist, very dense, sandstone. These materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Torrey Sandstone classifies as SW according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience, possess an expansion potential of low. For detailed logs of soil types encountered within our exploratory borings, as well as a depiction of the boring location, please see Figure No. 3, Site Plan/Location of Exploratory Borings", and Figures No. 4-5 , "Boring Logs". GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE The Torrey Sandstone in the vicinity of the subject property is nearly flat-lying and is locally cross-bedded. Bedding in the Quaternary terrace deposits can be observed as faint, alternating light and dark laminations. Where observed on site and in the general site vicinity,the terrace deposits appear to be horizontally bedded with localized cross bedding. No major out-of-slope dip components were noted on site that would indicate adverse slope conditions. Indications of deep-seated landslide features were not observed during our research studies or site visits. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS,CA Page No.6 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS FAULTS Our review of geologic literature (Appendix A) pertaining to the general site area indicates that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Indications of active faulting or adversely-oriented joints were not observed in the subject coastal bluff. The nearest known active faults are the Rose Canyon fault located offshore approximately 4 miles west of the site, the Coronado Bank fault located offshore approximately 18 miles west, and the Elsinore fault located approximately 21 miles northeast of the site. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 80 miles northeast of the site. TS— U Tsunami are sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic action. Submarine earthquakes are common along the edge of the Pacific Ocean and coastal areas are subject to potential inundation by tsunami. Most of the 19 tsunami recorded on the San Diego Bay tidal gauge (between 1854 to 1872 and 1906 to 1977) have only been a few tenths of a meter in height(Appendix A, Reference 1). The largest San Diego area tidal gauge excursion (1 meter) was associated with the tsunami of May 22, 1960 and was recorded at La Jolla (Scripps Y tsunami was generated by a Richter magnitude 8.5 learthq earthquake in Chile. Fence pa The the diurnal range of tides at San Diego Bay is 1.7 meters. The possibility of a destructive tsunami along the San Diego coastline is considered low (Appendix A, Reference 5). Tsunami or storm waves (associated with winter storms), even in conjunction with hi h tides, do not have the potential for inundation of the bluff-top building site. g GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER Groundwater seepage was not observed on site or in the general site vicinity during our site visits Based on our experience and observations, groundwater is estimated to lie at or near sea level at the base of the coastal bluff. Groundwater is not considered a constraint to the proposed new residence. The bluff-top surface waters shall drain drain toward Pacific Avenue. HISTORIC RESEARCH SUMMARY We have reviewed the maps and aerial photographs of the site and general vicinity listed in Appendix A. Following is a limited outline summary of our review observations, starting with the earliest documentation. g FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.7 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 1. The 1960 aerial photo series depicts the main house onsite and residence to the south. The property to the north is vacant. The property appears to have been recently developed. Bluff configuration is similar as to what exists today. The fill south of the site appears to be in place. 2. The 1975 aerial photo series depict the site is fully developed, similar to today's configuration. 3. The 1983 aerial photo series again depicts the site as fully developed, similar to today's configuration. NO obvious change from 1982-1983 winter rains. Our review indicates that the subject coastal bluff is generally similar in configuration in the 1960, 1975 and 1983 series photos. The bluff edge appears to generally coincide with the top of the bluff observed during our field studies (see Figure 9). COASTAL BLUFF RETREAT The coastline in the vicinity of the subject property is straight with slight indentations along its length (see Figure 1). The site is located on one of the headlands along the coast. Mechanisms for seacliff retreat at the site include abrasion and undercutting by marine erosion (wave action) of the hard, erosion-resistant Toney Sandstone bedrock exposed in the near-vertical seacliff. Storm surf and high tides contribute to the natural process of marine erosion. Other factors affecting the rate of retreat of a near-vertical seacliff at the toe of a coastal bluff include degree of fracturing, steepness of slope, groundwater and surface water conditions, ond t o�s, vegetation or lack of, and intensity of pedestrian and animal traffic. In response to the landward retreat of the seacliff, the overlying coastal bluff becomes undermined and also retreats landward. Mechanisms contributing to bluff retreat include failure of overhanging bedrock projections,shallow failure of oversteepened portions of the bluff-face terrace deposits, and rilling and ravelling of the terrace deposits. Portions of coastal bluffs are also exposed to precipitation,wind, in landscape, landscape maintenance, and other activities by humanserosion, variations During our studies, we did not observe indications of deep-seated instability, such as ancient or active landslides, on or in the immediate vicinity of the site, and the geologic formations that comprise the coastal bluff at the site are not known to be prone to large, deep-seated failures. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.8 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS COASTAL BLUFF-EDGE RETREAT RATES The rate and magnitude of coastal bluff retreat at a specific site are dependent on a variety Of factors, both natural and manmade. Many of these factors are ongoing historical documentation can be helpful in estimating g g processes and similarly-affected coastal bluff areas. However, there are otherefactorsraffectin s along bluff retreat that cannot be estimated from historic documentation. Such factors include coastal future human activities or possible extreme variations in regional weather patterns. Detrimental changes in factors affecting bluff-edge retreat, such as misdirected drainage, water line breaks, heavy storm surf and/or precipitation, could increase the rate of erosion. However, favorable changes in the factors affecting bluff-edge retreat could also decrease the rate of erosion. Some of these include proper maintenance of a bluff-stabilizin vegetative cover, enhanced site drainage provisions and beach sand replenishment. g Research studies along the San Diego coast and historic photograph and map review are components in providing an estimation of the rate of bluff-edge retreat. We assume that the historical retreat rate may give an indication of the future retreat rate at a However, accurate and clear photographic and map documentation for measuring retreat is not always available or are of fairly short time intervals so changes may b noticeable. y e Lee and others (Appendix A, Reference 6)performed research studies of regional historic sea cliff retreat and estimated a maximum annual bluff-edge retreat rate of 0.22 to 0.33 feet per year. Over a 75-year period (assumed to be the economic lifetime of the new construction), this equates to a conservative estimate of bluff-edge retreat of a maximum of 16.5 to 24.8 feet. This maximum is based on research studies of regional historic bluff retreat that Includes coastal bluffs with generally favorable conditions, as well as coastal bluffs that are affected by more adverse conditions (highly fractured, sea caves, groundwater seepage, human activities, etc.). The estimated values of maximum retreat are very conservative, and the actual rate of bluff retreat at the subject property is expected to be less considering the site conditions and historic bluff retreat at the site. Sea cave formation and subsequent collapse are localized factors in the bluff process. Indications of sea cave development were not observed at the subject pro ert retreat during our site visits. p y Our historic photograph review(Appendix A) indicates that the coastal bluff at the su " Property is generally similar in configuration in the 1960, and subsequent photos.bThe location of the onsite bluff edge is also generally similar on the photographs. The 1960 aerial photo series provides historical documentation the bluff has not FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.9 Job No. 022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS significantly retreated since the 1960's. It is very difficult to predict the future and the magnitude of bluff-edge retreat that may occur in one year, during one storm event or over the 75-year assumed economic lifetime of the new construction. The rate of coastal bluff retreat over a particular interval of time (day, year, decade, etc.) may vary from very little to several tenths of a foot. However, severe erosion is generally episodic in nature and is dependent on the intensity of storms and combined high tides (or man's detrimental actions). It is probable that several feet of coastal bluff retreat could occur at one time. However, it is also likely that there will be periods in the future when erosion along the coast is rather insignificant and undetectable. Erosion is a naturally-occurring process that is affected by human actions. With time, the bluff edge will retreat landward It is our opinion that the new construction, proposed to be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge, will not be endangered by coastal bluff retreat over the next 75 years. Existing improvements inside the setback zone, may in the future become undermined (within the 75 year life span) by bluff-edge retreat and may need to be removed from the site. SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS A computer-generated slope stability analysis was performed on the coastal bluff at the site. The slope stability was analyzed using Bishops simplified and 'Janbu's Modified Method' with the XSTABLE computer program. The slope stability calculations are included in Appendix D. The soil strength parameters used in our analysis are presented below. These values are based on laboratory test results, back-calculation, our past experience in this area, and our professional judgement. Our analysis work includes an assumed "worst case" cohesionless sand tense thicknesses of 10 feet along the coastal bluff face (see x-section), lying immediately atop the Torrey Sandstone. Design values formulated by Group Delta to model the sand layer, on other sites along the coast, conservatively use design values of cohesion = 0 and Phi = 32 degrees. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.10 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Slope Stability Soil Parameters Soil Type Soil No: Unit Weight Friction Cohesion Moist Angle (psf) (Pcf) (deg) Fill 1 120 36 75 Torrey 2 120 39 Sandstone 850 Terrace 3 120 39 Deposits 350 Assumed Clean 4 120 32 Sand Lense - 0 Atop Torrey Sandstone Based on our analysis, it is our opinion that the existing coastal bluff has a factor of safety greaterthan 1.5 (static conditions)and 1.1 (pseudo static conditions)against deep-seated instability (See Appendix D for specific analysis). Our modeling includes varied cross sections, circle and block type analysis, earthquake forces and assumption of unfavorable geologic conditions (i.e. sand lense existence). GEOLOGIC and GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS Bluff Retreat Based on our Geologic Evaluation and Limited Geotechnical Investigation at the site, it is our opinion that the proposed residence new residence is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. It is our opinion that the proposed new residence (and the additional loading from this relatively light bluff-top construction)will not adversely impact the existing coastal bluff. Based on our field studies, research and engineering and geologic analysis, it is our opinion the proposed construction should not be affected by the maximum anticipated coastal bluff retreat processes during its economic lifetime(assumed to be 75 years)if the addition is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge as planned and mapped herein. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.11 Job No. 022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Slope Stability and Erosion Our geotechnical evaluation of the present overall static stability on the subject property indicates that the bluff is grossly stable. In its present state, the slope has a low to moderate potential for erosional rilling and future surficial instability. We provide the following recommendations to help reduce erosion of the bluff and to reduce potential for future instability of the bluff face. 1. Irrigation of the landscape areas on the property should be curtailed, and limited to manual watering within the setback zone. The amount of manual irrigation onsite should be limited to the minimum amount required to establish vegetation and maintain plant vigor. The upper portion of the subject coastal bluff and the bluff edge are currently moderately to well vegetated. At this time, it is our opinion that modifications to the vegetation should not be considered. 2. Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical role on the future performance of the bluff, dwelling and improvements. Under no circumstances should surface water be allowed to pond or flow toward the bluff. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing structures and tightlined to the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. All surface runoff water should drain away from the structure and top of bluff with a minimum slope of 2%for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. The area drain system shall consists of non perforated smooth wall drainage pipe(PVC SDR-35 or better) with chemically welded joints, as sized and designed by the project civil engineer. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage. During fine grading of the property, subsequent building construction, adequate clearance shall be left from finish soil grade to building framing lumber as prescribed by code. It is advisable to meet with the project landscaper during this phase of the project so that proposed import topsoil may be accounted for in determining finish grade elevation against the building stemwall. During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected. Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from sources such as water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be strictly controlled or avoided. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.12 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 3. Pedestrian and animal traffic on the bluff face and bluff edge should not be allowed since pedestrian/animal traffic increases erosion. Bluff-Tot) Setback Based on our review of the project plans, the proposed new residence will be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge. It is our opinion that the proposed setback will safeguard the proposed construction from bluff-edge retreat during the economic lifetime of the addition. Proposed Building Construction The proposed site construction will involve basement cuts and export of soil , effectively reducing"driving"forces at the upper bluff. The building will incorporate a cantilever design along the west elevation. The building will utilize a mat type foundation at the basement to dissipate the increased loading from the cantilever design. In general, the proposed building construction as currently proposed will not pose an increase threat to the stability of the bluff. Seismic Considerations Ground shaking would be the primary seismic hazard at the site. The possibility of ground rupture is considered minimal since no active faults are known to cross the site. The potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced ground settlement is very low. In general, the role seismic shaking plays in bluff retreat is dependent on bluff conditions at the moment of shaking. It is possible that some of the bedrock projections may fail as the result of severe ground shaking at the site. However, it is our opinion that the potential for deep-seated or severe, catastrophic failure of the coastal bluff property due to expected seismic ground shaking is low at the site. This conclusion is supported static slope stability of the bluff which indicates a factor of safety n excess of 1.1 rPseudo GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS Eart hwork It is our understanding earthwork will be limited to excavation of the basement and front driveway area and general fine grading for drainage. Our investigation indicates excavations will remove all overlying fill materials, exposing Terrace Deposits. Our recommendation is for minimal excavation beyond the basement footprint, limited to that FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.13 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS required to ensure safety (per OSHA requirements) and allow for installation of waterproofing. Utilizing a standard 4' vertical cut and 1:1 sloped backcut will result in excavations of approximately 9'beyond the basement footprint. Portions of the excavation at the north and south property lines will require shoring to avoid over steepened cuts or offsite excavation. Any grading should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, pertinent county/city standards, and grading specifications provided in Appendix C of this report. 1- Site Preparation: Existing structures and improvements should be removed with minimal disturbance to the onsite soil. During demolition operations, protective fencing should be placed at the rear of the property to prevent heavy equipment access within the 40'setback zone. Further, all necessary steps should be taken to direct site runoff away from the bluff Removed vegetation and debris shall be properly disposed of prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements, which extend below the undercut depths noted, are to be filled and compacted using onsite material or a non-expansive import material. All grading and site clearing should be limited to those areas defined as "acceptable" per Appendix C of this report. 2. Fills• The area of"fill" is anticipated to be limited to behind retaining walls. In general, Areas to receive fill and/or structural improvements should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction(based on ASTM D1557-91). Compacted fills should be cleaned of loose debris, oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). All fill slopes should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction to slope face and planted in order to avoid erosion and sloughage. Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. If the import of soil is planned, the soils should be non-expansive and free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing, soils should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability as fill. Foundations We anticipate that the proposed building foundation system will consists of conventional FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.14 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS shallow foundation system with retaining walls and concrete slab-on-grade floor system. In deriving foundation recommendations for this site, the subsoil conditions as well as the proposed new construction were evaluated. The following foundation recommendations assume a non-expansive subsoil condition (i.e., Expansive Index less than 50). Minimum design parameters for foundations are as follows: 1. Footings bearing in competent formational materials may be designed utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. 2. Project structural engineer should design the basement foundation for a mat type foundation. 3. Seismic Design Parameters: '. 5�srntc,�bne �act+ar 4 1311 n § §E E A0 h 1' Pq sr ibi cr r r R. 4. Bearing values may be increased by 33%when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration loadings. 5. The following parameters should be used as a minimum,for designing footing width and depth below lowest adjacent grade: Nd of doors lUlmimum 1=ao ng U1/id� *Mm tnum Po WcDepth wl art Icvy d art iYSC f E 3 � g t�iclaes 2�iMhs *Note: Actual footing depth may be deeper to achieve proper embedment into FINN RESIDENCE Page No.15 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS competent soil material if mitigative grading is not conducted. (See Foundation Note #8) 6. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two#4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be necessary. This detail should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by our office prior to construction. 7. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. 7. Forfootings adjacent to slopes, a minimum 15 feet horizontal setback in formational material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this condition can not be met it should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review. 8. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report, applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards. 9. All foundation subgrade soils shall be pre-moistened a minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete. 10. Where testing span across backfill wedges, this detail should be observed by our office prior to construction for potential upgrade. Concrete Slabs on Grade Concrete slabs on grade should use the following as the minimum design parameters: 1. Concrete slabs on grade of the garage should have a minimum thickness of 4.5 inches (5 inches at garage and driveway locations) and should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab. All concrete shall be poured per the following: • Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum • Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.16 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS • Air Content: 5 to 8 percent • Moisture retarding additive in concrete at moisture sensitive areas. • Water to cement Ratio - 0.5 maximum 2. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the earthwork section of this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor Density, ASTM D-1557. 3. A uniform layer of 4 inches of clean sand is recommended under the slab in order to more uniformly support the slab (sand equivalent <50), help distribute loads to the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capillary break. In addition, a visqueen layer (10 mil) should be placed mid-height in the sand bed to act as a vapor retarder. 4. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer. 5. All subgrade soils to receive concrete flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent over optimum moisture content to a depth of 24 inches. 6 Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete is not adequately cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. To minimize potential damage to movement sensitive flooring, we recommend the use of slip sheeting techniques (linoleum type) which allows for foundation and slab movement without transmitting this movement to the floor finishes. 7. Exterior concrete flatwork and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor subgrade soil movement,are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected concrete cracking, the following may be implemented: • Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches. • Concrete should be poured during "cool' (40 - 65 degrees) weather if possible. If concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum. • Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. FINN RESIDENCE Page No.17 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS The level of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 2%over optimum moisture to a depth of 24 inches. • Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. • Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints or sawcuts (1 inch deep) creating concrete sections no larger than 225 sf. For sidewalks, the maximum run between joints should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of length to width should generally not exceed 0.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should be cut at expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male corners), with diagonal reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards. • Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective drainage system, such that water is not trapped below the flatwork. • The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic nuisance cracking. The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete quality and performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these recommendations, and other options available in the industry, prior to the pouring of concrete. Retaining Walls Retaining walls up to 10 feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations and minimum design parameters: 1. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing criteria given in the "Foundations" section of this report. 2. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular, free-draining material will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. For sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized: Condition 2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope Active 50 65 Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values. 3. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement,they should be designed for an additional uniform soil pressure of 65 psf, at rest pressure. FINN RESIDENCE Page No.18 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 4. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf. This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures, extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length. 5. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above. 6. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when designing the wall. 7. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure, and be designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained in the 'Retaining Wall Drainage Detail", Appendix B. 8. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the "Earthwork"section of this report. Backfill shall consist of a non-expansive granular, free-draining material. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by our investigation of the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be conducted prior/during construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in order to verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein, as applicable. The project structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during the development of the proposed improvement(s). 1. Attendance of a pre-construction meeting prior to the start of work 2. Review of final approved structural plans prior to the start of work. 3. Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches. 4. Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement. 5. Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils. 6. Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.19 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations. Engineering Design Group, prior to the issuance of the certificate of completion, shall issue in writing that the above inspections have been conducted by a representative of their firm, and the design considerations of the project soils report have been met. The field Inspection protocol specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for Engineering Design Group to have exercised "due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of this building. Engineering Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting this protocol. Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48 hours notice to mobilize onsite for field observation and testing. MISCELLANEOUS It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes. Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions, and a visual observation of the soils exposed in the exploratory test pits. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed structure; however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change. Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.20 Job No. 022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL S ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated ab ve are altered. It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of th project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction details e l deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure.used to If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service le do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project. Sincerely, �� ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP QROEESS/ON �Sc�� fSTtEVEN B.\ , 2 v, Co 2590 �N Z �La. ri3 Ln Steven Norris m c _ _; ,� � California Geotechnical Engineer (GE)#2590 * * ,� GECILCOIST Q- Califomia Engineering Geologist (CEG)#2263 �ECHN ��OF CAU rAR� dr C .�-`+� 4 �-T235� SITE 1 1� IA 4 OEL.�I j1� t ESC JAS Gus I �uxE --OO wr sw.[iw" yt 8 RANCH BERNARDO CARDIFF--BY E-S aJ� v�'o SANTA y aE�yppo IA F "+°" I \o a'il Gl i EUX ataw SANTA b UN SO NA BEACH yDA FE in TOEEBVl70 + \\°i +_ RBANtS RANCHO EN GARDENS ° 11 0� + rm EYaa n„ N'C"DEL MAR '„�fELI aRMEL w�F - �OMAY* VALL Zr e SIP TORREY PINES � Ey Q �+wawme � STATE RESERVE 01" I'' z 120 1 SA° �r SORRENTO ° + EFIi NE I ° >a r' SITE VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME TONY FINN RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 102 AND 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS,CA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL•CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 022903 Phone: 76O�73an F 7`�"(so�)4M7477 1 11A�einlflle on meinlFORMSI7 I-KmuUOOtMASTER-SITE VICINITY-FIG t.wpd \ •� --�-�� Kt yr Cnn ..r� ST ST � FEB PoIWy L� ENCINITAS s1$�` y ,y Ln ctl5E SE-711A s WI BEACH f�5t� �'r9 GUID,_ER EZEE 5T COUNTY """" �1 9 U ION UNION ST _ r 1 � Na ST OP RK ST UNION. Q [ .9 PARR � �v � STO frE` \^• �Zj$ •. . I&LVISOI WY STE'S s� BE tp ,VIA LINDA SEA IDf c `'m �\ CL DE -L_E PAUL fCKf' SITE DENS \ �§< �r.pp aEAWV!n' SPORTS \1^' , �� ,YJ CT'OCEAW VIEW "+ \' ^ 't; PARK PARK S{ I ELDR .