2009-10390 GLine: 11 6 Vol r
Steve Nowak
From:
James Knowlton
Sent:
Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:44 AM
To:
Steve Nowak
Subject:
RE: Valleyside
Yes, I am satisfied with their letter.
Jim
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Steve Nowak
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:42 AM
To: James Knowlton
Subject: FW: Valleyside
Jim,
I am satisfied with this letter. Are you?
Thx,
Steve
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Danny Cohen [ mailto: dcohen @hetheringtonengineering.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 4:59 PM
To: Steve Nowak
Cc: Dave Bristol; David Winkler; Mark Brister
Subject: Valleyside
Steve,
attached is the letter we discussed. I have the mylar for Sheet 3A and the hand corrected
sheet 4 as well. Please let me know what you need dropped off and if I need to get all the
signatures from all the departments again on the revised sheet, and if you need bluelines
as well. Thanks
Danny Cohen
Principal Engineer /Vice- President
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Carlsbad, California
Laguna Beach, California
Office: (760) 931 -1917
Fax: (760) 931 -0545
E -mail: «mailto: dcohen @hetheringtonengineering.com>>
Website: <<http:// www .hetheringtonengineering.com />>
A proud member of Ca1Geo
1
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
May 5, 2010
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14608
Mr. Mark Brister
1055 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Mr. David S. Bristol
1025 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Partial Stabilization
Valleyside Lane Landslide
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Olivenhain Meadows
Encinitas, California
References: Attached
Dear Messrs. Brister and Bristol:
In accordance with the request of Mr. James Knowlton and Mr. Steve Nowak with the
city of Encinitas Engineering Department, Hetherington Engineering, Inc. is providing
this letter regarding proposed revisions to the construction plans for the partial
stabilization of the Valleyside Lane Landslide (Reference 4). The following revisions are
proposed and our rationale provided.
1. Increase the number of tiebacks to be installed from thirteen to sixteen, and
increase the height of the grade beam from 8 -feet to 9 -feet in order to provide a
greater factor- of - safety. This change has been made at the request of the
homeowners. The recommended partial repairs are intended to achieve a factor -
of- safety of approximately 1.5 (static) under elevated groundwater conditions for
the portion of the landslide being repaired. Additional work will be necessary to
provide a permanent repair i.e. factors -of- safety of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (seismic)
for the entire landslide.
2. Eliminate the requirement to install load cells at two of the tiebacks. A second
inclinometer casing was installed on April 30, 2010 directly behind the grade
beam and several monitoring points were established on the concrete flatwork
directly behind the gradebeam. In our opinion the inclinometer and other data
points will provide sufficient information to monitor for any movement of the
landslide during repairs and post - construction.
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • (760) 931 -1917 • Fax (760) 931 -0545
327 Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 -2306 • (949) 715 -5440 • Fax (949) 715 -5442
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14608
May 5, 2010
Page 2
Delete the ties indicated on the grade beam detail (Reference 4, Sheet 4). The ties
are only intended to hold the steel cages in place. The contractor shall provide
sufficient ties to support the cages in place during shoterete installation.
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. if you have any questions, please
call.
Sincerely,
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
I? OFESS /�
C�i
I Danny Cohen
Civil Engineer 41937 50 Na 2346
Geotechnical Engineer 60' D*
(expires 3/31/10) „ n_
Distribution: 1 -Mr. Mark Brister
I -Mr. David Bristol
Civil Engineer
(expires 3/31/10)
1 -Steve Nowak via e-mail snowak@cityofencinitas.org
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
REFERENCES
1) "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of Landslide and Proposal for Additional
Geotechnical Services, 1005, 1015, 1025, 1055 and 1065 Valleyside Lane,
Olivenhain Meadows, Lots 1 through 5, Encinitas, California," by Hetherington
Engineering, Inc., dated March 24, 2009.
2) "Geotechnical Investigation, Valleyside Lane Landslide, Lots 1 Through 5,
Olivenhain Meadows and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489, Encinitas, California," by
Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated August 4, 2009.
3) "Temporary Geotechnical Repair Recommendations Valleyside Lane Landslide Lots
2, 3 and 4, Olivenhain Meadows Encinitas, California," by Hetherington Engineering,
Inc., dated November 12, 2009.
4) "Partial Landslide Stabilization For: Valleyside Lane - Lots 2, 3 and 4, Encinitas,
California, Sheets 1 through 4," by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated April 12,
2010.
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14608
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
..0C BA L O W //N/
CO NSTRVCT /ON GO MPq N�
October 30, 2009
Hetherington Engineering, Inc.
5205 Avenida Encinas, Ste A
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ATTN: Danny Cohen
f
NOV 1 � 2009
RE: Partial Landslide Stabilization for Valleyside Lane Lots 2, 3 & 4, Encinitas, CA 92024.
PROPOSAL:
In accordance with your request, J. C. Baldwin Construction Co., (hereinafter referred to as JCB) is
pleased to submit this proposal for the above mentioned project. JCB has reviewed the plans provided
by Hetherington Engineering, Inc.
Based on the latest information provided by you and our examination of the site we have prepared the
following scope of work.
2)
3)
4)
5)
Anticipated Phasinr.
1) Mobilization to include posting signs designating construction and staging $12,300.00
parking for construction. The parking/staging will be necessary for contractor
employee parking, equipment mobilization, demobilization, material delivery,
traffic control, removal of construction related debris, portable restrooms and
required SWPPP.
Clear & Grub work area, remove the 2' wall at Lot 4 and fencing between
Lots 3 & 4.
Excavate for drill pad and haul soil off site.
Provide and install rebar and Shotcrete for grade beam.
Drill, install and stress 13 tiebacks.
TOTAL: $214,900.00
$17,200.00
$78,300.00
$97,500.00
Mr. Cohen
Page 2
RE: Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA..92024
Assumptions: 1. We believe at this time the construction back -cut will not interfere with any yard
improvements on lot 4. The only demolition this quote includes on lot 4 is the
property line fence.
2. This Quote includes making the construction back -cut down approximately 12" below
the tieback elevation and trenching in the bottom approximately 3' of grade beam in
#2 — 64' sections.
3. We have included clearing plant material from the work area and disposing offsite.
We do not plan on boxing or saving any trees or bushes.
Exclusions: Permits, Plan, Survey, Inspections, Bond, City Fees, and Relocation of Utilities.
Schedule. Above prices are based on performing the work in 2009 — 2010 in one continuous
cooperation, working regular 8 hours daytime shifts, five days per week. If additional mobilizations are
required, add $5,000.00 per mobilization. We believe the project should be complete within 10 to 12
weeks depending on the tides.
Insurance. JCB is protected by Worker's Compensation Insurance with limits required by law. Public
Liability Insurance for Bodily Injury/Property Damage/Projects completed with limits of $1,000,000.00
each occurrence and $2,000,000.00 aggregate.
Conventional Methods. Unless specified otherwise, JCB's prices is based upon providing conventional
auger tools, and JCB shall be paid for extra work if required to perform rock drilling coring, blasting,
hand mining, hand cleaning, casing of shafts, or shoring of bells. JCB shall also be entitled to equitable
compensation for costs of any excess repair of drill rigs, drill tools, or casing that suffers damage from
unexpected rock or obstructions to drilling or coring.
2469 Impala Drive — Carlsbad, CA 92 008 — 760.438.9275 Fax — 760.438.4963— icbincii baldwin.com —License #A623091
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
Mr. Mark Brister
1055 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
November 12, 2009
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14372
Sebastian
Lane
CUA LIULI , \. 7024
Mr. David S. Bristol Mr. and Mrs. Wiesner
1025 Valleyside Lane 1005 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024 Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: TEMPORARY GEOTECHNICAL REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Valleyside Lane Landslide
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Olivenhain Meadows
Encinitas, California
References: 1. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of Landslide and Proposal for
Additional Geotechnical Services, 1005, 1015, 1025, 1055 and 1065
Valleyside Lane, Olivenhain Meadows, Lots 1 through 5, Encinitas,
California," by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated March 24, 2009.
2. " Geotechnical Investigation, Valleyside Lane Landslide, Lots 1
Through 5, Olivenhain Meadows and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489,
Encinitas, California," by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated
August 4, 2009.
Dear Property Owners:
In accordance with your authorization, Hetherington Engineering, Inc. is providing
temporary geotechnical repair recommendations for the subject properties. Our services
to date have consisted of a preliminary geotechnical evaluation and a geotechnical
investigation of the landslide which has impacted the subject properties (see References).
The purpose of the evaluation and investigation was to assess the nature of soil and
geologic conditions controlling the activation and movement of the landslide which
began to effect the properties in February -March 2009, to determine the cause(s) of the
landslide movement, and to develop recommendations for landslide repair to achieve an
adequate factor of safety against future gross failure of the landslide effected slope. We
have not addressed repairs for damaged structures and/or appurtenances on the properties
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008.4369 • (760) 931 -1917 • Fax (760) 931 -0545
327 Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 -2306 • (949) 715 -5440 • Fax (949) 715 -5442
TEMPORARY GEOTECHNICAL REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14372
November 12, 2009
Page 2
and our work did not include an evaluation of the stability of the properties beyond the
limits of the February-March 2009 landslide.
Based on discussions with you, we understand that at this time you are seeking affordable
temporary repairs that will protect existing improvements on Lots 2, 3 and 4 in the event
of significant rainfall during the coming year possibly resulting in significant additional
movement of the landslide. It should be noted that temporary measures can only provide
limited protection, and cannot be guaranteed to prevent movement of the landslide, only
to reduce the risk of damage to existing improvements. The recommendations provided
herein are not intended as a permanent repair and will provide limited protection to
reduce the risk of damage to existing improvements. The recommended temporary
repairs are intended to achieve a factor -of- safety of approximately 1.2 (static) under an
elevated ground water condition for the portion of the landslide being repaired.
Additional work will be necessary to provide a permanent repair i.e. factors -of- safety of
1.5 (static) and 1.1 (seismic) for the entire landslide.
For the purposes of these temporary geotechnical repair recommendations, we understand
that access onto Lot 5 (Olivenhain Meadows) and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489 will not
be permitted.
TEMPORARY GEOTECHNICAL REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended temporary geotechnical repair consists of one row of tieback anchors
with a concrete facing element and hydroaugers.
Tieback Anchors and Facing Element
The recommended temporary repair includes the installation of one row of high capacity
tieback anchors with a reinforced concrete facing element (grade beam). The temporary
back -cut for the concrete facing element should be no steeper than 3/4:1 (horizontal to
vertical). The tieback anchors should be horizontally spaced at 10 -feet on- centers along the
middle of the concrete facing element. The locations of the proposed tieback anchors and
facing element, and the pertinent details of the temporary stabilization system are shown on
the attached Temporary Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization Plans, Plates 1 through S.
In view of the high capacity required for the anchors, we recommend that the design
include pressure grouting throughout the bonded length. An ultimate bond stress of 25-
pounds- per -square -inch may be used in the preliminary design for pressure grouted
anchors between the bedrock and the grout.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
TEMPORARY GEOTECHNICAL REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14372
November 12, 2009
Page 3
We recommend that all anchors be encapsulated Class I anchors as set forth in the latest
edition of the Post - Tensioning Institute Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil
Anchors (PTI, 1996). We also recommend that the anchors be grouted with sulfate
resistant grout throughout the unbonded length to further protect the tendons, and all
anchor blocks and anchorages be properly sealed against corrosion.
Considering that the site soil and bedrock materials have plasticity indices greater than 20,
we recommend that a minimum of one anchor be subjected to extended creep testing.
Hydroaugers (Optional)
In order to reduce the influence of groundwater on the stability of the landslide, we
recommend that a series of optional hydroaugers be installed to drain water from the
slope. Hydroaugers should be installed at the lowest point possible and extend a
minimum of 100 -feet back into the slope. The hydroaugers may be installed prior to
tieback installation however, sleeves may be set in the grade beam so that hydroaugers
can be installed at a later date. The hydroaugers should consist of a minimum of 4 -inch
diameter perforated pipes, sloping at a minimum gradient of 1- percent and discharge to a
suitable outlet such as the curb and gutter at the front of Lot 4. Piezometers should be
installed at suitable locations to monitor the groundwater elevations.
Construction Observation
Installation of the tieback anchors with facing element and the hydroaugers should be
observed/tested by the Geotechnical Consultant to confirm anticipated conditions,
provide quality control and respond to unanticipated conditions, if necessary.
LIMITATIONS
The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation and further assume the excavations
to be representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If different subsurface
conditions from those encountered during our exploration are observed or appear to be
present in excavations, the Geotechnical Engineer should be promptly notified for review
and reconsideration of recommendations.
Our work was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Consultants practicing in this or similar
localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional advice included in this report.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
TEMPORARY GEOTECHNICAL REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14372
November 12, 2009
Page 4
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please
call.
Sincerely,
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Danny Cohen
Civil Engineer 41
Geotechnical End
(expires 3/31/10)
Attachments: Temporary Valleyside Lane
Landslide Stabilization Plans
Distribution: 1 -Mr. Mark Brister
1 -Mr. David Bristol
1 -Mr. Jim Wiesner
1 -Mr. Ford Scott Sebastian
Civil Engineer Y
Geotechnical En€
(expires 3/31/10)
Plates 1 through 5
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
.. PCSTABL5M *'
by
Purdue University
1 Q
- -Slope Stability Analysis -- �P
Simplified .lanbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
1
Run Date: 9 -25 -09
Time of Run:
Run By: CH
Input Data Filename: cc4.in
Output Filename: cc.o4
Plotted Output Filename: cc.p4
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Valleyside; section C -C'
Tie- backs: 24.0 k /ft
High groundwater
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 Top Boundaries
14 Total Boundaries
Boundary
X -Left
Y -Left
X -Right
Y -Right
Soil Type
No.
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Below Bnd
1
.00
87.00
30.00
87.00
1
2
30.00
87.00
54.00
87.00
2
3
54.00
87.00
105.00
111.00
2
4
105.00
111.00
151.00
111.00
2
5
151.00
111.00
240.00
111.00
1
6
30.00
87.00
33.00
84.00
1
7
33.00
84.00
36.00
81.00
3
8
36.00
81.00
127.00
81.00
3
9
127.00
81.00
136.00
85.00
2
10
136.00
85.00
145.00
96.00
1
11
145.00
96.00
151.00
111.00
1
12
136.00
85.00
240.00
89.00
2
13
127.00
81.00
240.00
84.00
3
14
.00
84.00
33.00
84.00
.
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
1
No. 41937
911 Ad
n
v
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • )
( 760 760) 931 -1917 • Fax ( Project No. 6524.4
327 Third Street •Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • (949) 715 -5440 •Fax (949) 715- 2 Log No. 14428
www.hethedngtonengineering.com
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
1
500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
5 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base
Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of
Sliding Block Is 5.0
Box
X -Left
Y -Left
X -Right
Y -Right
Height
No.
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
1
36.00
82.50
60.00
82.50
1.50
2
125.90
83.80
127.00
81.00
.00
3
133.70
88.30
136.00
85.00
.00
4
140.60
98.50
145.00
96.00
.00
5
145.10
110.00
151.00
110.00
.00
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical
First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * *
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
48.28
87.00
2
50.91
85.26
3
54.48
81.76
4
126.46
82.37
5
134.26
87.49
6
140.91
98.32
7
150.00
110.00
8
150.89
111.00
* ** 1.204 * **
Individual data on the 12 slices
Water Water Tie Tie
Force Force Force Force
Slice Width Weight Top Hot Norm Tan
Earthquake
Force Surcharge
Hor Ver Load
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 a (760) 931 -1917 * Fax (760) 931 -0545 project No. 6524.4
327 Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • (949) 715 -5440 * Fax (949) 715 -5442 Log No. 14428
www.hethedngtonengineering.com
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
1
No.
Ft (m)
Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
1
2.6
286.2
109.8
303.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2
3.1
1259.3
168.8
1115.8
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
3
.5
306.4
24.7
245.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
4
40.5
74370.9
.0
28422.4 16969.4
8069.8
.0
.0
.0
5
10.0
32676.5
.0
10953.8
945.9
2421.9
.0
.0
.0
6
20.0
71022.8
.0
26008.0
921.9
3501.9
.0
.0
.0
7
1.5
5191.6
.0
2155.2
45.0
210.9
.0
.0
.0
8
7.8
25242.0
.0
12369.8
846.3
951.8
.0
.0
.0
9
6.6
14885.8
.0
10725.8
1302.4
771.1
.0
.0
.0
10
6.6
6808.9
.0
2751.5
783.6
766.4
.0
.0
.0
11
2.5
783.7
.0
.0
251.1
279.8
.0
.0
.0
12
.9
53.3
.0
.0
71.4
94.9
.0
.0
.0
Failure
Surface Specified
By 8
Coordinate
Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
48.28
87.00
2
50.91
85.26
3
54.48
81.76
4
126.46
82.37
5
134.26
87.49
6
140.91
98.32
7
150.00
110.00
8
150.89
111.00
•`• 1.204 "'
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
39.07
87.00
2
41.17
85.07
3
44.91
81.76
4
126.51
02.25
5
133.91
87.99
6
142.61
97.36
7
150.18
110.00
8
150.93
111.00
1.204 •••
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • (760) 931 -1917 • Fax (760) 931 -0545 Prolte� No. 614428
327 Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • (949) 715 -5440 • Fax (949) 715 -5442
www.hatheringtonengineedng.com
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
1
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
46.79
87.00
2
49.33
84.60
3
53.44
81.75
4
126.32
82.74
5
134.01
87.85
6
142.66
97.33
7
148.59
110.00
8
148.82
111.00
••• 1.211 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
46.79
87.00
2
49.33
84.60
3
53.44
81.75
4
126.32
82.74
5
134.01
87.85
6
142.66
97.33
7
148.59
110.00
8
148.82
111.00
••* 1.211 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
49.48
87.00
2
52.76
83.75
3
57.35
81.77
4
125.91
83.78
5
133.77
88.20
6
141.90
97.76
7
150.43
110.00
8
151.33
111.00
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • (760) 931 -1917 • Fax (760) 931 -0545 Project No. 6524.4
327 Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 a (949) 715 -5440 • Fax (949) 715 -5442 Log No. 14428
www.hetheringtonengineering.com
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
1
1
*'* 1.212 *'*
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
40.25
87.00
2
44.22
85.38
3
47.79
81.88
4
126.09
83.32
5
134.29
87.46
6
140.98
98.29
7
149.55
110.00
8
149.93
111.00
1.227 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
42.78
67.00
2
45.51
85.57
3
50.50
85.27
4
54.25
81.96
5
126.84
81.41
6
134.75
86.79
7
141.89
97.76
8
149.99
110.00
9
150.97
111.00
* *' 1.227 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • (760) 931 -1917 • Fax (760) 931 -0545 Project No. 14428
M28
327 Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • (949) 715 -5440 • Fax (949) 715 -5442
www.hethedngtonengineering.com
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
1
42.78
87.00
2
45.51
85.57
3
50.50
85.27
4
54.25
81.96
5
126.84
81.41
6
134.75
86.79
7
141.89
97.76
8
149.99
110.00
9
150.97
111.00
1
1.227 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
X
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
38.08
87.00
2
40.40
84.84
3
44.46
81.92
4
49.46
81.79
5
126.12
83.25
6
134.42
87.26
7
142.27
97.55
8
148.72
110.00
9
149.38
111.00
1.229 * **
Y
.00
30.00 +
A X I S F T
30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 150.00
--+--------- +------- * * *--------- +---- - - - --+
.33
374
711
16*
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • (760) 931 -1917 • Fax (760) 931 -0545 Pr Log
Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • (949) 715 -5440 • Fax (949) 715 -5442
www.hethedngtonengineering.com
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
A 60.00 +
- 1
- T
x 90.00 +
W
- T
I 120.00 + 1
•4 W
s 150.00 + +
180.00 +
F 210.00 +
T 240.00 + R
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • (760) 931 -1917 • Fax (760) 931 .0545 Project No. 6524.4
327 Third Street •Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • (949) 715 -5440 •Fax (949) 715 -5442 Log No. 14428
www.hethehngtonengineering.com
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
Structural Calculations for Grade Beam
Valleyside Lane, 8 foot wide GB
2L
I I
I I
I
j I B/2
I
I anchor plate �
fby
I * �
Bo �1 o
I I
I I
I I 8/2
I I
i I
I I
r-- L/2 -� L T L/2 —�
P, P.
-1 ------- _� _---------------------------� I
d h
'� �i YYY•`Y YA Y1IAYYAYYY�A�YYAY'rYYY�1Y �]AIr-
1 Q
iT =
41
\O
i
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • (760) 931 -1917 • Fax (760) 931 -0545
327 Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • (949) 715 -5440 • Fax (949) 715 -5442 Project No. 6524.4
www.hethedngtonengineedng.com Log No. 14427
Summary
Anchor
DL [k] =
TestFactor=l
Load Factor =
240
1.33
1 1.2
Soil
q all [kstl = 3.5
Beam
f', [ksq =
4.5
60
= DL x Load Factor x Test Factor/Area
B Ifq
8
L[tq=
10
h [m] =
24
cover Din] =
3
section
plate b [in] =
12
Bars
q p aq = 3.00
fy[IW]=
60
= DL x Load Factor x Test Factor/Area
=
bar size:
7
A. tin'] =
0.60
dia. On] =
0.875
Bearing pressures
q p aq = 3.00
OK permanent bearing
q design DA = 4.79
= DL x Load Factor x Test Factor/Area
Continuous Beam parameters
clearspan In= L - b = 9 IfIl
w„=gdwpB
unfactored moment: M = W. 1„t = 3103 [k -ftl
unfactored shear: V= '%w„ /n= 172 [k1
]
Design factors
0,= 0.83
Q m °
0.90
= 0.85
=
0.70
Bending - longitudinal, continuous
demand
Mu
d
p mm
A s m
no. of
bars
A
capacity
Mu
check
CID
bar
spacing
bar
spacing
bar
spacing
section
coeff.
(k-ft]
Dnl
�n'1
lin']
k fll
[in]
Gn]
bottom
3.75
[k-fll
lint
0.0033
Pn`I
14
[in']
[k-hl
OK
225
[in]
lint
midspan
+1/16
194
OK
3.34
top
20.6
0.0033
6.58
12
7.20
647
-
8.18
B.00
end (unrestrained)
+ 1/11
282
OK
2.29
aside anchors
-1/11
282
OK
1
2.19
bottom
19.7
0.0033
6.30
12
7.20
619
8.18
8.00
end
-1110
310
OK
1.99
1
1
Bending - transverse
critical)
demand
Mu
d
P n
As. o
no. of
bars
As
capacity
Mu
check
C/D
bar
spacing
bar
spacing
section
A
(k-ft]
Dnl
�n'1
lin']
k fll
[in]
Gn]
bottom
3.75
337
20.6 1
0.0033
8.23
14
8.40
757
OK
225
8.77
8.57
Project No. 6524.4
Log No. 14427
Summary (cont.)
Shear
coeff.