• �._. I �OLITA'D C' `\ �•ARROYO s nom,;_^ 1 '�--40-0—,-1= A� :ST 1B n �,ENCINITAS }-yurmaferr N `'�f�c�ormv Ak rw MOONLIGHT C ST FS a .:sl Td,l STATf1 Earor Q�ST BEACH W D cee � o§ nE EST o I W E I IL (g Aao 3001 ZOO 5 EFST o i I, �W F n >-1$g V. VIEWPOINT PARK �0 ST E PARK I W r 7R I- ST o E H ST $ n SITE LOCATION MAP PROJECT NAME TONY FINN RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 102 AND 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 6 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 022903 302 2121 Manu Road,San Marcos,CA 92069 2 Phone:(760)839.7 I=(760)480.7477 1WWM ile on meiMFORMSII FRRA2000VAASTER-SITE LOCATION-FIG 2.wpd u_ 1` e' 2 _ r F ,c Sc t ' 1 � N I / a t�rcr�n nn an n�av o�nan W SITE PLAN FINN RESIDENCE ENGINE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY DESIGN i�ro�m 102&104 NEPTUNE AVENUE BORING ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIArw r�I,eol Project Name Finn Residence EDG Project Number BORING LOG NO. 1 Project Address 140 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California FIGURE N0.4 Drilling Hollow Stem Auger Dates Method September 24, Total Depth 40 Drilled 2002 Type of Rig Beaver, Limited Logged BY y E. Rist Approx. Diameter of 6 inches Surface Elev. Boring Drilling R. Marshall Contractor Groundwater L Type of 140 lb., 30 inch drop evel Hammer Comments: Type of SPT, CAL Samplers Depth S Blow CAL a Counts OR Log Materials Description and Notes M SPT Geologic p Attitude I e 1- 2— 6/8/9 SPT 3— (2-3.5')Rust brown, silty sand with small rootlets 4- 5-- 12/19/27 CAL 6= (5-6.5')Rust brown to yellowish brown, very slightly silty sand 7- 8— 7/9/10 SPT 9— (8-9.5')Rust brown to black very slightly silty sand between 8-9 feet, at 9.5 feet evidence of starting to hit white to black clean 10— sands 11— 11/17/22 CAL 12-- (11-12.5')White to black clean sands 13- 14— 7/11/12 SPT 15— (14-15.5')White to black clean sands 16— ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS [Project Name Finn Residence EDG Project Number BORING LOG NO. 1 Project Address 140 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California FIGURE NO. 4 Depth S Blow CAL Materials Description and Notes a Counts OR Log Geologic m SPT Attitude p I e 17— 15/24/37 CAL 18 (17-18.5')White to black clean sands to rust brown slightly - silty sands at bottom of sample 19- 20— 12/18/21 SPT 21— (20-21.5')Rust brown slightly silty sand 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- 30— 14/14 SPT - T(3 ')Rust brown slightly silty sand 31- 32- 33- 34- 35- 37— mall cobbles in silty sand 37- 38- 39- 40— 50 FOR SPT 4" (40-40.3')Rust brown slightly silty sand ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Project Name Finn Residence EDG Project Number BORING LOG NO. 2 Project Address 140 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California FIGURE NO. 5 Drilling Hollow Stem Auger Dates September 24, Total Depth 20' Method Drilled 2002 Type of Rig Beaver, Limited Logged By E. Rist Approx. Access Surface Elev. Diameter of 6 inches Drilling R. Marshall Groundwater Boring Contractor Level Type of 140 lb., 30 inch drop Comments: Hammer Type of SPT, CAL Samplers I L Depth S Blow CAL Materials Description and Notes Geologic a Counts OR Log g rn SPT Attitude p I e 1- 2— 13/21/26 CAL - (2-3.5') Rust brown,silty sand with small rootlets 3- 4- 5— 9/13/14 SPT 6- (5-6.5') Rust brown to yellowish brown,very slightly silty sand 7- 8— 8/10/11 SPT 9- (8-9.5') Rust brown to black very slightly silty sand between 8-9 feet, at 9.5 feet evidence of starting to hit white to black clean 10— sands 11— 11/17/26 CAL 12-- (11-12.5')White to black clean sands 13- 14— 10/16/20 SPT 15— (14-15.5')White to black clean sands 16— ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Project Name f n Residence EDG Project Number BORING LOG NO. 2 Project Address Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California FIGURE NO. 5 Depth S Blow CAL Materials Description and Notes a Counts OR Log Geologic m SPT Attitude p I e 17— 12/21/28 SPT 18— White to black clean sands 19- 20- 21— @20 feet bottom of hole was caving ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS • � 4^ S PROJECT NAME TONY FINN RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 102 AND 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE L Marcos.CA 929 GEOTECHNICAL,CNI ,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 022903 Phone: 760)839.7302an Fax::(780)480.77n77 6 Wainlflle on mainWORM811 FRM12o=MASTER-FIG.wpd FROM r PHONE NO. 619 442 7859 Nov. 19 2062 12:26PM P3 1 , J{j i f^.:...y 1 ) A p 1 L •,_tY�: S ITC �-- - �tt ItiGO AtRwL PROTO - FIGu�Zt 5— ; • �� -` � � -\rte ° Ln d. X. ��. ; ipape soft . 1111 i /.F '�; � •.�„� • A 1• ✓ ENGINEERING _ DESIGN GROUp GEOTECHNICAI,CIVIL STAUCTURAI&ARCHITECTURAL CONSU TAMS FOq AESIOEYfIAL&COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Moritiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302• Fax: (760) 480-7477•www.designgroupca.com _ GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION FOR THE PROPOSED NEW FINN RESIDENCE, TONS, LOCATED AT 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, , ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA EDG Project Number 0223 Original Printing: November 20, 2002 Amended: April 19, 2003 PREPARED FOR: Tony Finn c/o Lloyd and Associates Attn: Mike Lloyd 2138 Curtis Drive Vista, CA 92084 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE Page SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . " " " " " " " " 3 BLUFF DESCRIPTION " " " " ' " 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION ' . " . . " ' . " ' . . " " " " " ' • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . 4 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 5 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 FAULTS 5 TSUNAMI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER . . . . . . . . HISTORIC RESEARCH SUMMARY 7 -- COASTAL BLUFF RETREAT " " " " " 7 COASTAL BLUFF-EDGE RETREAT RATES 8 SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATION " " " " " " " " " ' 9 GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS 10 BLUFF RETREAT . 11 SLOPE STABILITY EROSION " " " " " " 11 BLUFF TOP SETBACK " " 12 PROPOSED BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 13 SEISMIC CONSIDERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' " " " " ' " " " " " 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . EARTHWORK 13 FOUNDATIONS 13 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE . . 14 RETAINING WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . . . . . MISCELLANEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ATTACHMENTS Site Vicinity Map . . , Site Location Map . . . . Figure No. 1 Site Plan/Location of Exploratory Borings Figure No. 2 Boring Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 3 Photograph Figure Nos. 4& 5 Cross Sections ' • " " " " " " " • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . ' References Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure Nos. 7-8 Grading Specifications ' " " " " " ' " " " Figure No. 9 Laboratory ppendix A ry Test Results ' ' ' • • • • • Appendix B Slope Stability Analysis " " " " " " " " " Photos 1 - 6 Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E SCOPE This report presents the results of our limited geotechnical investigation and evaluation for the proposed new residence, which will replace the existing residence,demolished as part of the proposed construction at 104 Neptune Avenue, in the 'it be f Encinitas, California. Please see Figure No. 1 "Site Vicinity Map", and Figure No. City of Location Map". The purpose of our study was to evaluate the geologic a geotechnical"Site conditions at the coastal bluff property and provide recommendations relative te Proposed construction. The scope of our work has included the following: o the Review of aerial photographs, topographic maps, reports and project plans pertaining to the site and general vicinity. A list of the -- items reviewed is presented in Appendix A. Limited subsurface geotechnical investigation of onsite soil condition. Geologic reconnaissance to observe the existing site conditions inclu coastal bluff and general vicinity. ding the Photo documentation of conditions observed. Preparation of a generalized profile of the bluff face at the subject ro ert from a recent aerial survey of site. P P y, derived Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained including a computer-generated stability analysis of the coastal bluff. g ted slope -- ➢ Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our geotechnical evaluation. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION For the purpose of this report, the front of the residence is assumed to face subject property consists of an irregular shaped lot located on the west side of Avenue at Sylvia Street, in the City of Encinitas, California, east. The — the north and south by single family residences, to the we Neptune The property is bordered to (approximately 60 feet high), and to the east by Neptune Avenue. The topography coastal bluff site is gently to moderately sloping, from a high point along thew p graphy of the of bluff), to a low along Neptune Avenue. Drainage is accomplished v a sheet fl line (top along the sides of the house. t flow runoff _ Currently the site is improved by a one story single family residence (hereafter as the main residence)and a detached lower level garage with upper dwelling Deferred to improvements consists of masonry site wall flanking the north and south g nit' Other _ terraced retaining walls at the front of the building, property lines, patio at the south side of the residence and canopy cal concrete walkways, a concrete northwest comer of the site, immediately above the bluff. At the op of the bluff patio is the exists a FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.3 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL d ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS small +/- 12-18 inch high masonry type retaining wall (hereafter referred to as top of bluff wall) with viewing glass which delineates the yard and improved landscape (to the east from the natural bluff (to the west). Beyond the top of bluff wall to the west (on the bluff face) exists a series of small wood lagged type retaining structures, which have rotated outward slightly, and have been tied (via tension cables) back to the top of bluff mason wall. The site walls at the north and south property lines extend to the to of bluff wall. At the connection point, the site walls are generally intact and show no obvious evidence of tension type cracking or other influences of bluff movement. Based upon conversations with the project designer and review of plans we understand the proposed site modifications will consist of the following: Demolition of the existing main residence and construction of a new building with a basement. The basement elevation of the building will lie roughly at elevation 56 foot and will -- require temporary retaining wall back cuts and the export of soil material. Rear portion of the building is designed with a cantilever upper deck type yp e BLUFF DESCRIPTION Cross sections,a geologic map and photographs depicting the general configuration of,the bluff are provided in Figures 7 and 8 (Cross Sections); Figure 9 (Geologic Ma Appendix E (Photos 1-6) . The following is a summary of the onsite bluff conditions);.and The bluff flanking the western side of the site consists of an approximately 21-foot high near-vertical sea cliff at the base of the approximately 60-foot high coastal bluff (see Appendix E, Photos 1-6). Flanking the southern side of the exposed bluff is an area of apparent fill (mapped by others as Landslide Deposits) placed for unknown reasons, and -- apparently prior to the development of the southern neighboring lot base of the fill is large rip rap. g 9 (pre 1960's). At the The exposed sea cliff portion of the bluff is not vegetated and generally no t undermined. The protruding configuration of sandstone tributary to the site serves as a natural reventment, protecting the bluff from concentrated erosion and undermining. Indications of sea cave development were not observed at the site. The portion of bluff overlying the sea cliff(approximately 32 vertical feet)generally slopes at an overall gradient of approximately 35 degrees(through Section A-A) and is vegetated with succulents. Old irrigation pipes(abandoned)and railroad tie retaining walls lie at the FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.4 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL d ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS _ upper section of the bluff, immediately beyond the property line. The uppermost 15 feet is steeper with a gradient varying from 50-60 degrees. This upper portion of the bluff is generally vegetated with ice plant. Bluff protection devices were not observed on the _ subject bluff and adjacent portions of the coastal bluff. The fill lying southwest of the site exhibited evidence of small surficial slides at the upper reaches of the slope. The fill is sparsely covered with dead ice plant. The fill shows no obvious evidence of significant sea wave scouring beyond the rip rap. The existence of the fill appears to pre-date 1960 aerial photographs. Others have mapped the feature as _ Landslide Deposits. In our opinion, the "fill' characteristics of the deposit are evidenced by the protrusion of the soil mass beyond the base of bluff, without obvious mass loss above. In general, it appears the feature consists of import fill pushed over the bluff face _ and buttressed with rip rap (too much soil at upper bluff to be Qls). _ FIELD INVESTIGATION Our field investigation of the property, conducted on September 18, 2002, consisted of a site reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation of existing conditions on site and adjacent public access lands and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Our subsurface investigation included excavation of two exploratory borings, logging of soil -- types encountered and sampling of soils for laboratory testing. Logs of the borings presented in Figures No. 4 and 5 of this report. The locations of the test it are given _ in Figure No. 3, "Site Plan/Location of Test Pits", p SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Fill materials, placed during the original grading of the site, were encountered to an approximate depth of 30 inches below adjacent grade in our exploratory test pits. Soil types -- encountered within our test pits are described as follows: To soil- Topsoil materials were encountered to a depth of 24 inches below adjacent grade _ in our borings. Topsoil materials consist of rust brown, moist, medium dense, slightly silty sands.These materials are not considered suitable forthe support of structures and structural improvements, but may be utilized as re- _ compacted fill during grading, if necessary, of this report are followed. Topsoil materialclassify as provided according t recommendations Unified Soil Classification System,and based on visual observation,are considered to possess low to medium expansion potentials. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.5 Job No. 022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CNIL,STRUCTURAL 6 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS _ Terrace Deposits.• Terrace Deposits (sandstone)were found to underlie the fill material within boring excavations. Terrace Deposits consist of rust brown, moist, dense, very slightly silty sand. These materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Terrace Deposits classify as SW according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience, possess an expansion potential of low. Clean friable sands were encountered in boring B-1 from 9'-18' and B-2 from 10'- 20'. The clean sand layer has been modeled in our slope stability study, attached to this report as Appendix D. Torrey Sandstone Torrey Sandstone was found below Terrace Deposits within Boring 1. Torrey -- sandstone consists of tan, moist, very dense, sandstone. These materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Torrey Sandstone classifies as SW according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience, possess an expansion potential of low. For detailed logs of soil types encountered within our exploratory borings, as well as a depiction of the boring location, please see Figure No. 3, Site Plan/Location of Exploratory Borings", and Figures No. 4-5 , "Boring Logs". -- GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE _ The Torrey Sandstone in the vicinity of the subject property is nearly flat-lying and is locally cross-bedded. Bedding in the Quaternary terrace deposits can be observed as faint, alternating light and dark laminations. Where observed on site and in the general site _ vicinity,the terrace deposits appearto be horizontally bedded with localized cross bedding. No major out-of-slope dip components were noted on site that would indicate adverse slope conditions. Indications of deep-seated landslide features were not observed during our research studies or site visits. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.6 Job No. 022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL.STRUCTURAL d ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS FAULTS Our review of geologic literature (Appendix A)pertaining to the general site area indicates that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Indications of active faulting or adversely-oriented joints were not observed in the subject coastal bluff. The nearest known active faults are the Rose Canyon fault located offshore approximately 4 miles west of the site, the Coronado Bank fault located offshore approximately 18 miles west, and the Elsinore fault located approximately 21 miles northeast of the site. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 80 miles northeast of the site. TS Tsunami are sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic action. Submarine earthquakes are common along the edge of the Pacific Ocean and coastal areas are subject to potential inundation by tsunami. Most of the 19 tsunami recorded on the San Diego Bay tidal gauge (between 1854 to 1872 and 1906 to 1977) -- have only been a few tenths of a meter in height(Appendix A, Reference 1). The largest San Diego area tidal gauge excursion (1 meter) was associated with the tsunami of May 22, 1960 and was recorded at La Jolla Scri -- tsunami was generated by a Richter magnitude 8.5 learthq earthquake in Chile. For Reference pa The the diurnal range of tides at San Diego Bay is 1.7 meters. The possibility of a destructive tsunami along the San Diego coastline is considered low (Appendix A, Reference 5). -- Tsunami or storm waves (associated with winter storms), even in conjunction with high tides, do not have the potential for inundation of the bluff-top building site. GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER -- Groundwater seepage was not observed on site or in the general site vicinity during our site visits Based on our experience and observations, groundwater Is estimated to lie at _ or near sea level at the base of the coastal bluff. Groundwater is not considered a constraint to the proposed new residence. The bluff-top surface waters shall drain drain toward Pacific Avenue. HISTORIC RESEARCH SUMMARY We have reviewed the maps and aerial photographs of the site and general vicinity list in Appendix A. Following is a limited outline summary of our review observations, starting with the earliest documentation. g FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.7 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP -- GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 1• The 1960 aerial photo series depicts the main house onsite and residence to the south. The property to the north is vacant. The property appears to have been recently developed. Bluff configuration is similar as to what exists today. The fill south of the site appears to be in place. 2. The 1975 aerial photo series depict the site is fully developed, similar to today's _ configuration. 3. The 1983 aerial photo series again depicts the site as fully developed, similar to today's configuration. NO obvious change from 1982-1983 winter rains. Our review indicates that the subject coastal bluff is generally similar in configuration in the _ 1960, 1975 and 1983 series photos . The bluff edge appears to generally coincide with the top of the bluff observed during our field studies (see Figure 9). COASTAL BLUFF RETREAT The coastline in the vicinity of the subject property is straight with slight indentations along its length (see Figure 1). The site is located on one of the headlands along the coast.. Mechanisms for seacliff retreat at the site include abrasion and undercutting by marine -. erosion (wave action) of the hard, erosion-resistant Torrey Sandstone bedrock exposed in the near-vertical seacliff. Storm surf and high tides contribute to the natural process of marine erosion. Other factors affecting the rate of retreat of a near-vertical seacliff at the toe of a coastal bluff include degree of fracturing, consolidation of steepness of slope, groundwater and surface water conditions,jointing, � vegetation or lack feats, intensity of pedestrian and animal traffic. and In response to the landward retreat of the seacliff, the undermined and also retreats landward. Mechanisms contributing ng to bluff rbet eat iinnccluee failure of overhanging bedrock projections,shallowfailure of oversteepened portions of the bluff-face terrace deposits, and rifling and ravelling of the terrace deposits. Portions of coastal bluffs are also exposed to precipitation,wind, pedestrian/animal erosion,variations -- in landscape, landscape maintenance, and other activities by humans. During our studies, we did not observe indications of deep-seated instability, such as -- ancient or active landslides, on or in the immediate vicinity of the site, and the geologic formations that comprise the coastal bluff at the site are not known to be prone to large, deep-seated failures. g , FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.8 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS COASTAL BLUFF-EDGE RETREAT RATES The rate and magnitude of coastal bluff retreat at a specific site are dependent on a variety of factors, both natural and manmade. Many of these factors are ongoing processes and historical documentation can be helpful in estimating similarly-affected coastal bluff areas. However, general retreat rates- along bluff retreat that cannot be estimated from historic documentation.c Suchffactors include de future human activities or possible extreme variations in regional weather patterns. Detrimental changes in factors affecting bluff-edge retreat, such as misdirected drainage, water line breaks, heavy storm surf and/or precipitation, could increase the rate of erosion. However, favorable changes in the factors affecting bluff-edge retreat could also decrease the rate of erosion. Some of these include proper maintenance of a bluff-stabilizing vegetative cover, enhanced site drainage provisions and beach sand replenishment. Research studies along the San Diego coast and historic photograph and map review are components in providing an estimation of the rate of bluff-edge retreat. We assume that the historical retreat rate may give an indication of the future retreat rate at a particular site. -- However, accurate and clear photographic and map documentation for measuring retreat is not always available or are of fairly short time intervals so changes may not be noticeable. Lee and others(Appendix A, Reference 6)performed research studies of regional historic sea cliff retreat and estimated a maximum annual bluff-edge retreat rate of 0.22 to 0.33 feet per year. Over a 75-year period (assumed to be the economic lifetime of the new construction), this equates to a conservative estimate of bluff-edge retreat of a maximum of 16.5 to 24.8 feet. This maximum is based on research studies of regional historic bluff retreat that includes coastal bluffs with generally favorable conditions, as well as coastal bluffs that are affected by more adverse conditions (highly fractured, sea caves, groundwater seepage, human activities, etc.). The estimated values of maximum retreat are very conservative,and the actual rate of bluff retreat at the subject property is expected to be less considering the site conditions and historic bluff retreat at the site. -- Sea cave formation and subsequent collapse are localized factors in the bluff retreat process. Indications of sea cave development were not observed at the subject property during our site visits. Our historic photograph review(Appendix A) indicates that the coastal bluff at the subject property is generally similar in configuration in the 1960, and subsequent photos. The location of the onsite blubluff edge is also generally similar on the photographs. The 1960 aerial photo series provides historical documentation the bluff has not FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS,CA Page No.9 Job No. 022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP -- GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS _ significantly retreated since the 1960's. It is very difficult to predict the future and the magnitude of bluff-edge retreat that may occur in one year, during one storm event or over the 75-year assumed economic lifetime of the new construction. The rate of coastal bluff retreat over a particular interval of time (day, year, decade, etc.) may vary from very little to several tenths of a foot. However, severe erosion is generally episodic in nature and is dependent on the intensity of storms and combined high tides (or man's detrimental actions). It is probable that several feet of coastal bluff retreat could occur at one time. However, it is also likely that there will be periods in the future when erosion along the coast is rather insignificant and undetectable. Erosion is a naturally-occurring process that is affected by human actions. With time the bluff-,A-- will retreat landward. It is our opinion that the new construction, proposed to be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge, will not be endangered by coastal bluff retreat over the next 75 years. Existing improvements inside the setback zone, may in the future become undermined (within the 75 year life span) by bluff-edge retreat and may need to be removed from the site. SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS A computer-generated slope stability analysis was performed on the coastal bluff at the site. The slope stability was analyzed using Bishops simplified and 'Janbu's Modified Method' with the XSTABLE computer program. The slope stability calculations are included in Appendix D. The soil strength parameters used in our analysis are presented -- below. These values are based on laboratory test results, back-calculation, our past experience in this area, and our professional judgement. -- Our analysis work includes an assumed "worst case" cohesionless sand tense thicknesses of 10 feet along the coastal bluff face (see x-section), lying immediately atop _ the Torrey Sandstone. Design values formulated by Group Delta to model the sand layer, on other sites along the coast, conservatively use design values of cohesion = 0 and Phi = 32 degrees. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.10 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP -. GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL S ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Slope Stability Soil Parameters Soil Type Soil No: Unit Weight Friction M Cohesion Moist Angle (psf) *0 (deg) Fill 1 120 36 75 Torrey 2 120 39 Sandstone 850 Terrace 3 120 39 Deposits 350 -- Assumed Clean 4 120 an Lense - 32 0 Atop Torrey -- Sandstone Based on our analysis, it is our opinion that the existing coastal bluff has a factor o greater than 1.5 (static conditions and 1.1 f safety instability (See Appendix D for specific analysis). static modeling conditions) deep-seated sections, circle and block type analysis, earthquake forces and assumption of unfavorable geologic conditions (i.e. sand lense existence). GEOLOGIC and GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS Bluff Retreat Based on our Geologic Evaluation and Limited Geotechnical Investigation at the site, it is our opinion that the proposed residence new residence is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. It is our opinion that the proposed new residence (and the additional loading from this relatively light bluff-top construction)will not adversely impact the analysis,c existing co is our bluff. Based on our field studies, research and engineering and geologic opinion the proposed construction should not be affected by the maximum anticipated coastal bluff retreat processes during its economic lifetime(assumed to be 75 years)if the addition is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge as planned and mapped herein. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.11 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP -- GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Slope Stability and ErncirJn Our geotechnical evaluation of the present overall static stability on the subject property indicates that the bluff is grossly stable. In its present state, the slope has a low to moderate potential for erosional rilling and future surficial instability. We provide the following recommendations to help reduce erosion of the bluff and to reduce potential for future instability of the bluff face. 7. Irrigation of the landscape areas on the property should be curtailed, and limited to manual watering within the setback zone. The amount of manual irrigation onsite should be limited to the minimum amount required to establish vegetation and maintain plant vigor. The upper portion of the subject coastal bluff and the bluff edge are currently moderately to well vegetated. At this time, it is our opinion that modifications to the vegetation should not be considered. 2. Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical on the future performance of the bluff, dwelling and improvements. Under N t o -- circumstances should surface water be allowed to pond or flow toward the bluff. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing structures and tightlined to the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and -- unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. All surface runoff water should drain away from the structure and top of bluff with a minimum slope of 2%for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. The area drain system shall consists of non perforated smooth all drainage pipe(PVC SDR-35 or better) with chemically welded joints, as sized and designed by the project civil engineer. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage. During fine grading of the property, subsequent building construction, adequate clearance shall be left from finish soil grade to building framing lumber as prescribed by code. It is advisable to meet with the project landscaper during this phase of the project so that proposed import topsoil may be accounted for in determining finish grade elevation against the building stemwall. During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected. Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as Possible. Any leakage from sources such as water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be strictly controlled or avoided. FINN RESIDENCE -- 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.12 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP -- GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 3. Pedestrian and animal traffic on the bluff face and bluff edge should not be allowed since pedestrian/animal traffic increases erosion. Bluff-Toa Setback Based on our review of the project plans, the proposed new residence will be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the bluff edge. It is our opinion that the proposed setback will safeguard the proposed construction from bluff-edge retreat during the economic lifetime of the addition. _ PrODOSed Building Construction The proposed site construction will involve basement cuts and export of soil , effectively reducing"driving"forces at the upper bluff. The building will incorporate a cantilever design along the west elevation. The building will utilize a mat type foundation at the basement _ to dissipate the increased loading from the cantilever design. In general, the proposed building construction as currently proposed will not pose an increase threat to the stability of the bluff. Seismic Considerations Ground shaking would be the primary seismic hazard at the site. The possibility of ground rupture is considered minimal since no active faults are known to cross the site. The potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced ground settlement is very low. In general, the role seismic shaking plays in bluff retreat is dependent on bluff conditions at the moment of shaking. It is possible that some of the bedrock projections may fail as the result of severe ground shaking at the site. However, it is our opinion that the potential for deep-seated or severe, catastrophic failure of the coastal bluff property due to expected seismic ground shaking is low at the site., This conclusion is supported by our Pseudo static slope stability of the bluff which indicates a factor of safety in excess of 1.1. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS Earthwork It is our understanding earthwork will be limited to excavation of the basement and front driveway area and general fine grading for drainage. Our investigation indicates excavations will remove all overlying fill materials, exposing Terrace Deposits. Our recommendation is for minimal excavation beyond the basement footprint, limited to that FINN RESIDENCE — 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.13 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL.STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS required to ensure safety (per OSHA requirements) and allow for installation of waterproofing. Utilizing a standard 4' vertical cut and 1:1 sloped backcut will result in excavations of approximately 9'beyond the basement footprint. Portions of the excavation _ at the north and south property lines will require shoring to avoid over steepened cuts or offsite excavation. Any grading should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, pertinent county/city standards, and grading specifications provided in _ Appendix C of this report. 1. Site Prepar_ Existing structures and improvements should be removed with minimal disturbance to the onsite soil. During demolition operations, protective fencing should be placed at the rear of the property to prevent heavy equipment access within the 40'setback zone. Further, all necessary steps should be taken to direct site runoff away from the bluff Removed vegetation and debris shall be properly disposed of prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements, which extend below the undercut depths noted, are to be filled and compacted using onsite material or a non-expansive import material. All grading and site clearing should be limited to those areas defined as "acceptable per Appendix C of this report. Fills: The area of"fill" is anticipated to be limited to behind retaining walls. In general, Areas to receive fill and/or structural improvements should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction(based on ASTM D1557-91). Compacted fills should be cleaned of loose debris, oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). All fill slopes should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction to slope face and planted in order to avoid erosion and sloughage. Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. If the import of soil is planned, the soils should be non-expansive and free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing, soils should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability -' as fill. Foundations We anticipate that the proposed building foundation system will consists of conventional FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.14 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP -- GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS shallow foundation system with retaining walls and concrete slab-on-grade floor system. In deriving foundation recommendations for this site, the subsoil conditions as well as the proposed new construction were evaluated. The following foundation recommendations assume a non-expansive subsoil condition (i.e., Expansive Index less than 50). Minimum design parameters for foundations are as follows: 1. Footings bearing in competent formational materials may be designed utilizing _ maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. 2. Project structural engineer should design the basement foundation for a mat type foundation. 3. Seismic Design Parameters: a x 4. Bearing values may be increased by 33%when considering wind, seismic, or other _ short duration loadings. 5. The following parameters should be used as a minimum,for designing footing width and depth below lowest adjacent grade: ^ _ s ' nx ^ *Note: Actual footing depth may be deeper to achieve proper embedment^' t Into FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.15 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP --. GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS competent soil material if mitigative grading is not conducted. (See Foundation Note #8) _ 6. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two#4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be necessary. This detail should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by our office prior to construction. 7. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. 7. Forfootings adjacent to slopes, a minimum 15 feet horizontal setback in formational -- material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this condition can not be met it should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review. 8. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report, applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards. 9. All foundation subgrade soils shall be pre-moistened a minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete. 10. Where testing span across backfill wedges, this detail should be observed by our office prior to construction for potential upgrade. Concrete Slabs on Grade Concrete slabs on grade should use the following as the minimum design parameters: 1. Concrete slabs on grade of the garage should have a minimum thickness of 4.5 -- inches (5 inches at garage and driveway locations) and should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab. _ All concrete shall be poured per the following: • Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum • Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.16 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CML,STRUCTURAL 3 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS • Air Content: 5 to 8 percent • Moisture retarding additive in concrete at moisture sensitive areas. -- 0 Water to cement Ratio - 0.5 maximum 2. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the earthwork section of this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor Density, ASTM D-1557. �. 3. A uniform layer of 4 inches of clean sand is recommended under the slab in order to more uniformly support the slab (sand equivalent <50), help distribute loads to the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capillary break. In addition, a visqueen layer (10 mil) should be placed mid-height in the sand bed to act as a vapor retarder. 4. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer. 5. All subgrade soils to receive concrete flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent over optimum moisture content to a depth of 24 inches. 6 Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete is not adequately cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. To minimize potential damage to movement sensitive flooring, we recommend the use of slip sheeting techniques (linoleum type) which allows for -- foundation and slab movement without transmitting this movement to the floor finishes. 7• Exterior concrete flatwork and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minorsubgrade soil movement,are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected concrete cracking, the following may be implemented: • Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches. -' 0 Concrete should be poured during "cool' (40 - 65 degrees) weather if Possible. If concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive • should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum. Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.17' Job No. 022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP „_ GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS _ The level of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 2%over optimum moisture to a depth of 24 inches. • Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. _ Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints or sawcuts (1 inch deep) creating concrete sections no larger than 225 sf. For sidewalks, the maximum run between joints should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of length to width should generally not exceed 0.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should be cut at expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male corners), with diagonal reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards. • Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective drainage system, such that water is not trapped • The recommendations set forth herein are intene tbreduceecosmetic nuisance cracking. The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible -- for concrete quality and performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these recommendations, and other options available in the _ industry, prior to the pouring of concrete. Retaining Walls Retaining walls up to 10 feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations and minimum design parameters: 1• Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearin criteria given in the "Foundations section of this report. g 2. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular, free-draining material will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. For sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized: _ Condition 2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope Active 50 65 Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values. 3. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement,they should be desi ned for an additional uniform soil pressure of 65 psf, at rest pressure. g FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.18 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL E ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS — 4. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf. This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures, extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the -- percent reduction in available horizontal length. 5. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above. 6. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when designing the wall. 7. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure, and be designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained _ in the 'Retaining Wall Drainage Detail", Appendix B. 8. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the "Earthwork"section of this report. Backfill shall consist of a non-expansive granular, free-draining material. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by our investigation of the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be conducted -- prior/during construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in order to verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein, as applicable. The project structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during the development of the proposed improvement(s). 1- Attendance of a pre-construction meeting prior to the start of work 2. Review of final approved structural plans prior to the start of work. 3. Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches. _ 4. Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement. 5. Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils. 6. Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval. FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.19 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations. Engineering Design Group, prior to the issuance of the certificate of completion,shall issue in writing that the above inspections have been conducted by a representative of their firm, _ and the design considerations of the project soils report have been met. The field inspection protocol specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for Engineering Design Group to have exercised "due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of this building. Engineering Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting this protocol. _ Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48 hours notice to mobilize onsite for field observation and testing. MISCELLANEOUS It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes. Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions, and a visual observation of the soils exposed in the exploratory test pits. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed structure; however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change. — Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a result,the findings of this report may become invalid FINN RESIDENCE 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA Page No.20 Job No.022903-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP _ GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to review and not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered. It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project. — Sincerely, QROFESS��N �® *4 Np qlF D G EN RING DESIGN GROUP ��% 2590 z G STEVEN B. N0F?5'f` d EXP 12-31-05 * �` CE6�NFf'�' `NOFrI� * 19 T \GP\•P ENG1W. California Geotechnical Engineer(GE)#2590 qlF fCHN �� 0 GEf1._ -- California Engineering Geologist (CEG)#2263 �F a S SITE 1 1 IA ^ DE I 4 ENC, JAKE .7A5 4 .p +OFD 'EDGES RAMCHO RANCH BERNARDO L4 CARDIFF$Y E—S a Q' a� $F TAe��a rz y`t BEW�ppp n AN EUX LAW i P fx ct r a gum x cF SO NA BEACH y' FE � � + \�� RBAOS RACHO EN GARDENS ° o Aum Los c �. �,I rrx�uirros EY � DEL MAR V 0 IRML ' e — I �OYAY• ARMEL � TORREY PINES tcy SCRIP�� cr STATE RESERVE 120 SA° SORREN70 0 E* � i IIRAMAR SITE VICINITY MAp PROJECT NAME TONY FINN RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 102 AND 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS,CA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 6 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 022903 2121 Mon6el Road,Sen Marcos,cA 92069 Phone:(760)839-7302 Fex:(760)980.7477 1 11MaW le°n meinIFORMSII FIR TER-SITE VICINITY-FIG 1.wpd $. mi�SE� ' ST 9p, ` ENCINITAS SS ty� Paz gEittA' Po' $4 BEACH ets P EZEE ST COUNTY "oa" r� 9 ION WY ZUNION ST UNION 'ORAVUS, ST UNION .1 PARK 1, a ST PAR ST Ssr VIA INDA s SEA jut '' � g SITE DENS F auNV� `� cr ocux nEx SPpR1 S T Y ..� PARK rN -TAU MOONLIGHT St F$ STATE w 04 n ' A BEACH p r use' PARK M SITE LOCATION MAP PROJECT NAME TONY FINN RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 102 AND 104 NEPTUNE AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 022903 Phone:Montle!7 ))839.7743022 Fax: 7(760�O7477 2 WainVile on ma)nWORMSII FRM120001MASTER-SITE LOCATION-FIG 2.v4 (094) 'x"yj xes b/N-YO `Sb'l/N/0N3 qR l z 3nN3�iV3Nn1d3NWT 1, �I�IS�'Q ZOt 9NId08 KID.Nq 30NWIS.78 NN14 � '4801b2107dX3-40 NO/lVOO7 -101611„ NV'7d 31/S ZT "OHS sr b aivo romo k X ' I S � X i .4 tV W i N A ?: } �1 I I n �'S f , �. . . . . . . . . . . . . I ! ! 0 1 . 1 Q Project Name Finn Residence EDG Project Number BORING LOG NO. 1 Project Address 140 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California FIGURE NO.4 Drilling Hollow Stem Auger Dates September 24, Total Depth 40' Method Drilled 2002 Type of Rig Beaver, Limited Logged By E. Rist Approx. Access Surface Elev. Diameter of 6 inches Drilling R. Marshall Groundwater Boring Contractor — Level Type of 140 lb., 30 inch drop Comments: Hammer -. Type of SPT, CAL Samplers Depth S Blow CAL Materials Description and Notes m SPT Attitude p e 1- 2- 6/8/9 SPT 3- (2-3.5')Rust brown, silty sand with small rootlets 4- 5- 12/19/27 CAL 6- (5-6.5')Rust brown to yellowish brown, very slightly silty sand 7- 8- 7/9/10 SPT 9- (8-95)Rust brown to black very slightly silty sand between 8-9 - feet, at 9.5 feet evidence of starting to hit white to black clean _ 10- sands 11- 11/17/22 CAL 12-- (11-125)White to black clean sands 13- 14- 7/11/12 SPT 15- (14-155)White to black clean sands 16- ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Project Name Finn Residence EDG Project Number BORING LOG NO. 1 Project Address 140 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California FIGURE NO. 4 Depth Blow CAL a Counts OR Log g Materials Description and Notes Geologic a m SPT Attitude P _ I e 17— 15/24/37 CAL - (17-18.5')White to black clean sands to rust brown slightly 18— silty sands at bottom of sample 19- 20— 12/18/21 SPT 21— (20-21.5')Rust brown slightly silty sand 22- 23- 24- 25— '— 26- 27- 28— _ 29- 30— 14/14 SPT - (30-31')Rust brown slightly silty sand 31- 32- 33- 34- '- 35- 36— @35'small cobbles in silty sand 37- 38- 39- 40- 50 FOR SPT 4" (40-40.3')Rust brown slightly silty sand ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL.STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Project Name Finn Residence EDG Project Number BORING LOG NO. 2 ProjectAddress 140 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California FIGURE NO. 5 _ Drilling Hollow Stem Auger Dates September 24, Total Depth 20 Method Drilled 2002 Type of Rig Beaver, Limited Logged By E. Rist — Access Approx. Surface Elev. Diameter of 6 inches Drilling g R. Marshall Groundwater Contractor Level Type of 140 lb., 30 inch drop Comments: Hammer Type of SPT, CAL Samplers Depth S Blow CAL Materials Description and Notes a Counts OR Log Geologic m SPT Attitude p I e 1- 2- 13/21/26 CAL 3- (2-3.5'fbrown, nd with small rootlets 4- 5- 9/13/14 SPT 6- (5-6.5')Rust brown to yellowish brown, very slightly silty sand 7- -. 8- 8/10/11 SPT 9- (8-9.5')Rust brown to black very slightly silty sand between 8-9 - feet, at 9.5 feet evidence of starting to hit white to black clean 10- sands 11- 11/17/26 CAL 12-- (11-12.5')White to black clean sands 13- 14- 10/16/20 SPT 15- (14-15.5')White to black clean sands 16- ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Project Name Finn Residence EDG Project Number BORING LOG NO. 2 Project Address 140 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California FIGURE NO. 5 Depth S Blow CAL Materials Description and Notes a Counts OR Log Geologic m SPT Attitude P r I e 17— 12/21/28 SPT 18— White to black clean sands 19- 20- 21— @20 feet bottom of hole was caving ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 1'7� i . I{ •�.awn�MrfMJ.MMiM`+s Y ��t •iF'�. J' �� 1 x�tN wkt �ffiL i �- ID °� '^off�" �>; FT ,.• 4 :.adw 'XW.f. -M+; L .111a45xt:x. "p't��f',• � k PROJECT • jo PROJECTADDRESS •• JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUp 2121 MontkW Road,Ssn MarMs,CA 92069 PhOns:(760)839-7302 Fax(760)480-7477 APPENDIX -A. APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. Agnew, D.C., 1979, Tsunami history of San Diego, in Abbott, P. L., and Elliott, W. J., eds., _ Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip guidebook. 2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: CDMG Geological Data Map No. 6. 3. Eisenberg, L.., 1983, Pleistocene and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe quadrangles, in, Abbott, P. L., ed., 1985, On the manner of deposition of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologist, field trip guidebook. 4. Flick, R. E., ed., 1994, Shoreline erosion assessment and atlas of the San Diego region: California Department of Boating and Waterways and the San Diego Association of Governments publication, dated December(two volumes). 5• Hart, E. W., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Division of Mines and -- Geology, Special Publication 42, revised. 6. Lee, L. J. , 1977, Potential foundation problems associated with earthquakes in San Diego, in Abbott, P. L., and Victoria, J. K., eds., Geological Hazards in San Diego, Earthquakes, Landslides, and Floods: San Diego Society of Natural History John Porter Dexter Memorial Publication, 7. Lee, L., Pinckney, C., and Bemis, C., 1976, Sea bluff erosion: American Society of Civil _ Engineers, National Water Resources and Ocean Engineering Convention 8. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault-Rupture Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990, 9. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. _ 10. Tan, S.S., 1986, Landslide hazards in the Encinitas quadrangle, San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 86-8LA. — 11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Shoreline Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican Border(1852-1982) (CCSTWS 85-10), dated December. 12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Coastal Cliff Sediments, San Diego Region (CCSTWS 87-2), dated June. 13. Van Dorn, W.G., 1979, Theoretical aspects of tsunamis along the San Diego coastline, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip guidebook. 14. Zeiserkling Consultants, 1994, FINAL Beach Bluff Erosion Report, RFP#93-01, City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California, dated January 24. 15. Hart, Michael, June 17, 1994, Geologic Investigation; 7505 Hillside Drive, La Jolla, CA, File NO: 153-94. 16. Engineering Design Group, Un-published In-House Data. 17. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, P.195-199. 18. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No:1, Dated 1975. 19. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No:2, Dated 1977, 20. Tanges, Susan E. and Norris, Steve B., 1998, Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Residential Addition 663 Circle Drive, Solana Beach, California. Project No. 167E62, dated November 30. 21. Tanges, Susan E. and Norris, Steve B., 1999, Geotechnical Evaluation of Coastal Bluff Property, Proposed Single-Family Residence 150 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California. Project No. 147663, dated September 3. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS County of San Diego, 1960, Series T-2-SDC, Photos 3-92(405) and 3-93(406) dated July 30 (black and white, vertical, stereoscopic) County of San Diego, 1975, Flight SDPD, Flight Line 34, Photos 3 (407) and 4 (046), dated January 20 (color, vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1 inch = 1,000 feet. County of San Diego, 1983. Flight C11109 83059, Photos 248 (015) and 249 (016), dated ,Novemer 19 _. (black and white, vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1 inch = 2,000 feet. \\Main\file on main\JOBS\1 JOBS\2002\022903-1, LLOYD-TONY FINN RES, 104 NEPTUNE AVE,ENCINITAS-APPENDIX.wpd ROM PHONE NO. : 619 442 7859 Nov. 19 2002 12:25PM P1 CITY OF ENCINITAS GENERAL"PLAN' — BEACH BLUFF;EROSION T.ECHNICAl1'REPORT; January 24, 1994 PN 93181-00 Prepared For. City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 TOM PHONE NO. 619 442 7859 Nov. 19 2002 12:25PM P2 zEISE/R --- - K L I N G Consultants, Inc. January 24, 1994 PN 93181-00 Mr. Hans Jensen, Senior Engineer CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S. Vulcan Drive Encinitas, CA 92024 , Subject: FINAL Beach Bluff Erosion Report, RFP #93-01, City of San Diego, California. of Encinitas), County Dear Mr. Jensen: -- In accordance with your request and authorization, Zeiser Min Consult completed an investigation of geotechnical conditions and historical a osion for the c. has Encinitas coastal bluffs. City Our draft report was submitted to you and our sub-consultants for review on November 24 1993. Some textural clarification and remediation of ommisions were performed ale with the addition of section 4.5, Aesthetic Treatment Options and section 5.3.5, Seacli ' Monitoring, ff Retreat This submittal is our FINAL report. It was prepared as a tea subconsultants, Dr. Craig Everts and Carol Eldon of Moffatt &- Nichol, Engineers d D Mark Legg of ACTA, Inc. We wish to recognize them for their professionalism and hi r. competent technical input for this project. We wish to acknowledge the assistance in data collection and project review by Hans Jensen and City Staff. It should also be noted that the "Bluff Ownership Transfer" and "Permits" study were eliminated from the Scope of Work by request of the City.ct� Far f the convenience, we have included minor general discussion on these topics; however,we encourage you to seek a more thorough review and update of these topics in the future, .1221 E. Dyer Road • Suite 105 • Santa Ana, CA 92705 • (714) 755-1355 ■ Fax(714) 755-1366 • Geotechnlcal Engineering • Engineering Geoloc� " Materials resting and Inspection APPENDIX -B- GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRAnlruc; SPECIFICATIONS -- 1.0 General Intent These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations fi grading and earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plan! These general earthwork and grading specifications are a part of th recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and shall be superseded b the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluation performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in net recommendations which could supersede these specifications or th recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of th, contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the geotechnice _ report and approved grading plans. 2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testina Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be - employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills foi conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations. It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report, and the approved _ grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method ASTM D1557. _ c -- 3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled -- 3.1 C earing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots and all othi deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a methc acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies and th geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removal depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (b volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials and nesting c these materials should not be allowed. 3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarifiec to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. 3.4 LI oisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 3.5 Recom action: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 3.6 Benchipq: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowe bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competes _ material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches shout be excavated into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnic; consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwis overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant. -' 3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by tho geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. 