demand
critical! Vu
Ifl) [k)
capacity
va0
[psi)
req'd
d
[in]
check
section
longitudinal end
(continuous) interior
1.15
198
134
OK
OK
1.00
- 172
M63
transverse
1.79 86
OK
Punching Shear
[1c
req'd
d
check
bo Vu
Inl Ik)
126.8 350
1.25
9 3
OK
Plate bearing
P a„
Ikl
P,p
Ikl
check
hole dia A p a,, 9
[in) Iin'1
6.0 115.7
620
319
OK
Project No. 6524.4
Log No. 14427
Bending design
Anchor
DL tk] =
240
Test Factor =
1.33
Load Factor=
1.2
Soil Reaction
q. [ksfl = 3.50
Beam
f', [keq =
4.5
b m =
bar size:
B [e1=
8
LIM=
10
h pnl =
24
cover [in) =
3
piste b pnl -
12
Bars
fvpre8=
60
b m =
bar size:
7
a,M=
0.6
dia. pnl=
0.88
Longitudinal reinforcement - continuous beam: ACI Code, Section 8.3.3
clear span In: = L - b = 9 Inl
uniform load w„ = q dm9n B = 38.3 fk99
coefficients: + 1/16 midspan
-1/11 aside anchors
+ 1/11 end (unrestrained)
- 1/10 end
Moment demand, Mu = coeff. wv In s
Pm x =1(0.75)1(0.85)01 f 8 87
Y Y
200
Pmin -
Y
As =PBdf
Capacity: Mul= bmAsfy�dl -( Asfy ))
1.7Bfc
Transverse reinforcement, simple footing
P . = 0.0233
P min = 0.0033
Design factors
p =
0.83
b m =
0.90
b =
0.85
b ww4 =
0.70
(analyzed as singly reinforced)
critical 1= B - b = 3.75 R ACI Code, section 15.4.2
2 4
Moment demand, Mu = 1/: (Lq) /Z= 337 fk -RI
r Asf l
Capacity: Mul = 0m As fy (d, -I y J (analyzed as singly reinforced)
11.7 L f
Project No. 6524.4
Log No. 14427
Shear
Anchor
DL pc] =
240
Test Factor =
Load Factor =
1.33
1.2
Soil Reaction
q 5 Ik$J
Beam
f', [km7 =
fy[W) =
60
0.80
B (n1=
]244
Lpt1=
8, On)
dia. pn1=
h pn1=
0.88
cover Ml
3
12
plate b pnl 4
2 fc = 134.2 [Ps9
Longitudinal - continuous beam: ACI Code, Section 8.3.3
clear span /n: = L - b = 9 IN
uniform load w„ = q design B = 38.3 [ksq
coefficients:
1.15 at first interior support
1 at all other supports
Shear demand, Vu = coeff. '/2 wu In
Bars
p t =
fy[W) =
60
0.80
*V=
bar size:
7
8, On)
dia. pn1=
0.8
0.88
V
req'd d = steel neglected
Ov va(! B
Transverse - simple footing
critical != B -dr -b= 1.79 [al
2 2
d, = 20.6 pnl
Shear demand, Vu = (gdes,p L)
req' J d = V steel neglected
¢. rul/L
Design factors
p t =
0.83
+,=
0.80
*V=
0.85
1 bwft =
0.70
Project No. 6524.4
Log No. 14427
Punching Shear and Plate Bearing
Anchor
DL [k] _'
Teat Factor =
Load Factor=
240
1.33
12
Soil Reaction
q. [ksq = 3.5
Beam
V. [ks) =
4.5
*V=
bar size:
Bpq=
8
Lpq=
10
h pn] =
24
cover [In]
3
pate b pn]
12
Punching shear; ACI Code 11.11.2
d , = 19.7 [in]
bp= 4(b +d)= 126.8 [in]
demand Vp= DL(LFDF)- (qs(b +d)2)= 349.7 [k]
PC = 6 ` -2, PC = 1.25
V
req'd d= 4 p = 9.3 [In]
2 +— � by XC
PC
Plate Bearing: ACI Code 10.15
assume: 6 in. hole diameter
bearing area, A b = bZ - n/4 dial = 115.7 [in'I
allow. load, P=, = Oe v 0.85 f � A b 2 = 620 [kl
max. load = DL x LF x TF = 383 [k]
Bars
fypw]=
80
*V=
bar size:
7
a.lin)=
0.6
dla. fin] =
0.875
Design factors
R =
0.825
0.9
0.85
*V=
=1
0.7
Project No. 6524.4
Log No 14427
Memo
To: Stephen Nowak, Engineering
Prom: James Knowlton, Geotechnical Consultant
Date: 12/8/2009
Re: Review of Geotechnical Report, Structural Calculations and Repair Plans, Partial Stabilization
of Valleyside Lane Landslide, Encinitas, CA, Drawing# 10390 -G
References:
1. Geotechnical Investigation, Valleyside Lane Landslide, Lots 1 through 5, Olivenhain Meadows
and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489, Encinitas, CA, by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated
August4,2009
2. Stability Calculations, Valleyside Landslide with Tie -Backs installed and high groundwater, by
Hetherington Engineering, dated September 25, 2009
3. Structural Calculations for Grade Beam, Valleyside Lane Landslide, by Hetherington
Engineering, undated
4. Temporary Geotechnical Repair Recommendations, Valleyside Lane Landslide, Lots 2,3 and
4, Olivenhain Meadows, Encinitas, CA, by Hetherington Engineering, dated November 12,
2009
In response to your request I have reviewed the referenced reports, plans and calculations for the
partial stabilization of an active landslide on Valleyside Lane in the City of Encinitas. California. The
purpose of my review was to determine if the geotechnical report, stability calculations and structural
calculations meet the requirements of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Engineers Manual and
general standards of care.
Based upon my review and a visit to the subject site it is my opinion that the subject reports,
calculations and plans meet the City of Encinitas requirements and are approved.
It should be noted that this proposed stabilization is a "partial' stabilization and does not bring the
stability of the landslide to a generally accepted industry factor of safety of 1.5, but only to a factor of
safety of 1.2 is being proposed to stabilize the landslide to survive the current rainy season of 2009.
April 14, 2010
Ford Scott Sebastian, David Bristol, and Mark Brister
1015, 1025, and 1055 Valleyside Ln.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Permit issuance requirements for:
Application 10390 -G
1015, 1025, and 1055 Valleyside Ln.
264 - 580 -02, 264 - 580 -03, and 264- 580 -04
This letter summarizes the requirements for pulling your Engineering Permit for drawing 10390 -G. Your
approved plan will remain valid for one year. If the permit is not issued within six months from the date of
approval of the drawings, the plans will be subject to review by City staff for compliance with current codes
and regulations before a permit can be issued, and changes to the approved plans as well as additional
fees may be required.
Please read through this letter carefully and contact the City with any questions you may have. It
contains information about many requirements that may apply to your project and can make the
process clearer and easier for you.
In order to obtain the permits to construct the work shown on your approved plans, you will need to satisfy
the requirements below. All of the items listed below must be submitted to the Engineering front counter
in one complete package at the time the applicant comes in to pull the permit. Partial submittals of any
kind will not be accepted. Your project planchecker will not accept any of the documents listed on behalf
of the Engineering front counter staff; all items must be submitted to the front counter directly together and
at one time. The correct number of each of the requested documents must be provided; copies of
documents submitted to the City during plancheck do not reduce the necessary quantities listed below.
(1) Provide 4 print sets of the approved drawing 10390 -G
Provide 2 copies of "Geotechnical investigation ,Valleyside Lane landslide, Lots 1 through 5,
Olivenhain Meadows and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489, Encinitas California" prepared by
Hetherington Engineering Inc. and August 4, 2009.
Provide 2 copies of "Temporary geotechnical repair recommendations, Valleyside Lane
landslide, lots 2, 3, and 4, Olivenhain Meadows, Encinitas California" prepared by
Hetherington Engineering Inc. and November 12, 2009.
(2) Post Security Deposits to guarantee all of the work shown on your approved drawings. The
amounts of security deposits are determined directly from the Approved Engineer's Cost Estimate
generated by your engineer according to a set of predetermined unit prices for each kind of work shown
on your plans. You will be required to post security deposit(s) as follows:
(a) Security Deposit for Grading Permit 10390 -G: in the amount $157.973.00 to guarantee
both performance and labor/ materials for earthwork, drainage, private improvements, and
erosion control.
(b) N/A
(c) N/A
(d) N/A
A minimum of 20% and up to 100% of the amount listed in item(s) 2(a) must be in the form of
cash, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or an assignment of account. Up to 80% of the amount
listed in item 2(a) may be in the form of auto - renewing Performance and Labor and Materials
Bonds issued by a State of California licensed surety company.
Up to 100% of the amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(b), 2(c), and /or 2(d) may be in the form of auto-
renewing Labor and Materials bonds issued by a State of California licensed surety company.
Cash, certificates of deposit, letters of credit, and assignments of account are also acceptable
financial instruments.
If a certificate of deposit (CD) will be obtained to secure the entire amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(a)
and /or 2(b), two separate CD's for 25% and 75% of the amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(a) and /or
2(b) should be obtained in order to facilitate any future partial release of those securities. CD's
posted may be of any term but must be auto - renewing and must specify the City of Encinitas as a
certificate holder and include a clause that until the City of Encinitas provides a written request for
release of the CD, the balance shall be available to the City upon its sole request.
The format of any financial instrument is subject to City approval, may be in the owner's name
only, and must list the City of Encinitas as a Certificate Holder.
For any questions regarding how to oast securities, bonding, or the required format of securities,
please contact Debra Geishart at 760- 633 -2779.
(3) Pay non - refundable fees as listed below:
Fee T Amount _
_Gradinglnspection__ $6,739.1
The grading and improvement inspection fees are calculated based on 5% of first $100,000.00 of
the approved Engineer's cost estimate dated March 10, 2010 and 3% of the cost estimate over
$100,000.00. The NPDES inspection fee is assessed as 1% of the first $100,000.00 of the
approved Engineer's cost estimate and 0.6% of the cost estimate over $100,000.00. The flood
control fee is assessed at a rate of $0.21 per square foot of net new impervious surface area for
driveway and parking areas as created per the approved plan.
(4) Provide the name, address, telephone number, state license number, and license type of the
construction contractor. The construction of any improvements within the public
right -of -way or public easements is restricted to qualified contractors possessing the
required state license as listed in the table below. The contractor must also have on file with
the City current evidence of one million dollar liability insurance listing the City of Encinitas as co-
insured. Additional requirements are described in the handout "Requirements for Proof of
Insurance" available at the Engineering front counter.
Type
Description
Work to be Done
A
General Engineering
any & all
C -8
Concrete
apron/curb/gutter/ramp/sidewalk
C -10
Electrical
lighting/signals
C -12
Grading 8 Paving
any surface, certain drain -
basins/channels
C -27
Landscaping
planting /irrigation /fencing & other
amenities
C -29
Masonry
retaining walls
C -32
Parking &Highway
Improvement
signage /striping /safety
C -34
Pipeline
sanitary sewer /storm drain
(5) Permits are valid for no more than one year from the date of issuance and may expire earlier due
to expirations of letter of credit and /or insurance policies.
(6) This project does not propose land disturbance in excess of one acre and is exempt from the
State Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirement. An erosion control plan shall
be implemented per the approved grading plan.
Preconstruction Meeting: A preconstruction meeting at the project site is mandatory for all projects.
The preconstruction meeting may not be scheduled until the Engineering permit(s) have been issued, and
the applicant/contractor must give the assigned Engineering inspector a minimum of 48 hours advance
notice prior to the scheduled meeting time.
Right -of -Way Construction Permit: A separate right -of -way construction permit will be required for any
work in the public right -of -way or public easements. Typically, this work may include construction or
reconstruction of a portion of the driveway within the public right -of -way, excavation, backfill, and
resurfacing to install electric, gas, telephone, and cable television lines, or water and sewer connections.
A permit fee of $300.00 per application and a site plan, preferably the work order issued by the public
utility, will be required. Contractor license and insurance requirements apply. Permits must be issued at
least 48 hours in advance of the start of work.
Haul Routes, Traffic Control Plans, and Transportation Permits: These separate permits may be
required for your project and are handled by the Traffic Engineering Division. A fee of $250.00 is required
for traffic control plans. For more details, contact Raymond Guarnes, Engineering Technician, at (760)
633 -2704.
Release of Project Securities: The partial or complete release of project securities is initiated
automatically by the City after submission of satisfactory as -built drawinas to the Citv and approval by the
project Enoineerino inspector. AoDlicant reauests cannot be addressed without release approval from the
project inspector. The processing and release of securities may take up to 4 weeks after the release
process is initiated by the project Engineering inspector. Any cash releases will be mailed to the address
on this letter unless the City is otherwise notified, and all letters mailed to a financial institution will be
copied to the owner listed hereon. Satisfactory completion of Final Inspection certified by the project
Engineering inspector is a prerequisite to full release of the Security Deposit assigned to any Grading
Permit. A sum in the amount of 25% of the securities posted for improvement permits will be held for a
one -year warranty period, and a release is automatically initiated at the end of that warranty period.
Construction Changes: Construction changes prepared by the Engineer of Work will be required for all
changes to the approved plans. Requests for construction change approval should be submitted to the
Engineering Services Department front counter as redlined mark -ups on 2 blueline prints of the approved
Drawing. Changes are subject to approval prior to field implementation. Substantial increases in valuation
due to the proposed changes may be cause for assessment and collection of additional inspection fees
and security deposits. Construction change fees of $200.00 and $350.00 will be assessed for minor and
major construction changes, respectively. Construction changes necessitating a new plan sheet will be
assessed the per -sheet plancheck and NPDES plancheck fees in lieu of the construction change fee.
Construction changes not previously approved and submitted as as -built drawings at the end of the
construction process will be rejected and the securities release will be delayed.
Change of Ownership: If a change of ownership occurs following approval of the drawing(s), the new
owner will be required to submit to the City a construction change revising the title sheet of the plan to
reflect the new ownership. The construction change shall be submitted to the Engineering front counter
as redline mark -ups on two blueline prints of the approved drawing together with two copies of the grant
deed or title report reflecting the new ownership. Construction change fees apply. The current owner will
be required to post new securities to replace those held by the City under the name of the former owner,
and the securities posted by the former owner will be released when the replacement securities have been
received and approved by the City.
Change of Engineer of Work: If a change in engineer of work occurs following the approval of the
drawing(s), a construction change shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering
Department. Two copies of the forms for the assumption of responsibility by the new engineer and the
release of responsibility by the former engineer shall be completed and submitted to the City.
Construction change fees apply.
As- builts: Project as -built drawings prepared by the Engineer of Work will be required prior to Final
Grading acceptance by Engineering Services. Changes to the approved plans require a construction
change to be submitted to the City prior to field implementation. Construction changes may not be
submitted as as- builts at the end of the construction process.
This letter does not change owner or successor -in- interest obligations. If there should be a substantial
delay in the start of your project or a change of ownership, please contact the City to request an update.
Should you have questions regarding the posting of securities, please contact Debra Geishart, who
processes all Engineering securities, at (760) 633 -2779.
Should you have any other questions, please contact me at (760) 633 -2667 or visit the Engineering
Counter at the Civic Center to speak with an Engineering Technician.
Sincerely,
Steven Nowak
Assistant Civil Engineer
cc Danny Cohen, Engineer of Work
Debbie Geishart, Engineering Technician
Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer
Masih Maher, Senior Civil Engineer
permittfile
Enc Application
Requirements for Proof of Insurance
Security Obligation Agreements
Co3 `O- I
Memo
To: Stephen Nowak, Engineering
From: James Knowlton, Geotechnical Consultant
Date: 12/8/2009
Re: Review of Geotechnical Report, Structural Calculations and Repair Plans, Partial Stabilization
of Valleyside Lane Landslide, Encinitas, CA, Drawing# 10390 -G
References:
1. Geotechnical Investigation, Valleyside Lane Landslide, Lots 1 through 5, Olivenhain Meadows
and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489, Encinitas, CA, by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated
August 4, 2009
2. Stability Calculations, Valleyside Landslide with Tie -Backs installed and high groundwater, by
Hetherington Engineering, dated September 25, 2009
3. Structural Calculations for Grade Beam, Valleyside Lane Landslide, by Hetherington
Engineering, undated
4. Temporary Geotechnical Repair Recommendations, Valleyside Lane Landslide, Lots 2,3 and
4, Olivenhain Meadows, Encinitas, CA, by Hetherington Engineering, dated November 12,
2009
In response to your request I have reviewed the referenced reports, plans and calculations for the
partial stabilization of an active landslide on Valleyside Lane in the City of Encinitas, California. The
purpose of my review was to determine if the geotechnical report, stability calculations and structural
calculations meet the requirements of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Engineers Manual and
general standards of care.
Based upon my review and a visit to the subject site it is my opinion that the subject reports,
calculations and plans meet the City of Encinitas requirements and are approved.
It should be noted that this proposed stabilization is a "partial' stabilization and does not bring the
stability of the landslide to a generally accepted industry factor of safety of 1.5, but only to a factor of
safety of 1.2 is being proposed to stabilize the landslide to survive the current rainy season of 2009.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
May 5, 2010
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14608
Mr. Mark Brister
1055 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024 ] i1
Mr. David S. Bristol
1025 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Partial Stabilization
Valleyside Lane Landslide
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Olivenhain Meadows
Encinitas, California
References: Attached
Dear Messrs. Brister and Bristol:
In accordance with the request of Mr. James Knowlton and Mr. Steve Nowak with the
city of Encinitas Engineering Department, Hetherington Engineering, Inc. is providing
this letter regarding proposed revisions to the construction plans for the partial
stabilization of the Valleyside Lane Landslide (Reference 4). The following revisions are
proposed and our rationale provided.
Increase the number of tiebacks to be installed from thirteen to sixteen, and
increase the height of the grade beam from 8 -feet to 9 -feet in order to provide a
greater factor -of- safety. This change has been made at the request of the
homeowners. The recommended partial repairs are intended to achieve a factor -
of -safety of approximately 1.5 (static) under elevated groundwater conditions for
the portion of the landslide being repaired. Additional work will be necessary to
provide a permanent repair i.e. factors -of -safety of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (seismic)
for the entire landslide.
2. Eliminate the requirement to install load cells at two of the tiebacks. A second
inclinometer casing was installed on April 30, 2010 directly behind the grade
beam and several monitoring points were established on the concrete flatwork
directly behind the gradebeam. In our opinion the inclinometer and other data
points will provide sufficient information to monitor for any movement of the
landslide during repairs and post- construction.
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • (760) 931 -1917 • Fax (760) 931 -0545
327 Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 -2306 • (949) 715 -5440 • Fax (949) 715 -5442
www.hetheringtonengineering.com
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14608
May 5, 2010
Page 2
3. Delete the ties indicated on the grade beam detail (Reference 4, Sheet 4). The ties
are only intended to hold the steel cages in place. The contractor shall provide
sufficient ties to support the cages in place during shotcrete installation.
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please
call.
Sincerely,
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
996 y Cohen N " t4m 2346
Civil Engineer 4y6'37 r* t>w_1
Geotechnical Engineer
(expires 3/31/10) 7E C"
Distribution: 1 -Mr. Mark Brister
1 -Mr. David Bristol
Civil Engineer 3(
Geotechnical En(
(expires 3/31/10)
1 -Steve Nowak via e-mail snowak @cityofencinitas.org
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
REFERENCES
1) "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of Landslide and Proposal for Additional
Geotechnical Services, 1005, 1015, 1025, 1055 and 1065 Valleyside Lane,
Olivenhain Meadows, Lots 1 through 5, Encinitas, California," by Hetherington
Engineering, Inc., dated March 24, 2009.
2) " Geotechnical Investigation, Valleyside Lane Landslide, Lots 1 Through 5,
Olivenhain Meadows and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489, Encinitas, California," by
Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated August 4, 2009.
3) "Temporary Geotechnical Repair Recommendations Valleyside Lane Landslide Lots
2, 3 and 4, Olivenhain Meadows Encinitas, California," by Hetherington Engineering,
Inc., dated November 12, 2009.
4) "Partial Landslide Stabilization For: Valleyside Lane - Lots 2, 3 and 4, Encinitas,
California, Sheets 1 through 4," by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated April 12,
2010.
Project No. 6425.4
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Log No. 14608
peg tit
TEMPORARY GEOTECHNICAL
REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Valleyside Lane Landslide
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Olivenhain Meadows
Encinitas, California
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
Mr. Mark Brister
1055 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Mr. David S. Bristol
1025 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
November 12, 2009
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14372
Mr. Ford Scott Sebastian
1015 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Mr. and Mrs. Wiesner
1005 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: TEMPORARY GEOTECHNICAL REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Valleyside Lane Landslide
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Olivenhain Meadows
Encinitas, California
References: 1. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of Landslide and Proposal for
Additional Geotechnical Services, 1005, 1015, 1025, 1055 and 1065
Valleyside Lane, Olivenhain Meadows, Lots 1 through 5, Encinitas,
California," by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated March 24, 2009.
2. " Geotechnical Investigation, Valleyside Lane Landslide, Lots 1
Through 5, Olivenhain Meadows and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489,
Encinitas, California," by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated
August 4, 2009.
Dear Property Owners:
In accordance with your authorization, Hetherington Engineering, Inc. is providing
temporary geotechnical repair recommendations for the subject properties. Our services
to date have consisted of a preliminary geotechnical evaluation and a geotechnical
investigation of the landslide which has impacted the subject properties (see References).
The purpose of the evaluation and investigation was to assess the nature of soil and
geologic conditions controlling the activation and movement of the landslide which
began to effect the properties in February-March 2009, to determine the cause(s) of the
landslide movement, and to develop recommendations for landslide repair to achieve an
adequate factor of safety against future gross failure of the landslide effected slope. We
have not addressed repairs for damaged structures and/or appurtenances on the properties
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • (760) 931.1917 • Fax (760) 931 -0545
327 Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 -2306 • (949) 715.5440 • Fax (949) 715 -5442
www.hetheringtonengineering.com
TEMPORARY GEOTECHNICAL REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14372
November 12, 2009
Page 2
and our work did not include an evaluation of the stability of the properties beyond the
limits of the February-March 2009 landslide.
Based on discussions with you, we understand that at this time you are seeking affordable
temporary repairs that will protect existing improvements on Lots 2, 3 and 4 in the event
of significant rainfall during the coming year possibly resulting in significant additional
movement of the landslide. It should be noted that temporary measures can only provide
limited protection, and cannot be guaranteed to prevent movement of the landslide, only
to reduce the risk of damage to existing improvements. The recommendations provided
herein are not intended as a permanent repair and will provide limited protection to
reduce the risk of damage to existing improvements. The recommended temporary
repairs are intended to achieve a factor -of -safety of approximately 1.2 (static) under an
elevated ground water condition for the portion of the landslide being repaired.
Additional work will be necessary to provide a permanent repair i.e. factors -of -safety of
1.5 (static) and 1.1 (seismic) for the entire landslide.
For the purposes of these temporary geotechnical repair recommendations, we understand
that access onto Lot 5 (Olivenhain Meadows) and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489 will not
be permitted.
TEMPORARY GEOTECHNICAL REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended temporary geotechnical repair consists of one row of tieback anchors
with a concrete facing element and hydroaugers.
Tieback Anchors and Facing Element
The recommended temporary repair includes the installation of one row of high capacity
tieback anchors with a reinforced concrete facing element (grade beam). The temporary
back -cut for the concrete facing element should be no steeper than 3/4:1 (horizontal to
vertical). The tieback anchors should be horizontally spaced at 10 -feet on- centers along the
middle of the concrete facing element. The locations of the proposed tieback anchors and
facing element, and the pertinent details of the temporary stabilization system are shown on
the attached Temporary Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization Plans, Plates 1 through 5.
In view of the high capacity required for the anchors, we recommend that the design
include pressure grouting throughout the bonded length. An ultimate bond stress of 25-
pounds- per - square-inch may be used in the preliminary design for pressure grouted
anchors between the bedrock and the grout.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
TEMPORARY GEOTECHNICAL REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14372
November 12, 2009
Page 3
We recommend that all anchors be encapsulated Class I anchors as set forth in the latest
edition of the Post - Tensioning Institute Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil
Anchors (PTI, 1996). We also recommend that the anchors be grouted with sulfate
resistant grout throughout the unbonded length to further protect the tendons, and all
anchor blocks and anchorages be properly sealed against corrosion.
Considering that the site soil and bedrock materials have plasticity indices greater than 20,
we recommend that a minimum of one anchor be subjected to extended creep testing.
Hvdroaugers (Optional)
In order to reduce the influence of groundwater on the stability of the landslide, we
recommend that a series of optional hydroaugers be installed to drain water from the
slope. Hydroaugers should be installed at the lowest point possible and extend a
minimum of 100 -feet back into the slope. The hydroaugers may be installed prior to
tieback installation however, sleeves may be set in the grade beam so that hydroaugers
can be installed at a later date. The hydroaugers should consist of a minimum of 4 -inch
diameter perforated pipes, sloping at a minimum gradient of I- percent and discharge to a
suitable outlet such as the curb and gutter at the front of Lot 4. Piezometers should be
installed at suitable locations to monitor the groundwater elevations.
Construction Observation
Installation of the tieback anchors with facing element and the hydroaugers should be
observed/tested by the Geotechnical Consultant to confirm anticipated conditions,
provide quality control and respond to unanticipated conditions, if necessary.
LIMITATIONS
The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation and further assume the excavations
to be representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If different subsurface
conditions from those encountered during our exploration are observed or appear to be
present in excavations, the Geotechnical Engineer should be promptly notified for review
and reconsideration of recommendations.
Our work was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Consultants practicing in this or similar
localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional advice included in this report.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
TEMPORARY GEOTECHNICAL REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14372
November 12, 2009
Page 4
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please
call.
Sincerely,
HETHERINGTON
Civil Engineer 41937
Geotechnical Engine
(expires 3/31/10)
Civil Engineer 30488
Geotechnical Engin
(expires 3/31/10)
N% 397
Attachments: Temporary Valleyside Lane
Landslide Stabilization Plans
Distribution: 1 -Mr. Mark Brister
1 -Mr. David Bristol
1 -Mr. Jim Wiesner
1 -Mr. Ford Scott Sebastian
Plates 1 through 5
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
App 1, , 71n
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Valleyside Lane Landslide
Lots 1 through 5, Olivenhain Meadows and
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489
Encinitas, California
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
Mr. Mark Brister
1055 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Mr. David S. Bristol
1025 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
August 4, 2009
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
Mr. Ford Scott Sebastian
1015 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Mr. and Mrs. Davis
1065 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Mr. and Mrs. Wiesner Mr. Gregg Brown
1005 Valleyside Lane Century 21 Sea Coast
Encinitas, CA 92024 900 S. Coast Hwy 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Valleyside Lane Landslide
Lots 1 through 5, Olivenhain Meadows and
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489
Encinitas, California
References: Attached
Dear Property Owners:
In accordance with your authorization, Hetherington Engineering, Inc. has performed a
geotechnical investigation of the landslide which has impacted the subject properties. The
purpose of the investigation was to assess the nature of soil and geologic conditions
controlling the activation and movement of the landslide which began to effect the
properties in February-March 2009, to determine the cause(s) of the landslide movement,
and to develop recommendations for landslide repair to achieve an adequate factor of
safety against future gross failure of the landslide effected slope. We have not addressed
repairs for damaged structures and/or appurtenances on the properties.
Our work did not include an evaluation of the stability of the properties beyond the limits
of the February-March 2009 landslide. For the purposes of this report, we have assumed
that all involved property owners will participate in an overall repair of the landslide. The
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • (760) 931 -1917 • Fax (760) 931 -0545
327 Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 -2306 • (949) 715 -5440 • Fax (949) 715 -5442
www .hetheringtonengineering.com
GEOTECEMCAL INVESTIGATION
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
August 4, 2009
Page 2
following sections of this report summarize the methodology and findings of the
investigation along with our conclusions and recommendations.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services performed as part of this investigation have included:
• Research and review of available geotechnical documentation relevant to tract
development and prior forensic investigations (see References).