4.0 Fill Material -- 4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior too placement. Soils of poor gradation, -- expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. 4.3 ImAo : If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import materi,' should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be give to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) th ' proposed import materials. 5.0 Fill Placement and-Compaction 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previousll evaluated to receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches it compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 5.2 Moisture Conditionina: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction. 5.4 Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent. -4- 5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree a compaction of the fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretior based on field conditions encountered. In general, the tests should be taker at approximate intervals of 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards o1 compacted fill soils. In addition, on slope faces, as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or ea& 10 feet of vertical height of slope. 6.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend changes in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficieni time shall be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. — 7.0 Excavation Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant(as necessary)during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcavation, and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope buttresses) may be recommended. 8.0 Quantity Determination For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFIN ( & DRAINAGE DETAIL FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED BY PROJECT ARCHITECT MASTIC TO BE APPLIED TO TOP OF WALL MASTIC TYPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EQUIV) INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES TOP OF RETAINING WALL SPECIFICATIONS & PROTECTED WITH BACKER BOARD (ABOVE MIRADRAIN) MASTIC NOT TO BE EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION 2X PER REFERENCE r1 n a i I I_i PROPOSED SLOPE SAC END MIRADRAIN (top) fiT:Up —_' — PER OSHA STANDARDS -' OR PER ALTERNATIVE • I i- AREA DRAIN PLAN. OR PER APPROI RETAINING WALL SYSTEM SHORING PLAN MIRADRAIN MEMBRANE led. ry FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES '"' ' i SPECIFICATIONS OVER MASTIC � (MIRAFI 14pN OR Y -'11111R: I I WATERPROOFING - HLM 5000 APPROVED EQUIVALENT _ 12" MIN. LAP ) OR EQUIVALENT I I (- a 3/4- - 1 1/2- CLEAN GRAVEL -1 I I=1 I I=III=I I =1 I I 4-X4- (45d) CONCRETE CANT O FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION _ I I—I I I—I II=I I I=I I I=III ` I I_ (UNDER WATER PROOFING) - ' 4- (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQ.) WITH PERFORATIONS. ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED MIN. 2% COMPACTED FILL R `1•`%x'x `< .< i cif GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OR BEDROCK WALL FOOTING OUTLET. END MIRADRAIN (bottom) COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT PROJECT NUMBER ENGINEERING D NuMeE PROJECT NAME DESIGN GROUP PROJECT ADDRESS 810 WEST LOS VALLECITOS BLVD. ORAWN BY: SUITE "A" SAN MMCOS. CA 92069 SCALE: 1' 170- (760) 752-7010 FAX (760) 752-7092 GATE SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE FINISHED SLOPE FACE PROJECT 1 TO t LINE / // // FINISHED CUT FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY ______________ „ r= C_OMPACTEV _ _ fp=s =g OVERBURDEN OR =_ ------- r:A: UNSUITABLE ____ _ =- -- -- PAO OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH MATERIAL =_- CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS '- EXISTING GROUND SURFACE C0MPACTED FILL•__==_-- STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL OUTLET PIPES 4' 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE. 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY _=_______ BACK CU 1:1 OR FLAT == - BENCH _ _ ---_- SEE SUBDRAIN T ==r==r = DETAIL _ KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS - FILL SLOPE :_____ ___ PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE _?'• FROM TOE OF SLOPEaMi3l�Z�fi�'_D TO COMPETENT MATERIAL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BENCH ' 2% MIN.??_ , 2' MIN. 15, MIN `` -- KEY LOWEST DEPTH BENCH (KEY) QMPACTE0.: FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE EXISTING GROUND SURF!:) �� BENCH REMOVE i 1-15, MIN.-+� UNSUITABLE LOWEST .� MIN. BENCH MATERIAL KEY DEPTH (KEY) CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) EXISTING GROUND SURFACE CUT SLOP CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE /� "'� (TO BE EXCAVATED / PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) _ REMOVE - r= UNSUITABLE PROJECT 1 TO 1 =3 ?_ 'MATERIAL LINE FROM TOE ___R OF SLOPE TO CMP C COMPETENT -FI MATERIAL _ --' BENCH MIN -' 5' MIN 2' MIN. LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) - NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may also be altered based on field conditions encountered. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL — PIN1SH GRADE SLOPE FACE MIN: = -_ OVERSIZE WINDROW -- GRANULAR SOIL (S.E'30) TO BE -- DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING —' DETAIL TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW 1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used within 10 1 vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever is great+ and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces. 2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills. 3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by geotechnical consultant. 4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be In accordance with the above del Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered vertically (as depicted). 5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or eq to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath rocks. APPENDIX -C- LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Direct Shear Test Direct shear tests are performed on remolded and/or relatively undisturt samples which are soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. After transferring sample to the shearbox, and reloading, pore pressures are allowed to dissipated for a perioc approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples are sheared in a mol driven, strain controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus. After a travel of approximately 1/4 in the motor is stopped and the sample is allowed to "relax" for approximately 15 minutes. Wh( applicable,the "relaxed"and "peak"shear values are recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majo of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow dissipation of p< pressures set up due to application of the shearing force. The relaxed values are therefc judged to be good estimations of effective strength parameters. Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of representative samples is evaluated by Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are molded under a giv compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percE saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalE 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water for 24 hours or until volumetric equilibria is reached. Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis I wet sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM D422-65). Hydrometer analyses we performed where appreciable quantities of fines were encountered. The data was evaluated determining the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are presentE in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test data and the borir logs. -' APPENDDC -D- I i i I W � i 3Nn W ,ua doad � I � W r i C./7 O�N o M W DW CN LLI U —� i i O Q O u C� r o _ I o Q L Z C � T m � O I 3 n u d d 'i F Z z Z { o' u�! SECTION A-A - FINN RESIDENCE - SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED 10' SAND LENSE BISHOP METHOD - STATIC CONDITIONS XSTABL File : FIN2-1 4-18-** 19 : 15 * X S T A B L * _ * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 96 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc . Moscow, ID 83843 , U. S .A. * * All Rights Reserved * * Ver. 5 .200 96 - 1524 ****************************************** Problem Description : FINN - ---------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES - ---------------------------- 14 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 1 . 0 5 . 0 52 . 0 9 . 0 1 2 52 . 0 9 . 0 56 . 0 20 . 0 2 3 56 . 0 20 . 0 57 . 0 25 . 0 2 4 57 . 0 25 . 0 58 . 0 30 . 0 4 5 58 . 0 30 . 0 70 . 0 35 . 0 4 6 70 . 0 35 . 0 82 . 0 40 . 0 3 7 82 . 0 40 . 0 112 . 0 62 . 0 3 8 112 . 0 62 . 0 113 . 0 65 . 0 3 9 113 . 0 65 . 0 122 . 0 70 . 0 3 10 122 . 0 70 . 0 172 . 0 68 . 0 3 11 172 . 0 68 . 0 175 . 0 56 . 0 3 12 175 . 0 56 . 0 223 . 0 56 . 0 3 13 223 . 0 56 . 0 224 . 0 65 . 0 3 C:\xstable\FINN\SECTION A-A BISHOP STATIC 10 SAND LENSE.wpd 14 224 . 0 65 . 0 245 . 0 65 . 0 3 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments _ Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 70 . 0 35 . 0 240 . 0 36 . 0 4 2 57 . 0 25 . 0 240 . 0 26 . 0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 4 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. 1 120 . 0 135 . 0 75 . 0 36 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 _ 2 120 . 0 135 . 0 850 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 3 120 . 0 135 . 0 350 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 4 120 . 0 135 . 0 . 0 32 . 00 . 000 . 0 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 = 10 . 0 ft and x = 70 . 0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 75 . 0 ft and x = 240 . 0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation C:ucstable\FIlVN\SECTION A-A BISHOP STATIC 10 SAND LENSE.wpd at which a surface extends is y = . 0 ft 14 . 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 The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 3 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 56 . 67 23 . 33 2 67 . 97 31 . 60 3 75 . 76 37 .40 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1 . 833 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : FINN FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment C:\xstable\FINMSECTION A-A BISHOP STATIC 10 SAND LENSE.wpd (f t) (f t) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1 . 1 . 833 -810 . 84 1220 . 80 1478 . 68 56 . 67 75 . 76 1 . 055E+07 2 . 1 . 885 29 .48 121 . 23 115 . 71 16 . 67 132 . 95 2 .219E+07 3 . 1 . 903 50 . 01 51 . 34 28 . 78 56 . 67 75 . 03 2 . 669E+05 4 . 1 . 960 85 .48 72 . 03 45 . 56 63 .33 130 .44 4 . 982E+06 5 . 1 . 961 42 . 51 112 . 26 105 . 73 30 . 00 138 . 88 2 . 541E+07 6 . 1 . 985 47 . 06 93 . 33 86 . 16 36 . 67 129 . 66 1 . 827E+07 7 . 2 . 007 41 . 39 87 .25 82 . 50 23 . 33 121 . 79 1 . 554E+07 8 . 2 . 008 88 . 15 75 . 74 44 . 60 70 . 00 132 . 07 4 .262E+06 9 . 2 . 095 37 . 91 70 . 25 63 .47 30 . 00 98 . 33 5 . 922E+06 10 . 2 . 097 42 . 09 114 . 61 113 . 53 10 . 00 145 . 88 3 . 760E+07 * * * END OF FILE C:\xstable\FINN1SECTION A-A BISHOP STATIC 10 SAND LENSE.wpd 0 N M — M O M oo 00 N O (A lq* p N LL- CL 0 X. O N O m N n M N Z X N Q U X v O i O — N O U -+- O .� 00 U — VI O Z r' Z p do ao 1 O O O O O O O O c0 N 00 cV nJ .- Z U. (1991) SIX`d-,k SECTION A-A FINN RESIDENCE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED 10' SAND LENSE BISHOP METHOD PSTATIC CONDITIONS XSTABL File : FIN2-1EQ 4-18-** 19 : 21 ****************************************** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * W * Copyright (C) 1992 - 96 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc . * Moscow, ID 83843 , U. S .A. * * All Rights Reserved * Ver. 5 .200 96 - 1524 ****************************************** Problem Description : FINN ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 14 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 1 . 0 5 . 0 52 . 0 9 . 0 1 2 52 . 0 9 . 0 56 . 0 20 . 0 2 3 56 . 0 20 . 0 57 . 0 25 . 0 2 4 57 . 0 25 . 0 58 . 0 30 . 0 4 5 58 . 0 30 . 0 70 . 0 35 . 0 4 6 70 . 0 35 . 0 82 . 0 40 . 0 3 7 82 . 0 40 . 0 112 . 0 62 . 0 3 8 112 . 0 62 . 0 113 . 0 65 . 0 3 9 113 . 0 65 . 0 122 . 0 70 . 0 3 10 122 . 0 70 . 0 172 . 0 68 . 0 3 11 172 . 0 68 . 0 175 . 0 56 . 0 3 C:\xstable\FINN\SECTION A-A BISHOP PSTATIC 10' SAND LENSE.wpd 12 - 175 . 0 56 . 0 223 . 0 56 . 0 3 13 223 . 0 56 . 0 224 . 0 65 . 0 3 14 224 . 0 65 . 0 245 . 0 65 . 0 3 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 70 . 0 35 . 0 240 . 0 36 . 0 4 2 57 . 0 25 . 0 240 . 0 26 . 0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 4 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. 1 120 . 0 135 . 0 75 . 0 36 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 2 120 . 0 135 . 0 850 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 3 120 . 0 135 . 0 350 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 4 120 . 0 135 . 0 . 0 32 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of . 150 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of . 150 has been assigned 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. C:\xstable\FINN\SECTION A-A BISHOP PSTATIC 1 0' SAND LENSE.wpd 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 = 75 . 0 ft and x = 240 . 0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = . 0 ft 14 . 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 is specified by 8 coordinate points C:\xstable\FINN\SECTION A-A BISHOP PSTATIC 10' SAND LENSE.wpd Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 63 . 33 32 .22 2 76 .47 27 . 38 3 90 .45 26 . 75 4 103 . 97 30 .40 5 115 . 74 37 . 98 _ 6 124 . 65 48 . 78 7 129 . 87 61 . 77 8 130 .44 69 . 66 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1 .468 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : FINN 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 .468 85 .48 72 . 03 45 . 56 63 . 33 130 .44 4 . 032E+06 2 . 1 .491 29 . 48 121 . 23 115 . 71 16 . 67 132 . 95 1 . 864E+07 3 . 1 . 511 -810 . 84 1220 . 80 1478 . 68 56 . 67 75 . 76 9 . 163E+06 4 . 1 . 515 88 . 15 75 . 74 44 . 60 70 . 00 132 . 07 3 .466E+06 5 . 1 . 526 50 . 01 51 . 34 28 . 78 56 . 67 75 . 03 2 .295E+05 _ 6 . 1 . 540 42 . 51 112 .26 105 . 73 30 . 00 138 . 88 2 . 132E+07 7 . 1 . 589 47 . 06 93 . 33 86 . 16 36 . 67 129 . 66 1 . 539E+07 8 . 1 . 607 42 . 09 114 . 61 113 . 53 10 . 00 145 . 88 3 . 142E+07 9 . 1 . 610 41 . 39 87 . 25 82 . 50 23 .33 121 . 79 1 . 310E+07 10 . 1 . 639 45 . 83 137 . 39 132 . 56 23 . 33 158 . 91 3 . 897E+07 * * * END OF FILE C:\xstable\FINN\SECTION A-A BISHOP PSTATIC 10' SAND LENSE.wpd 0 N — M 00 O to 00 N 0 N LL- Q- 0 0 = O m N Z � N X vi Q U X N L � N v U 'i o0 U Vf O Z E o - ? o _ 00 a 0 or W O O O O O O O W N co N N Z ( 191) slxv-A _ SECTION A-A FINN RESIDENCE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED 10' SAND LENSE JANBU METHOD BLOCK _ STATIC CONDITIONS XSTABL File : FIN2-2 4-18-** 19 : 33 ****************************************** * X S T A B L * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 96 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843 , U. S .A. • * All Rights Reserved * * Ver. 5 . 