• Geologic mapping and documentation of the visible extent of landslide related ground
movement and related phenomenon on the subject properties.
• Review of historic stereographic aerial photographs of the site vicinity.
• Subsurface exploration of soil and geologic conditions including drilling of three
large diameter exploratory borings, one small diameter exploratory boring, and one
manually excavated test pit.
• Installation and monitoring of one slope inclinometer casing in the small diameter
exploratory boring.
• Laboratory testing of selected soil/bedrock samples obtained from the exploratory
excavations.
• Engineering and geologic analysis of the field and laboratory data.
• Preparation of a geologic map, geologic cross - sections and this report presenting our
findings, conclusions and recommendations for stabilization of the landslide.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site consists of Lots 1 through 5 of the Olivenhain Meadows subdivision
(previously the Miller subdivision) and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 14489, Encinitas,
California. The properties are located along the south and west sides of the Valleyside
Lane cul -de -sac, east of Desert Rose Way, in the Olivenhain area of Encinitas, California
(see Location Map, Figure 1). Lots 1 through 5 consist of irregularly shaped graded
parcels presently supporting two -story, wood -frame and stucco, attached living area and
garage residential structures. These lots have all been improved with concrete flatwork,
landscaping and with swimming pools and spas on Lots 1 through 4. Parcel 2 is an
undeveloped lot located along the east side of Desert Rose Way, south of Lot 1 and west
of Lot 5.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
ADAPTED FROM The Thomas Guide, San Diego County, 2007 Edition, Pages 1147 & 1148
LOCATION MAP
I
SCALE: 1"-2000'
(1 Grid = 0.5 x 0.5 miles)
Valleyside Lane Landslide
Encinitas, California
PROJECT NO. 6425.2 1 FIGURE NO.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
August 4, 2009
Page 3
The owners and addresses of the properties are summarized as follows:
Lot No. Owner
1
Wiesner
2
Sebastian
3
Bristol
4
Brister
5
Davis
Parcel
Miller/Brown/Daniels
Address
1005 Valleyside Lane
1015 Valleyside Lane
1025 Valleyside Lane
1055 Valleyside Lane
1065 Valleyside Lane
Desert Rose Way
The landslide is situated within a general east to southeast facing graded and natural slope
that descends from Desert Rose Way. The topography of the properties consists of east to
southeast facing slopes with level graded building pads at various elevations on Lots 1
through 5 and 3:1 to 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) east sloping ground on Parcel 2. The
properties range in elevation from approximately 190 -feet (msl) adjacent to Desert Rose
Way to approximately 110 -feet (ms]) on the east side of Lots 4 and 5 adjacent to
Valleyside Lane.
The landslide, as mapped by geologists from this office in March through June 2009,
occurred primarily within the graded slope area and encompasses an area of about 200 to
250 -feet (parallel to the slope) by about 120 -feet (perpendicular to the slope). The main
scarp consisted of a 4 to 6-inch wide graben with up to ] -foot of vertical offset in the
vicinity of Parcel 2 and Lot 5. On Lot 2 the main scarp transitioned into one to two
tension cracks which were on the order of 1/4 to 1/2 -inch wide and ultimately were not
traceable due to swimming pool and hardscape improvements on Lot 2.
The toe of the landslide was well defined on Lots 4 and 5 as a toe bulge in the lawn on
Lot 5 and in the driveway pavers on Lot 4, with about 1 -foot of vertical relief. On the
south side of the driveway on Lot 4, irrigation lines were compressed indicating about
18- inches of horizontal movement. Within the landslide mass, tension cracks and distress
to improvements were visible. The main scarp, and southern limits of the landslide were
well defined. The northern flank of the landslide was poorly defined. It appears a
component of counter - clockwise rotation of the landslide mass in plan view took place.
The approximate mapped limits of the landslide are shown on the attached Geologic
Map, Plate 1.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
August 4, 2009
Page 4
SITE GRADING
Based on review of the referenced reports and plans, grading of Lots 1 through 5 was
performed during the period December 1998 through May 1999. Grading within the
subdivision reportedly included removal of colluvial soils and landslide debris, keying
and benching into undisturbed formational material, and placement of compacted fill
soils to create the existing building pads and graded slopes. Stability fills were reportedly
constructed for the western slopes of Lots 1, 5 and 6. According to the "Report of Rough
Grading..." (Reference 26), all of the landslide debris which was encountered on Lots 1
through 6 was reportedly removed during site grading, and weak formational soils
encountered on Parcel 2 were supported by a stability fill.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW
In -house stereographic aerial photographs were reviewed. A search for available
stereographic aerial photographs was also requested from Continental Aerial Photo, Inc.
A sequence of flights between the years 1967 and 1998 were reviewed. Over this period
the subject site remained as undeveloped hillside property. The topographic condition of
the property as observed in the aerial photographs can be summarized as an east facing
natural slope that descends into an alluviated valley with a south flowing ephemeral
drainage. Two features with geomorphology that indicate potential landslides were
identified in the site area. One is a large feature, substantially modified by erosion, that
includes the entire subdivision as well as portions of the subdivision to the south, and
extends offsite to the west. The second feature is smaller and within the larger feature.
The limits of the smaller feature extend fimther upslope than the older landslide as
mapped by Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc. The attached references
provide a listing of aerial photographs reviewed.
f11:1.Y11oVas1D1�1 :1 �[tt]:7•rI[�) I
Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling one 6-inch diameter flight auger boring
and three 24 -inch diameter bucket auger borings to depths up to 40 -feet below existing
site grades and manually excavating one test pit to a depth of 14 -feet. A slope
inclinometer casing was installed in the small diameter flight auger boring. Each of the
bucket auger borings was down -hole geologically logged to document the extent of soil
and bedrock materials and the orientation of geologic structures. Logs from previous
excavations by Evans, Colbaugh and Associates and Terra Pacific Consultants were also
reviewed. The approximate locations of the borings and test pit are shown on the
accompanying Geologic Map, Plate 1.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
August 4, 2009
Page 5
The subsurface exploration was supervised by a geotechnical engineer and an
engineering geologist from this office, who visually classified the soil and bedrock
materials, downhole logged the borings, and obtained bulk and relatively undisturbed
samples for laboratory testing. The soils were visually classified according to the Unified
Soil Classification System. Soil classifications are shown on the attached Boring and Test
Pit Logs, Figures 4 through 11. The Evans, Colbaugh and Associates and Terra Pacific
Consultants exploration logs are included in Appendix A.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed by this office on soil and bedrock samples obtained
during the subsurface exploration. Tests performed consisted of the following:
• Dry Density and Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216)
• Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557)
• Atterberg Limits (ASTM: D 4318)
• Direct Shear (ASTM: D 3080)
• Corrosivity Testing (Cal Tests 417, 422 and 643; EPA 9045c)
Results of the dry density and moisture content determinations are presented on the
Boring and Test Pit Logs, Figures 4 through 11. The remaining laboratory tests results
are presented on the Laboratory Test Results, Figure 12.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The accompanying Geologic Map, Plate 1 and Geologic Cross Sections, Figures 2 and 3,
depict our interpretation of site geologic conditions. A brief description of the geologic
units observed within the site follows:
a) Recent Landslide Debris — Recent landslide debris was encountered during our
subsurface exploration in test pit TP -1, and borings B -1 and B -2. These materials
are derived from the underlying fill and bedrock. This debris includes poorly
bedded silty to clayey sandstone, sandy siltstone and claystone. Scattered
oxidation staining, open fractures and shiny /polished surfaces were observed. The
base of the landslide was defined by an irregular zone of plastic clay and/or
shearing observed at depths of 4.3 -feet in boring B -2 and 12 to 12.5 -feet in test pit
TP -1.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
August 4, 2009
Page 6
b) Fill — Fill was encountered in all of the exploratory excavations. The fill consists
of olive green, light brown, dark brown and dark gray silty clay, clay, sandy clay,
sandy silt, silty sand and clayey sand. The fill varied from moist to wet and
soft/loose to stiff/dense. In portions of the fill, layers of fill lifts were visible. In
boring B -3, loose/soft zones were noted. Severe caving of a loose /soft zone
between 18 and 23 -feet prevented downhole geologic logging below 23 -feet in
boring B -3.
c) Older Landslide Debris — Older landslide debris was observed in borings B -3 and
B4. The older landslide debris consists of Del Mar Formation derived bedrock
materials including olive green, olive gray and tan siltstone and sandstone which
are moist to wet and loose /soft to dense/stiff. These materials are commonly very
fractured with many shiny /polished or slickensided surfaces. It does not appear
that all older landslide debris was removed during grading as reported in the
"Report of Rough Grading..." (Reference 26).
d) Bedrock — Bedrock encountered in the borings and test pit has been identified as
the Del Mar Formation. The bedrock consists of poorly- bedded tan to brown to
red brown and gray sandy siltstone, claystone, and silty sandstone. Oxidized
joints, fractures and clay -lined fractures were noted. Mapped geologic structure is
presented on the Boring and Test Pit Logs, Figures 4 through 11.
GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
Generally, there was little geologic structure evident in the subsurface exploration. The
recent landslide failure surface was observed in test pit TP -1 and boring B -2. The failure
surface was a combination of a clay seam and brecciated bedrock zone. The recent
failure surface was also encountered in boring B -1. Since boring B -I was excavated as a
small diameter boring, the failure surface was not observed, however, slope inclinometer
monitoring provides an apparent depth of this surface.
The bedrock materials exposed were primarily massive, but where bedding was observed,
it was typically gently north to southwest dipping which is consistent with published
geologic mapping.
GROUNDWATER
Seepage was encountered at various depths in the exploratory excavations and is indicated
on the Boring and Test Pit Logs, Figures 4 through 11. Several areas of active water
seepage were also reportedly observed shortly after the landslide failure at the ground
surface within the lower portion of the recent landslide near the toe. It should be noted that
fluctuations in the amount and level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall,
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
August 4, 2009
Page 7
irrigation, and other factors which may not have been evident at the time of our subsurface
exploration.
SLOPE INCLINOMETER
In order to monitor ground movement, Hetherington Engineering, Inc. installed one slope
inclinometer casing. The slope inclinometer casing was installed in boring B -1 to a depth of
approximately 41 -feet below the ground surface. The location of the slope inclinometer
casing is shown on the Geologic Map, Plate 1. The slope inclinometer casing was installed
in May 2009, with the baseline readings taken on May 29, 2009. The most recent
monitoring was performed on July 20, 2009. The results indicate angular deflections at a
depth of approximately 27 -feet which is thought to be the depth to the failure surface at the
slope inclinometer casing location. The results of the slope inclinometer monitoring are
attached as Appendix B - Slope Inclinometer Results.
ENGINEERING STABILITY ANALYSIS
Engineering stability analyses were performed to determine strength parameters (by back
calculation) and to evaluate post - construction stability. The analyses were performed on the
geologic conditions depicted on Geologic Cross - Section A-A', Figure 2 using the computer
program PCSTABLSM and based upon Spencer's method. Strength parameters utilized for
the analyses were based upon laboratory test data and back calculation. Computer printouts
of selected calculations are included in Appendix C.
CONCLUSIONS
Our geotechnical investigation suggests that the subject recent landslide is a combined block
glide and rotational type failure within older landslide/bedrock material. The failure was
most likely triggered by the infiltration and buildup of groundwater, and occurred due to
adverse geologic conditions, relatively weaker clay beds and existing landslide debris.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. General
The following recommendations are intended to repair the February-March 2009
landslide, restore pre-failure topography, and result in a post repair factor -of- safety of at
least 1.5 (static) for the area effected by the February-March 2009 landslide. We have
not evaluated the stability of areas beyond the limits of the February-March 2009
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
August 4, 2009
Page 8
landslide. If it is decided that each of the lots are to be repaired individually, this office
should be contacted to modify these repair recommendations as necessary.
In order to repair the recent landslide, we recommend removal of the recent landslide
debris and replacement as a buttress fill with backdrains. Shoring will be necessary to
protect adjacent improvements during the proposed remedial grading. Dewatering may
be necessary to facilitate remedial grading.
2. Shorin¢
Shoring will be necessary to protect adjacent improvements on Lots 1, 2 and 3 during
remedial grading. Since Parcel 2 is undeveloped, a temporary backcut inclined at 2:1
(horizontal to vertical) or flatter may be utilized in lieu of shoring. However, temporary
backcut failures and resulting additional grading costs should be anticipated. Shoring
may consist of cantilevered drilled piers, drilled piers with tieback anchors or tieback
anchors with a shotcrete facing. Lagging may be necessary if drilled piers are utilized.
Geotechnical parameter for shoring design can be provided when the type of shoring has
been determined.
a. Clearing and Grubbing
Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of surface obstructions, vegetation and
debris, and these materials should be disposed of offsite. Obstructions which extend
below finish grade should be completely removed and the resulting excavations
backfilled with compacted fill. In the event that abandoned cesspools, septic tanks
or storage tanks are discovered during excavations, they should be removed and
backfilled in accordance with local regulations. Existing utility lines should be
removed and capped in accordance with the local requirements.
b. Remedial Grading
Following construction of the shoring system, all recent landslide debris should be
removed down to competent bedrock or older landslide debris. The actual depths
and extent of removals should be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant
during grading. A fill key should be excavated for the proposed buttress fill
slope. The key should have a width of at least 50 -feet. For a 50 -feet wide
buttress fill key, the required buttress fill shear strength is 0 = 35° and c = 100 -
pounds- per -square-foot. The on -site materials do not possess the required shear
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
August 4, 2009
Page 9
strength for a 50 -feet wide buttress fill key, consequently, import soil to improve
strength will be required. Greater buttress fill key widths would result in lowered
required buttress fill strengths. A backdrain should be placed in the backcut of the
fill key at an elevation which will allow gravity discharge. The drain should
consist of 6 -inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC perforated pipe embedded in at least
6- cubic- feet - per -lineal-foot of 3/4 -inch crushed washed rock wrapped in filter
fabric. Solid pipe outlets, spaced at intervals of no more than 50 -feet, should
discharge at suitable locations. Two additional similarly constructed backdrains
are recommended at about mid- height of the repair and at the base of the shoring
or temporary backcut. The actual location and placement of all backdrains should
be determined and observed during construction by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Backdrains should be "As- Built' for location and elevation by the project Civil
Engineer.
It is anticipated that all proposed grading can be accomplished with conventional
grading equipment.
c. Scarification and Processing
Following removal of unsuitable materials, the exposed bedrock in all areas of the
site to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8- inches, brought to a
near optimum moisture condition and compacted to at least 90- percent relative
compaction (ASTM: D 1557).
d. Compaction and Method of Filling
All fill placed should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90-
percent of the maximum dry density based upon ASTM D: 1557. Fill should be
compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal lifts, 6 to 8 -inch thick.
Fills should be keyed and benched into competent bedrock or older landslide
debris.
Compaction of slopes should be achieved by over - building laterally and then
cutting back to design line and grade, or alternatively by backrolling with
sheepsfoot rollers at approximate 4 -feet vertical intervals during fill placement,
followed by final compaction of the entire slope by track walking or grid rolling.
Feathering of fill over the tops of slopes is not acceptable.
Compacted fills should not, in general, contain rock over 6- inches in largest
dimension or organic materials.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
August 4, 2009
Page 10
e. Temporary Slopes
Temporary construction slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical). As previously noted, construction failures in unshored areas should be
anticipated. Construction slopes should be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant to confirm anticipated geologic conditions.
4. Corrosivity
Representative samples of the on -site soils were submitted for sulfate, chloride,
resistivity and pH testing. The results of the corrosivity tests are summarized on the
Laboratory Test Results, Figure 12. The sulfate content is consistent with a severe
sulfate exposure classification per Table 4.5.3 of the American Concrete Institute
Publication 318. Consequently, special provisions for sulfate resistant concrete as
indicated in Table 4.5.3 of ACI Publication 318 are considered necessary. We
recommend a corrosion engineer be contacted to review the remaining test results
and provide recommendations if necessary.
5. Grading and Shoring Plan Review
Grading and shoring plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to
confirm conformance with the recommendations presented herein and to modify
the recommendations as necessary.
6. Construction Observation
Installation of shoring, drains and remedial grading should be observed/tested by
the Geotechnical Consultant to confirm anticipated conditions, provide quality
control and respond to unanticipated conditions, if necessary.
LIMITATIONS
The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation and further assume the excavations
to be representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If different subsurface
conditions from those encountered during our exploration are observed or appear to be
present in excavations, the Geotechnical Engineer should be promptly notified for review
and reconsideration of recommendations.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
August 4, 2009
Page 11
Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised,
under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Consultants practicing in this or
similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional advice included in this report.
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please
call.
Sincerely,
HE GTON ENGINEERING, INC.
A Wseth
Professional Geologist 3772
Certified Engineering Geologist 1153
(expires 3/31/10)
Civil 5n- 2ineer 41937
Geotechnical Engineer
(expires 3/31/10)
kexprres _1i_1 r n v)
Attachments: Location Map
Figure 1
Geologic Cross - Sections
Figures 2 and 3
Boring and Test Pit Logs
Figures 4 through 1 I
Laboratory Test Results
Figure 12
Geologic Map
Plate 1
Logs of Exploratory Excavations by Others
Slope Inclinometer Results
Slope Stability Calculations
Distribution: 1 -Mr. Mark Brister
1 -Mr. David Bristol
1 -Mr. and Mrs. Wiesner
1 -Mr. Ford Scott Sebastian
1 -Mr. and Mrs. Davis
3 -Mr. Gregg Brown
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
HETHERINGTGN ENGINEERING, INC.
REFERENCES
1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology,
"Landslide Hazards in the Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle, San Diego County,
California, Landslide Hazard Identification Map #6," DMG Open -File Report 86-
15, dated 1987.
2. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology,
"Geologic Maps of the Northwestern part of San Diego County, California,"
DMG Open -File Report 96 -02, dated 1996.
3. County of San Diego, "Topographic Survey Map, Sheet 322 - 1695," dated July
1960.
4. County of San Diego, "Topographic Survey Map, Sheet 322 - 1695," dated June
29, 1971 and March 14, 1973.
5. County of San Diego, "Topographic Survey Map, Sheet 322 - 1695," dated
October 23, 1985.
6. Hetherington Engineering, Inc., "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of
Landslide and Proposal for Additional Geotechnical Services, 1005, 1015, 1025,
1055, and 1065 Valleyside Lane, Olivenhain Meadows, Lots 1 Through 5,
Encinitas, California," dated March 24, 2009.
7. Josephson Werdowatz and Associates, Inc., "Weisner Residence" Optional Repair
Plans, dated December 2, 2008 (2- sheets).
8. Logan Engineering, "Pad Grading and Erosion Control Plans For: Olivenhain
Meadows Subdivision, T.M. 91- 198," dated December 8, 1998, As- Built, dated
May 21, 2001.
9. Logan Engineering, "Precise Grading For: T.M. 91- 198," dated January 2, 2001,
As- Built, dated May 21, 2001.
10. Seneca Structural Engineering Inc., "Structural Calculations for Olivenhain
Meadows Post Tensioned Slab Designs," dated April 23, 1999.
11. Southern California Soil Testing, Inc., "Summary of As -Built Geology, Field
Observations and Tests for Relative Compaction, Olivenhain Estates, 13°i Street
and C Street, Encinitas, California," dated April 28, 1997.
12. Terra Pacific Consultants, Inc., " Geotechnical Investigation, Wiesner Residence,
1005 Valleyside Lane, Encinitas, California," dated July 18, 2005.
13. Terra Pacific Consultants, Inc., "Summary of Geotechnical Related Defects:
Repair Recommendations, Weisner Residence, 1005 Valleyside Lane, Encinitas,
California," dated May 17, 2006.
14. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Proposal for Geotechnical
Investigation and Report, Phase One," dated May 8, 1991.
Project No. 64251
l.og No. 14184
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
15. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., " Geotechnical Investigation,
Proposed Miller Subdivision, Desert Rose Way, Encinitas, California...," dated
June 17, 1991.
16. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Updated Geotechnical Report,
Miller Subdivision, Desert Rose Way, Encinitas, California," dated April 17,
1998.
17. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Updated Geotechnical Report,
Miller Subdivision, Desert Rose Way, Encinitas, California," dated August 10,
1998
18. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Updated Geotechnical Report
(Revised), Miller Subdivision, Desert Rose Way, Encinitas, California," dated
October 7, 1998.
19. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Clarification of Surface
Drainage Recommendations," dated November 9, 1998.
20. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Proposal for Engineering Fill
Testing and Related Soil Engineering Services," dated November 30, 1998.
21. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Design Parameters for Post -
Tensioned Concrete Slabs -On- grade," dated February 12, 1999.
22. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Design of the Structural
Pavement Section, Reva Subdivision, Tract Map No. 93 -211, Desert Rose Way,
Encinitas, California," dated April 14, 1999.
23. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Design of the Structural
Pavement Section, Miller Subdivision, Tract Map No. 91 -198, Valleyside Lane,
Encinitas, California," dated April 14, 1999.
24. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Recommended Over excavation
of the Existing Fill on Desert Rose Way, Tract Map No. 91 -198, Desert Rose
Way, Encinitas, California," dated April 14, 1999.
25. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Plan Review, Tract Map No. 91-
198, Valleyside Lane, Encinitas, California," dated April 27, 1999.
26. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Report of Rough Grading,
Olivenhain Meadows, Encinitas, California," dated June 24, 1999.
27. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Concrete Exposed to Sulfate,
Olivenhain Meadows, Tract Map No. 91 -198, Valleyside Lane, Encinitas,
California," dated July 27, 1999.
28. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Proposal For Materials Testing
and Inspection, Olivenhain Meadows — Phase 1, Six Single Family Residences,
Valleyside Lane, Encinitas, California," dated July 14, 1999.
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
29. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Final Report of Compaction
Testing, Olivenhain Meadows, Tract Map No. 91 -198, Encinitas, California,"
dated November 22, 1999.
30. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Concrete Recommendations for
Driveways, Olivenhain Meadows, Eleven Lot Subdivision, Tract Map. No. 91-
198, Valleyside Lane, Encinitas, California," dated December 10, 1999.
31. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Design Parameters for Post -
Tensioned Concrete Slabs -on- Grade, Near Source Factor, Seismically Induced
Soil Liquefaction and Soil Instability, and Review of House Plans, Olivenhain
Meadows, Lot Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of an Eleven Lot Subdivision, Valleyside
Lane, Encinitas, California," dated January 4, 2000.
32. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Foundation Plan Review for
Lots 5, 6 and 7, Olivenhain Meadows, Phase II, Tract 91 -198, Olivenhain,
California," dated March 2, 2000.
33. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Special Inspection, Olivenhain
Meadows, Phase I, Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, &11, Tract Map. No. 91 -198,
Valleyside Lane, Encinitas, California," dated April 27, 2000.
34. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Plan Review, Olivenhain
Meadows, Phase III, Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Tract 99 -234 TPM, Valleyside Lane,
Encinitas, California," dated May 24, 2000.
35. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Design Parameters to Mitigate
Groundwater Seepage on the Cut Slope, Olivenhain Meadows, Lot Nos. 5 and 6,
Tract Map. No. 91 -198, Valleyside Lane, Encinitas, California," dated June 19,
2000.
36. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Plan Review, Proposed Guest
House Addition to the Butler Residence, Lot 11, 1026 Valleyside Lane, Encinitas,
California," dated July 24, 2000.
37. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Report of Field Density Tests
for Retaining Wall and Subdrain Soil Backfill, Olivenhain Meadows, Lot
Numbers 5 and 6, Tract Map No. 91 -198, Valleyside Lane, Encinitas, California,"
dated August 14, 2000.
38. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Report of Field Density Tests
for Subdrain Soil Backfill, Olivenhain Meadows, Lot Numbers 5 and 6, Tract
Map No. 91 -198, Valleyside Lane, Encinitas, California," dated August 28, 2000.
39. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Retaining Walls, Olivenhain
Meadows, Lots 1 and 2, Tract Map No. 91 -198, Valleyside Lane, Encinitas,
California," dated August 28, 2000.
40. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Concrete Cracks in Existing
Driveway at 1062 Valleyside Lane," dated October 11, 2001.
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14184
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
41. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Special Inspection, PT Cables,
Lots 5 -7," dated October 17, 2000.
42. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., "Final Report for Special
Inspection," dated February 27, 2001.
43. Aerial Photographs
Continental Aerial Photographs:
Date
Eight
Frames
April 16, 1972
107 -5
10& 11
August 17, 1978
21018B
25 & 26
December 7, 1979
FCSD -37
2&3
April 8, 1980
FCSD -10
20 & 21
January 14, 1988
SD -3
13 & 14
October 30, 1993
C98-6
49 & 50
July 9, 1998
C120 -6
112 & 113
In -House Aerial Photographs:
May 8, 1967 GS -VBTA 1 -183 & 1 -184
Project No. 6425.2
Log No 14184
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
210
180
m
m
D
Z 150
m
d
120
0
Q � LOl 1
� 1
y
°0
1 .
w I
w
p 1 1
1 1
PARCEL2
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF LANDSLIDE DEBRIS
PER WESTERN SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC.