200 96 - 1524 ****************************************** Problem Description : FINN ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 14 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 1 . 0 5 . 0 52 . 0 9 . 0 1 2 52 . 0 9 . 0 56 . 0 20 . 0 2 3 56 . 0 20 . 0 57 . 0 25 . 0 2 4 57 . 0 25 . 0 58 . 0 30 . 0 4 5 58 . 0 30 . 0 70 . 0 35 . 0 4 6 70 . 0 35 . 0 82 . 0 40 . 0 3 7 82 . 0 40 . 0 112 . 0 62 . 0 3 8 112 . 0 62 . 0 113 . 0 65 . 0 3 9 113 . 0 65 . 0. 122 . 0 70 . 0 3 -' 10 122 . 0 70 . 0 172 . 0 68 . 0 3 11 172 . 0 68 . 0 175 . 0 56 . 0 3 12 175 . 0 56 . 0 223 . 0 56 . 0 3 13 223 . 0 56 . 0 224 . 0 65 . 0 3 C:\xstable\MMSECTION A-A JAM 3U STATIC 10' SAND LENSE.wpd _ 14 224 . 0 65 . 0 245 . 0 65 . 0 3 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 70 . 0 35 . 0 240 . 0 36 . 0 4 2 57 . 0 25 . 0 240 . 0 26 . 0 2 • -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 4 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. 1 120 . 0 135 . 0 75 . 0 36 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 ., 2 120 . 0 135 . 0 850 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 3 120 . 0 135 . 0 350 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 4 120 . 0 135 . 0 . 0 32 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of . 150 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of . 150 has been assigned A critical failure surface searching method, using a random _ technique for generating sliding BLOCK surfaces, has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 boxes specified for generation of central block base C:\xstable\FINN\SECTION A-A JAMBU STATIC 10' SAND LENSE.wpd Length of line segments for active and passive portions of sliding block is 14 . 0 ft Box x-left y-left x-right y-right Width no. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 74 . 0 33 . 0 77 . 0 33 . 0 5 . 0 2 118 . 0 65 . 0 121 . 0 65 . 0 3 . 0 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : FINN Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1 . 2 . 147 1 . 047 69 . 57 123 . 06 3 .471E+04 2 . 2 . 247 1 . 040 66 . 31 124 . 08 3 . 325E+04 3 . 2 . 271 1 . 046 62 . 17 120 . 83 3 .285E+04 4 . 2 . 284 1 . 044 65 . 66 124 .23 3 . 277E+04 5 . 2 . 334 1 . 047 69 . 13 123 . 79 3 . 197E+04 6 . 2 . 358 1 . 041 68 .40 124 . 13 3 . 179E+04 7 . 2 . 375 1 . 039 65 . 71 125 . 35 3 . 264E+04 8 . 2 . 413 1 . 045 67 . 73 123 . 95 3 . 123E+04 9 . 2 .437 1 . 041 65 .42 124 . 32 3 . 120E+04 10 . 2 . 454 1 . 040 68 .49 121 . 71 3 .259E+04 * * * END OF FILE C:\xstable\FH*;MSECTION A-A JAMBU STATIC 1 0' SAND LENSE.wpd N M _ � O 00 N N I I O _ V) N 0 m Z O Q o N � N � N Z (!) X N a I U X - D o L D D v } o 00 U -F- O M Z o _ crn Z �t U- 00 d O N O O O O O O O tD N 00 N z slxv—,k t� �U 3nin d z ; 7 w I a U C Z N CZ) Z� i Ad W Q x LIZ Ed a Q V 3 n I i a I I I I I j i i i o i i o' I I I i I I a I I' i' I I _ I SECTION B-B FINN RESIDENCE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED 10' SAND LENSE BISHOP METHOD STATIC CONDITIONS XSTABL File : FINN-3S 4-18-** 16 :41 * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * Copyright (C) 1992 - 96 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843 , U. S .A. * * * All Rights Reserved * Ver. 5 . 200 96 - 1524 ****************************************** Problem Description : FINN-101SAND-STATIC - ---------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES - ---------------------------- 11 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 1 . 0 4 . 9 60 . 0 10 . 0 1 2 60 . 0 10 . 0 77 . 0 20 . 0 1 3 77 . 0 20 . 0 117 . 0 50 . 0 1 4 117 . 0 50 . 0 127 . 0 60 . 0 3 5 127 . 0 60 . 0 137 . 0 66 . 0 3 6 137 . 0 66 . 0 138 . 0 70 . 0 3 7 138 . 0 70 . 0 182 . 0 68 . 0 3 8 182 . 0 68 . 0 183 . 0 56 . 0 3 9 183 . 0 56 . 0 239 . 0 56 . 0 3 10 239 . 0 56 . 0 240 . 0 64 . 0 3 11 240 . 0 64 . 0 251 . 0 65 . 0 3 C:\xstable\FIlVN\3 S-FINN-10'SAND.wpd 5 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment _ 1 71 . 0 9 . 0 90 . 0 25 . 0 2 2 90 . 0 25 . 0 95 . 0 35 . 0 4 3 95 . 0 35 . 0 117 . 0 50 . 0 3 _ 4 95 . 0 35 . 0 280 . 0 36 . 0 4 5 90 . 0 25 . 0 280 . 0 26 . 0 2 • -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 4 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. 1 120 . 0 135 . 0 75 . 0 36 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 2 120 . 0 135 . 0 850 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 3 120 . 0 135 . 0 350 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 4 120 . 0 135 . 0 . 0 32 . 00 . 000 . 0 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 = 60 . 0 ft and x = 120 . 0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 130 . 0 ft and x = 200 . 0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation C:\xstable\FINN\3 S-FINN-10'SAND.wpd at which a surface extends is y = . 0 ft 15 . 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 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : FINN 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 . 682 56 . 36 106 . 79 87 . 79 80 . 00 132 . 12 2 . 763E+06 2 . 1 . 729 32 . 97 161 . 02 150 . 91 66 . 67 152 . 79 1 . 514E+07 3 . 1 . 743 68 .21 107 . 70 82 . 54 86 . 67 141 . 29 3 . 522E+06 4 . 1 . 784 -5 . 80 224 . 17 219 . 39 80 . 00 149 . 60 1 . 158E+07 5 . 1 . 802 21 .45 154 . 55 149 . 60 60 . 00 144 . 62 1 . 178E+07 6 . 1 . 815 83 . 31 107 .38 85 .20 80 . 00 159. 03 1 . 137E+07 7 . 1 . 847 28 . 51 131 . 06 123 .20 66 . 67 130 . 22 4 . 232E+06 8 . 1 . 886 81 . 88 143 . 95 116 . 79 86 . 67 170 . 74 1 .448E+07 9 . 1 . 894 85 .41 73 . 15 51 . 18 80 . 00 135 . 66 3 . 939E+06 10 . 1 . 910 98 .43 102 .48 70 . 41 93 . 33 159. 96 6 . 907E+06 * * * END OF FILE C:Ucstable\FINN\3 S-FINN-10'SAND.wpd O N N O o0 N — N O O d. L.L. N a- 0 � O N Z p _ N X N Q N I U p X N p U L U 00 O Z Z O 0o �t 0 M � � O O O O Z N N 00 SIXd-Jl SECTION B-B FINN RESIDENCE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED 10' SAND LENSE JANBU METHOD CIRCLE PSTATIC CONDITIONS XSTABL File: FINN-4PS 4-18-** 16 :43 ****************************************** * X S T A B L * * -- * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices - * * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 96 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 838431 U. S .A. * * * All Rights Reserved - * * Ver. 5 . 200 96 - 1524 ****************************************** Problem Description : FINN-101SAND-PSTATIC ---------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES --- ------------------------- 11 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 1 . 0 4 . 9 60 . 0 10 . 0 1 _. 2 60 . 0 10 . 0 77 . 0 20 . 0 1 3 77 . 0 20 . 0 117 . 0 50 . 0 1 4 117 . 0 50 . 0 127 . 0 60 . 0 127 . 0 3 5 - 60 . 0 137 . 0 66 . 0 3 6 137 . 0 66 . 0 138 . 0 70 . 0 3 7 138 . 0 70 . 0 182 . 0 68 . 0 182 . 0 3 8 - 68 . 0 183 . 0 56 . 0 3 9 183 . 0 56 . 0 239 . 0 56 . 0 3 10 239 . 0 56 . 0 240 . 0 64 . 0 11 240 . 0 64 . 0 3 251 . 0 65 . 0 3 C:\xstableTINN\4PS-FINN-10'SAND.wpd 5 SUBSURFACE boundary segments -- Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 71 . 0 9 . 0 90 . 0 25 . 0 2 2 90 . 0 25 . 0 95 . 0 35 . 0 4 3 95 . 0 35 . 0 117 . 0 50 . 0 3 4 95 . 0 35 . 0 280 . 0 36 . 0 4 5 90 . 0 25 . 0 280 . 0 26 . 0 2 ----------- --------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 4 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. 1 120 . 0 135 . 0 75 . 0 36 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 2 120 . 0 135 . 0 850 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 3 120 . 0 135 . 0 350 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 - 4 120 . 0 135 . 0 . 0 32 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of . 150 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of . 150 has been assigned 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 = 60 . 0 ft _ C:\xstableTE*4M4PS-FINN-IO'SAND.wpd and x = 120 . 0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 130 . 0 ft and x = 200 . 0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation -- at which a surface extends is y = . 0 ft 15 . 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 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : FINN Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1 . 1 . 353 1 . 059 80 . 00 159 . 03 1 . 085E+05 2 . 1 . 361 1 . 038 66 . 67 152 . 79 8 . 300E+04 3 . 1 . 363 1 . 045 86 . 67 170 . 74 9 . 984E+04 4 . 1 . 406 1 . 059 93 .33 159 . 96 7 . 877E+04 5 . 1 . 443 1 . 076 93 .33 169 . 71 1 . 170E+05 6 . 1 .449 1 . 023 80 . 00 149 . 60 4 .435E+04 7 . 1 .457 1 . 043 80 . 00 132 . 12 2 . 661E+04 8 • 1 .458 1 . 069 73 .33 146 . 52 1 . 108E+05 9 . 1 . 466 1 . 071 80 . 00 135 . 66 6 . 316E+04 10 . 1 . 468 1 . 039 60 . 00 144 . 62 6 . 621E+04 C:\xstable\FR*4M4PS-FINN-10'SAND.wpd 0 N M - M � o M Co • N N 0 0 N M m Z Q o N D Z O -- cG N N Q — U � v oX 3 N N v _ U -f- O L U pp t N M O Z E Z O O Lt- e— er I co 1 a a O Z N t0 N 00 O O (4991) SIXd-,k _ SECTION B-B FINN RESIDENCE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED 10' SAND LENSE JANBU METHOD CIRCLE STATIC CONDITIONS XSTABL File : FINN-4S 4-18-** 16 :42 * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * Copyright (C) 1992 - 96 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc . -- * Moscow, ID 83843 , U. S .A. * * * All Rights Reserved * Ver. 5 .200 96 - 1524 ****************************************** Problem Description : FINN ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 11 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 1 . 0 4 . 9 60 . 0 10 . 0 1 2 60 . 0 10 . 0 77 . 0 20 . 0 1 -. 3 77 . 0 20 . 0 117 . 0 50 . 0 1 4 117 . 0 50 . 0 127 . 0 60 . 0 3 5 127 . 0 60 . 0 137 . 0 66 . 0 3 6 137 . 0 66 . 0 138 . 0 70 . 0 3 7 138 . 0 70 . 0 182 . 0 68 . 0 3 8 182 . 0 68 . 0 183 . 0 56 . 0 3 9 183 . 0 56 . 0 239 . 0 56 . 0 3 10 239 . 0 56 . 0 240 . 0 64 . 0 3 11 240 . 0 64 . 0 251 . 0 65 . 0 3 - C:\xstable\FINN14S-FINN-10'SAND.wpd 5 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment -- 1 71 . 0 9 . 0 90 . 0 25 . 0 2 2 90 . 0 25 . 0 95 . 0 35 . 0 4 3 95 . 0 35 . 0 117 . 0 50 . 0 3 -- 4 95 . 0 35 . 0 280 . 0 36 . 0 4 5 90 . 0 25 . 0 280 . 0 26 . 0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters _ -------------------------- 4 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. 1 120 . 0 135 . 0 75 . 0 36 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 2 120 . 0 135 . 0 850 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 3 120 . 0 135 . 0 350 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 4 120 . 0 135 . 0 . 0 32 . 00 . 000 . 0 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 = 60 . 0 ft and x = 120 . 0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 130 . 0 ft and x = 200 . 0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation C:ucstable\FE\W4S-FINN-10'SAND.wpd at which a surface extends is y = . 0 ft 15 . 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 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : FINN Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1 . 1 . 743 1 . 038 66 . 67 152 . 79 9 . 966E+04 2 . 1 . 800 1 . 043 80 . 00 132 . 12 3 . 171E+04 3 . 1 . 803 1 . 059 80 . 00 159 . 03 1 . 318E+05 4 . 1 . 820 1 . 046 86 . 67 141 . 29 4 . 265E+04 5 . 1 . 820 1 . 039 60 . 00 144 . 62 7 . 824E+04 6 . 1 . 827 1 . 023 80 . 00 149 . 60 5 . 280E+04 7 . 1 . 847 1 . 071 80 . 00 135 . 66 7 . 535E+04 8 . 1 . 848 1 . 069 73 . 33 146 . 52 1 . 321E+05 9 . 1 . 935 1 . 059 93 . 33 159 . 96 9 . 722E+04 10 . 1 . 938 1 . 045 86 . 67 170 . 74 1 .236E+05 * * * END OF FILE C:\xstable\FINN\4S-FINN-10'SAND.wpd 0 N _ M M � O 00 N (10 O 0 N Lj- m Z O � O N D N Z p `� to V) x N Q _ � I v O x � N D U i U 0 -- N N O d Z E Z p p I _ oo I O 0 O O O p N pp Z N - `` C4aaI) SIXd—,l SECTION B-B FINN RESIDENCE _ SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED 10' SAND LENSE JANBU METHOD BLOCK - STATIC CONDITIONS XSTABL File : FINN-BL1 4-18-** 18 : 15 * X S T A B L * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * Copyright (C) 1992 - 96 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc . * Moscow, ID 83843 , U. S.A. * All Rights Reserved * Ver. 5 .200 96 - 1524 ****************************************** Problem Description : FINN ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 11 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 1 . 0 4 . 9 60 . 0 10 . 0 1 2 60 . 0 10 . 0 77 . 0 20 . 0 1 3 77 . 0 20 . 0 117 . 0 50 . 0 1 4 117 . 0 50 . 0 127 . 0 60 . 0 3 5 127 . 0 60 . 0 137 . 0 66 . 0 3 6 137 . 0 66 . 0 138 . 0 70 . 0 3 7 138 . 0 70 . 0 182 . 0 68 . 0 3 8 182 . 0 68 . 0 183 . 0 56 . 0 3 9 183 . 0 56 . 0> 239 . 0 56 . 0 3 10 239 . 0 56 . 0 240 . 0 64 . 0 3 11 240 . 0 64 . 0 251 . 0 65 . 0 3 C:\xstable\FE*;M6-BLOCK-STATIC-10' SAND.wpd 5 'SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 71 . 0 9 . 0 90 . 0 25 . 0 2 2 90 . 0 25 . 0 95 . 0 35 . 0 4 3 95 . 0 35 . 0 117 . 0 50 . 0 3 4 95 . 0 35 . 0 280 . 0 36 . 0 4 5 90 . 0 25 . 0 280 . 0 26 . 0 2 • -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 4 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. 1 120 . 0 135 . 0 75 . 0 36 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 _ 2 120 . 0 135 . 0 850 . 0 39 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 3 120 . 0 135 . 0 350 . 0 39 . 00 .'000 . 0 0 4 120 . 0 135 . 0 . 0 32 . 00 . 000 . 0 0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating sliding BLOCK surfaces, has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 boxes specified for generation of central block base Length of line segments for active and passive portions of sliding block is 3 . 0 ft Box x-left y-left x-right y-right Width no. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) C:\xstable\FRNM6-BLOCK-STATIC-10' SAND.wpd 1 105 . 0 35 . 0 115 . 0 40 . 0 2 130 . 0 55 . 0 138 . 0 10 . 0 60 . 0 10 . 0 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : FINN �. Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available • JAN13U FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1 . 1 . 927 1 . 053 96 . 91 145 . 34 4 . 745E+04 2 . 2 . 027 1 . 056 95 . 61 140 .44 3 . 810E+04 3 • 2 . 031 1 . 050 98 .43 145 .44 5 . 178E+04 4 . 2 . 108 1 . 056 97 .37 142 . 17 4 . 023E+04 5 • 2 . 114 1 . 052 97 . 70 143 . 06 4 . 051E+04 6 • 2 . 131 1 . 060 99 . 19 144 . 55 5 .222E+04 7 . 2 . 186 1 . 057 99 . 74 144 . 60 5 . 529E+04 8 . 2 . 187 1 . 058 98 . 47 142 . 69 5 .288E+04 9 • 2 . 234 1 . 058 100 . 05 143 . 82 5 . 203E+04 10 . 2 . 239 1 . 060 100 . 15 145 . 01 4 . 963E+04 * * * END OF FILE C:ucstable\FINM6-BLOCK-STATIC-10' SAND.wpd O N N p 0) N 0 L.L. N m Z Q p � o � N M N N Q O X N a U U ap N L O Z 00 Z O U- 00 v O O p Z N to 04 I O _Z •- APPENDIX -E- „� �., .;� , �, .L , , K� ,.�' n, +� k w�ti� �� A, ��,` ,� + cad, �� ' ,�� $�ii�.'r` p if. M � i M1,. z � ,� U —_�„ � 4' • . • h�'' "b $ �, 5:�` �... .. 6 _ a, .pii?� „,,t�6;,� Fb�'leaY�i�� . e, 4 �,. i:. "'i ��Sdei't�ESV - Y'. .F'f�*",� �.. � � '7s.* '.;Y � fni1. '�� .ypyiu�SY�lMy!. vaYra • . • s PHOTO 3 IEW LOOTING NORTH FROM SITE ALONG BLUFF PHOTO 4 I y,'g��✓�,M�F �'if ,rvrvY�""fk� ✓.... � I r dl� .,rl 1, 111 k Y 1 • a r