B-4
1 '
1 I
1
LOT 5
B-1 ORIGINAL GROUND
(PROJECTED 55 FEET)
�% ` 1 I GRADED SURFACE
��` 1 �J
OLDER
LANDSLIDE
DEBRIS ~� `
SCALE: 1"=3a
0 _ 1 2
I 5 6
o 1 ,s 30 es o
LOT 6 LOT 7
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
t � ` 1IIIIF. 1 1
RECENT —
LANDSLIDE ` —
/ FILL '
DEL MAR FORMATION
TREND: N55W
LOT 8
210
180
w
w
LL
150 O
F
J
W
120
�I
GEOLOGIC CROSS - SECTION
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, California
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425.2 1 FIGURE NO. 2
LOT 1
210 w
N
O
HA -2
(TERRA 1 ACIFIC) HA -1
LLI
180 p (TERRA PACIFIC)
m
r
m
D
O 150
-n
m
m
d
liKol
all
f Imm
LOT LOT 3��
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF LANDSLIDE DEBRIS
PER WESTERN SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC.
(EVANS...)
(PROJECTED 30 FEET) B -2
I I (EVANS...)
(PROJECTED 38 FEET)
\ 1 _ t `•� I B -3
(PROJECTED 20 FEET)
\ r� 1
\ FILL
OLDER FILL
LANDSLIDE \
DEBRIS
SCALE: 1'= 30'
0 1 2
0 15 30 45 80
GRADED SURFACE
ORIGINAL GROUND
B -2
(PROJECTED 20 FEET)
1
1
RECENT
LANDSLIDE
- - -� -- - - - - -- — — - - --
DEL MAR FORMATION
TREND:N55W E-- ----i
LOT 4
VALLEYSIDE LANE
210
180
w
w
u-
150 O
120
I e,
GEOLOGIC CROSS - SECTION
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, California
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425.2 1 FIGURE NO. 3
w
w
w
BACKHOE COMPANY: Mansolf Excavation BUCKET SIZE: Hand Pit DATE: 05/22109
m
W a v
F � z SOIL DESCRIPTION
x F W F, U c
'4 H H -- F W
o w o F o A �• E ;° N TEST PIT NO.TP -1 ELEVATION: 122'
0.0
CL
RECENT LANDSLIDE DEBRISIFILL: Intedayered mottled olive
green and light brown silty day and minor fine to medium sand
lenses, moist to very moist, soft to medium stiff, localized
discontinuous sheared surfaces
98
25.6
5.0
@ 5.5 - 65: Undulating contact
103
21A
@ 6.5': Slight seepage from northeast comer of pit
RECENT LANDSLIDE DEBRISBEDROCK: Mottled green gray,
some red brown lenses, sandy siltstone and claystone; some zones
of dayeylsilty sand; moist, soft to firm
10.0
@ 10': Joint: N5E/85E (oxidized surface)
@ 12': Clay seam, 1/8 to 114 -inch thick, green gray fat clay, soft,
wet, shiny surfaces, horizontal
@ 12.1'- 12.5': Brecciated bedrock zone; some silicified siltstone
fragments up to 1/2 -inch
12.5': Slickensided oxidized surface N35EIl0 -15NW
BEDROCK (Dal Mar Formationl: Green gray siltstone /daystone,
moist firm to stiff, blocky fracture and texture
15.0
Total depth 14 -feet
Minor seepage at 6.5 -feet
No caving
20.0
LOG OF TEST PITS
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Encinitas, Califomia
PROJECT NO. 6425,2 1 FIGURE NO. 4
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
DRILLING COMPANY: Pacific Drilling RIG: Flight Auger DATE: 05/21/09
BORING DIAMETER: 6" DRIVE WEIGHT: 130 lbs. DROP: 30" ELEVATION: 137'
P
W
,W-1
W
h F
0
E
z
z
a
BORING NO. B -1/1 -1
E.,
N
W N
W
D —
c
7 2
E W
V U
a'
a
H O
N u
r 2
H N
a
0
°
M°
SOIL DESCRIPTION
0
CL
RECENT LANDSLIDE DEBRISWILL: Mottled olive green and
light brown clay and silty clay, damp to moist, soft to medium
stiff
110
ISO
10 1 89 1 25.6 1 CL
13 1 96 1 25.7
10 1 92 1 28.2
@ T- 13': Olive green silty clay with abundant olive green
claystone fragments, moist to very moist, soft to medium stiff
17 99 20.7 CL @ 13' - 17': Olive green to dark gray silty clay with pockets of
orange fine to medium sand and abundant fragments of olive
15.0 green siltstone, moist, medium stiff
23 96 26.7
22 98 23.1 CL @ 17' - 21': Interlayered dark brown clay, buff silt and dark gray
clay, moist to very moist, medium stiff
30 1 108 1 17.3
27 108 15.3 1 CL @ 21' - 23': Mixed buff sandy clay and light to dark olive green
sandy Gay, moist to very moist, medium stiff
25 97 28.6 CL RECENT LANDSLIDE DEBRIS /BEDROCK: Numerous
polished surfaces in olive green claystone, very moist to wet,
soft to stiff
85/111"1 105 1 21.8
5015" 103 22.7 BEDROCK (Del Mar Formation): Light gray brown siltstone,
damp, very stiff
50/5" 1 105 1 18.7
BORING LOG
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, Califomia
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425.2 1 FIGURE NO. 5
DRILLING COMPANY: Pacific Drilling RIG: Flight Auger DATE: 05/21/09
BORING DIAMETER: 6" DRIVE WEIGHT: 130 lbs. DROP: 30" ELEVATION: 137' t
4
11
El
8
Z
a
L
BORING NO. B -1/1 -1
S
N
U
W
o
F
D 2
F W
U U
F
m
o w
o °—
E°
y °—
SOIL DESCRIPTION
30.0
@ 30'- 42.5': Light red brown sittstone interbedded with olive
gray gravelly siltstone, localized gypsum crystallization, moist,
very stiff
35.0
50/4"
107
17.9
40.0
50/3"
113
13.7
50/5"
Total depth 42.5 -feet (refusal)
No groundwater
No Caving
45.0—
2.75 -inch Sinco inclinometer casing installed
Volume of grout in hole: 6.0- cubic -feet
Volume of concrete cap: 0.17- cubic -feet
50.0
55.0
60.
BORING LOG
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Encinitas, California
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
PROJECT NO. 6425.2 FIGURE NO. 6
DRILLING COMPANY: Pacific Drilling RIG: Spin Auger DATE: 06/09109
BORING DIAMETER: 24" DRIVE WEIGHT: 130 lbs. DROP: 30" ELEVATION: 118, t
W
w
a
W E
0
z
u�
a N
BORING NO. B -2
m
W W
w
A .-.
5
E W
U U
E+
w
a
H o
>. u
z
o
w
A w
Q a
£ o
N
SOIL DESCRIPTION
0.0
ML
RECENT LANDSLIDE DEBRIS/FILL: Light brown to green
brown sandy silt, very moist to wet, soft, numerous roots
RECENT LANDSLIDE DEBRIS /BEDROCK: Green siltstone
and claystone, blocky fracture, numerous veins and fragments
of gypsum, moist to very moist, firm
5.0
@ 4.3': Slip surface: N22W /10SW. One to two inch thick green
fat clay seam, continuous around hole, weak seepage on south
and east side, several gypsum fragments to 2- inches, well
rounded
BEDROCK (Del Mar Formation): Green to red brown siltstone
to sandy siltstone, blocky fracturing, numerous irregular
discontinuous slickensided surfaces, moist, medium stiff to stiff,
no gypsum formation, fractures dominantly oxidized red brown
@ 9': Start of red coloration
10.0
@ 12.1': Bedding attitude: N67W /16SW. Continuous around
hole, yellowish coloration, weak to moderate seepage
15.0
@16.5': Red brown to green siltstone /sandy siltstone, moist,
hard, difficult to pick, massive
20.0
25.0
Total depth 25 -feet
Downhole logged to 21 -feet
No caving
Seepage at 4.3 and 12.1 -feet
30.
BORING LOG
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, Califomia
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425,2 FIGURE NO. 7
DRILLING COMPANY: Pacific Drilling RIG: Spin Auger DATE: 06/10109
BORING DIAMETER: 24" DRIVE WEIGHT: 130 lbs. DROP: 30" ELEVATION: 141' t
E
W
a
W
W F
F
W
a
a
2
z
W
W
BORING NO. B -3
S
N
W
F
D Z
F W
U U
E.,
m
a
o
N u
Z
0
CA
o m
o°
E°
°n °
SOIL DESCRIPTION
0.0
SM
FILL: Light to orange brown silty fine sand, damp, medium
dense
SC
@ 2': Mottled green brown slightly sandy clay and light brown
clayey sand, very moist, medium stiff /dense
5.0
13
92
23.0
CL
@ 6': Same with dark brown slightly sandy clay, wet to
saturated, firm
@ 8': Very moist, medium stiff
10.0
21
103
20.3
CL
@ 11.1': Free water on northeast side, trace seepage
@ 11.1 - 11.6': Layer of mottled green and brown sandy clay
mixed with dark brown silty clay, contains scattered roots
15.0
22
101
21.5
@ 153- 16.1': Loose /soft zone of slightly gravelly sandy Gay,
free water on surfaces
@ 17': 2 to 6 -inch thick layers of fill alternating between soft
and firm
@ 18 - 23': Severe caving during downhole logging on west
and northwest side
20.0
13
95
23.5
@ 20 - 23.5': Minor caving during drilling on west wall in zone
of sandy clay; no visible fill lifts, soft/loose, saturated, free water
and moderate seepage
25.0
14
98
21.8
OLDER LANDSLIDE DEBRIS/BEDROCK (Del Mar Formationl:
Olive green sandy claystone with lenses of orange fine sand,
ZI
highly fractured, moist to very moist, soft to medium stiff, few
polished surfaces
30.
BORING LOG
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, Califomia
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425,2 FIGURE NO. 8
DRILLING COMPANY: Pacific Drilling RIG: Spin Auger DATE: 06/10/09
BORING DIAMETER: 24" DRIVE WEIGHT: 130 lbs. DROP: 30" ELEVATION: 141' t
F
W
.W7
W
w F
F
_
a+^
m
W
M°
Z
a
BORING NO. B -3
y
N
V
W
0R F
n Z
F W
U U
F
°'
s °
- °
SOIL DESCRIPTION
30.0
BEDROCK (Del Mar Formaflont: Olive green Gaystone, damp,
very stiff to hard
@ 32': Driller reports increased resistance to drill penetration
@ 33': Becomes olive gray to gray claystone with dark yellow
discoloration, damp, very stiff to hard
35.0
40/6"
112
15.2
@ 35': Light olive brown silty fine sandstone, damp, very dense
40.0
Total depth 40 -feet
Severe caving between 18 to 23 -feet
Seepage at 11.1 to 11.6 -feet; 15.3 -feet; 18 to 23.5 -feet
Downhole logged to 23 feet;
terminated due to caving
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0— — -
BORING LOG
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, Califomia
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425,2 FIGURE NO. 9
DRILLING COMPANY: Pacific Drilling RIG: Spin Auger DATE: 06/11/09
BORING DIAMETER: 24" DRIVE WEIGHT: 130 Ibs. DROP: 30" ELEVATION: 146' t
E
W
w
a
W
W E
2
E
a W
BORING NO. B-4
y
z
W
a F
b Z
U U
E,
A
W VI
H O
n .-.
U
F W
H E.
Z
H N 5
.
w
o m
o a
£ o
N
SOIL DESCRIPTION
0.0
SM
FILL: Mixed gray to greenish brown clayey silty fine sand and
silty clay, damp, loose /soft
@ 0 - 6': Tension crack, 1 -1.5- inches wide, oriented N35E/90
CL
@ 3': Brown silty clay; damp, stiff
5.0
OLDER LANDSLIDE DEBRISIBEDROCK (Del Mar Formation/:
Green siltstone /claystone moist, medium stiff to stiff, highly
weathered, minor caliche veins, few polished surfaces
10.0
31
105
19.1
@ 8 - 10': Green siltstone with thin Interbeds of tan siltstone,
moist, stiff
@ 10': Dark olive gray siltstone, damp, medium stiff, highly
fractured, random polished surfaces, few gypsum fragments
@ 11.5 - 16.5': Same olive gray siltstone, less fractured,
massive
@ 14': Yellow orange coloration on fracture surfaces
15.0
@ 16.5 - 18': Continues dark olive gray siltstone, highly
fractured /blocky, numerous random polished surfaces. Most
common surface is oriented N20E/22W
@ 18 - 20.5: Return to dark olive gray siltstone, less fractured,
stiff to hard, some oxidation coloration
20.0
41
105
20.2
@ 20.5 - 21': Weak seepage on north side of boring in silty
sandstone bed
@ 21.6': Sandstone bed becomes moist and dense
@ 235: Sandstone grades to a silty medium to coarse sand
@ 23.8': Contact between sandstone above and greenish
25.0
siltstone below: N80E/7N. Siltstone is greenish to olive gray
with numerous randomly oriented polished surfaces, localized
free water, no seepage
@ 24.5': Weak seepage on NW side of boring
@ 26': Localized oxidized surfaces in dark olive gray siltstone,
blocky fracture
@ 27 - 27.8': Numerous polished surfaces, few slickensided
surfaces, blocky fracture, soft zone, easy to pick
@ 27.8': Weak seepage on E side of boring, many slickensided
30.0
BORING LOG
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, Califomia
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425.2 FIGURE NO. 10
DRILLING COMPANY: Pacific Drilling RIG: Spin Auger DATE: 06111/09
BORING DIAMETER: 24" DRIVE WEIGHT: 130 lbs. DROP: 30" ELEVATION: 146' t
F
W
S
W .]
W
W E
F
a�
BORING NO. B-4
_
W
C.
W vi
Z
W
0 —
a E
n Z
E W
U U
E+
P.,
X
> 3
w
7+ U
W E
N Z
a N
H
A
m
A m
a —°'
° SOIL
X°
v°.
DESCRIPTION
30.0
51
107
19.1
surfaces
@ 28 - 29': Block fracturing in olive gray siltstone, oxidized
surfaces, no polished surfaces
@ 31': Moderate seepage
@ 33': Standing water in bottom
35.0 —
Total depth 34 -feet
Seepage at 20.5 to 21 -feet, 24.5 -feet, 27.8 -feet and 31 -feet
Standing water in lower 1 -foot of boring
No caving
Downhole Logged to 31 -feet
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.o-
BORING LOG
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Encinitas, Califomia
PROJECT NO. 6425.2 FIGURE NO. 11
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY /OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
(ASTM: D 1557)
Sample Location
Description
Plastic Limit
Maximum Dry
Density c
Optimum Moisture
Content
B -3 9 - 10'
Brown clayey sand to sandy clay
30
117.0
14.0
B -3 @ 21'
Brown sandy clay
27
114.5
15.0
ATTERBERG LIMITS
(ASTM: D 4318)
Sample Location
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
U.S.C.S. Class
TP -I 12'
58
30
28
CH
B -2 4.3'
65
27
38
CH
DIRECT SHEAR
(ASTM: D 3080)
Sample Location
Angle of Internal
Cohesion
Remarks
TP -1 6'
Friction
(psf)
580
B -1 6'
19
275
Remolded, consolidated, saturated, drained
B -1 35'
18
250
Undisturbed, consolidated, saturated drained
TP -1 @ 12'B -2 @ 4.3'
6
0
Remolded, consolidated, saturated, drained
0.101
241
734
residual
TP -1 @ 12'B -2 @ 4.3'
15
325
Remolded, consolidated, saturated, drained
(peak)
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
Sample Location
Soluble Sulfate
(Cal Test 417)
Resistivity
(Cal Test 643)
ohm-cm
Chloride
(Cal Test 422)
m
pH
(EPA 9045c)
TP -1 6'
1.390
260
580
8.1
B -3 3.5'
0.327
412
282
7.5
B -3 34'
0.0614
248
736
7.4
B -4 10'
0.101
241
734
7.5
Figure 12
Project No. 6425.2
Log No. 14194
APPENDIX A
(Logs of Exploratory Excavations by Others)
05/28/2009 11:00 8565211199
TERRAPACIFIC CONSULN PAGE 02
Log of Boring No. B -1
DrWingDate: — §AfWrpg Elevation:
Lagged By �A_�� Hole Size/Ty pe! 6" Tri hod Fligth Any
Z
0
aJ i
"� 8
u
C
8
N m
G
��$ Description
SM
LNOINhEAED FILL (Ef):, SILTY SAND (S'O, l0000 W modima dense, dry to
_
'oS»�-exp mcappiyQ1»19f31i
CL
(Ft : SIL7Y CLAY (CL), soft to firm in upper 4 m 5 feet, thm fem to stiff
2
below. Color v ncs from dark gray to mottled olive grWFnyft w
D
K3/4
99
21
66roughout Very wet m upper six feet, then dtxxoese be wet with depth. Various
trace sand concentrations throaghom depth explored.
4
D
4/3
97
23
6
D
4/416
96
24
8
D
110112
94
26
10
�Z X10' Semple barrel ]tad &ee water m outride
n
nsn7
96
26
12
D
?/17/31
95
24
612 Samplc bnirel had free water m mtside
14
D
7130/3
100 1
22
16
D
1J30/3
10S
I
21
-
38
20
D
917
93
21
CL
DEL MARtSAN IAGO FORMAi1ON' (u diHeeetlated), (Tda} SILTMNTE,
22
SILTY CLAY (CL), with Serdsmne iravboda, a6R mcisti mottled olive
SroY�*'n•
24
vlYave voce Lsmicecaone Uleme6ee O11 Nf�lAanClon of Inge"
arsve Hner9r 1140
140
40
Date: July 2004 Project No.: 042MI
Plate
NEW LOG OF BORING B -1
1005 Valley Side Lane
evans, colbaugh & assae. na I of `
PL1722
05/28/2009 11:00 8585211199
TERRAPACIFIC CCNSLLN PAGE 03
Log of Boring No. B -1
Drilling Date: ---fia6a4i Elevation: _J 59__
Logged By. _ _FDC Hole Size/Type: 6" Tri -Pod Flipfh Auer
Driw_ 'Energy, - •_..__..,
Date: July 2004 Projcet \o.: 0423 -01
` Plate
LOG OF BORING B -1
a
ME& 1005 Valley Side Lane A -1.1
Wevana, colbaugh & assoc. ins. 2 of 2
PL1723
v
_
y
Description
01.4
�a
I
�-
A
DEL NIAIUSANSIAGO FORMATION (mtdCftmdated), (Tdmr SILT570NE,
SILTY CLAY (CL), with SmVstame bumbe&, adfl; ist, mo mottled olive
greylbrown
28
Total DcA = 285'
Pus water tlowitlg into bole from rm:gbly mid fill dog 1 how after driUmg
i
oompletai
Sat slope Inchnomatcr Pipc m 28.3 feet.
Driw_ 'Energy, - •_..__..,
Date: July 2004 Projcet \o.: 0423 -01
` Plate
LOG OF BORING B -1
a
ME& 1005 Valley Side Lane A -1.1
Wevana, colbaugh & assoc. ins. 2 of 2
PL1723
05/28/2009 11:00 8585211199 TERRAPACIFIC CONSLLN PAGE 04
Log of Boring No. B -2
Drilling Date: 6/ MA Eleva on: 149'
Loged By. EDC hole Siao/fype: 6" T ight Auger_
PH�
o
{(
d
�Sq
m
m8'
Description
.
..
..
SM
- ENM4EMMD FILL (E0: SII.7'Y CLAX (CLI Ron ISME mint" r, auk.-
2
D
4/4!6
97
22
4
D
6W
94
22
c1
i
colainntlnviArroslina n�su (Qrd�Q�): (zAYSx scan zo - - -
6
SANDY CLAY (SCAM1 Em ro aMB, moist m wet cola vaia bow dak
D
In
103
17
II
bfovro m smy.
6
D
105
17
.I
1;
1
D
l4
106
20
12
Ij
14
i
f
CL
E 9 AR/ K k R ffA 5 6 POR9dl6N Pa-&ffam Nt4). (Tb): SII.'IS9 rW +
I6
Sill CIV (CL) w0h Smdamm huabeba, edit mms4 olive v"ft m (from
i8
Pout [)%A - 19.0 fm
1bebDod A" baboomw b 79.0
Wad inLoaomimbabmambrAps ran* 30 j kb dWbM&Q k&.'
pioaso Moto Limitstims Discus"d or. up3aaation of Logs.
D.atw AwxW: 140
140
140
° Date: July 2004 Project No.: 04.23 -01
�
LOG OF BORING B -2 A -1 plate
„ 1003 Valley Side Lane
ovens, colbaugh & asaoc. iac. 1 of I
PL1724
Project No: 24190
Project Name: Weisner Residence
Location: 1005 Valleyside Lane
Sample Method: --
Instrumentation: None installed
Elevation: --
Ig I uninb.,
L6
v To rraPac -fic
Hand Auger Log
Hand Auger No: HA -1
DESCRIPTION & REMARKS
— Fitt: From 0.0', Sandy sk medium yellow gray to orange gray, slightly moist, medium
30. with clsste of olive gray daystons
From 2.3', Sandy day, medium brown grey. slightly moist, medium stilt
q�
2.5', 810ck of sandstone, pale yellow gray, slightly moist, dense
BEDROCK (Del Mar Formation): From 2. T, Silty daysione, medium to dark olive gray,
slightly moist, stiff, some waxy surfaces
C 3.1', Refusal
Date: 6 -7 -05
Logged By: C. O'Hern
Excavating Company: Earthworks
Excavator: —
Hole Diameter: 3 114"
Hammer Wt. & Drop: 35 Ibs. for 30"
m -
v,
E e Z'
h Ea ° =S E$ «X
G �
Total Depth: 3.1' Hand Auger
Water: No
Caving: No HA -1
Notes: -- Pepe 1 of 1
Project No: 24190
Project Name: Weisner Residence
Location: 1005 Valleyside Lane
Sample Method: —
Instrumentation: None installed
Elevation: --
s Lithology,
TerraPacific
N C O N a U L T A N i 3 1 N C
Hand Auger Log
Hand Auger No: HA -2
DESCRIPTION & REMARKS
BEDROCK (Del Mar Formation): From 4.4', Silty claystone. medium to dark olive gray,
slightly moist, stiff, some waxy surfaces
A
C 5.0', Refusal
6
Total Depth: 5.0'
Water: No
Caving: No
Notes: --
Date: 6 -7 -05
Logged By: C. O'Hern
Excavating Company: Earthworks
Excavator: --
Hole Diameter: 3 114"
Hammer Wt. & Drop: 35 lbs. for 30"
5
6
wE
m
r �
0
Hand Auger
HA -2
Page 7 at 7
APPENDIX B
(Slope Inclinometer Results)
Angular Deflection - -A -- [degrees]
0 1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0. Base Date:
29 May 09
5 05 Jun 09
• 12 Jun 09
19 Jun 09
* 26 Jun 09
06 Jul 09
X 20 Jul 09
15
20
W
W
v
w
a 25
v
o E�.
30
40
45
501 1
Point: Instrument: A+ Bearing:
-1 29784 122
SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, Califomia
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425.2 FIGURE NO. B -1
1
1
FA
r
a 2
0
41
4.
5i
Displacement Profile-- A- -[in.1
Point: Instrument: A+ Bearing:
1 -1 29784 122
SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS
Base Date:
29 May 09
05 Jun 09
• 12 Jun 09
19 Jun 09
t 26 Jun 09
06 Jul 09
X 20 Jul 09
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, Califomia
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425.2 1 FIGURE NO. B -2
Angular Deflection - -B -- [degrees]
-1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0 .2 0. 6 1.0 Base Date:
0
29 May 09
O 05 Jun 09
• 12 Jun 09
O 19 Jun 09
* 26 Jun 09
io
O 06 Jul 09
X 20 Jul 09
i
m
4U
4
50
Point: Instrument: A+ gearing:
I -1 29784 122
SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, California
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 64255.2 FIGURE NO. B-3
Displacement Profile-- B- -[in.]
-1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.1 1 . 0 Base Date:
0
29 May 09
r;
5 I 05 Jun 09
• 12 Jun 09
19 Jun 09
* 26 Jun 09
10 li 06 Jul 09
II X 20 Jul 09
15
20
v
v
w
a 25
v
0
30
35
40
45
50
Point: Instrument: A+ Bearing:
14 29784 122
SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, California
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT No. 6425.2 FIGURE No. B-4
Resultant Displacement [in]
-0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 1 . 0 Base Date:
29 May 09
d
05 Jun 09
• 12 Jun 09
19 Jun 09
* 26 Jun 09
06 Jul 09
X 20 Jul 09
20
N
v
N :I
w_
.c 4
w
0 25 I i
30
Point: Instrument: A+ Bearing:
I -1 29784 122
SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, Califomia
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425.2 FIGURE No. B-5
Resultant Direction
[degrees]
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0
20 40 60 80
Base Date:
29 May 09
!A :Pf
5
C ♦
05 Jun 09
�.cY �{
4
• 12 Jun 09
I
O 19 Jun 09
* 26 Jun 09
10
O 06 Jul 09
X 20 Jul 09
15
p
@i
Y-
20
i
v
a 25
y,.�...� _
_ _.�_._._._---
' 9...
30
F.,
�o }
-----
_,v _.__._ _
b P-
35
...............................
_.._.._
--- --- _.__._
40
__.__
45
50
Point: Instrument:
A+ Bearing:
1 -1 29784
122
SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS
Valleyside Lane Landslide
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Encinitas, Califomia
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
PROJECT NO. 6425.2 FIGURE No.
B$
APPENDIX C
(Slope Stability Calculations)
Valleyside Lane Landslide
Shear Strength Parameters
Correlation with Atterberg Limits
clay seam, just above slip surface
sample
Atterber Limits:
LL
PL
PI
N [kPal
58
1 30
28
Stark 2005
CF >50
LL LLeM
N (kPa]
sec. 0,
N [kPal
I sec. 0,,
58 81
100
400
700
11.9
9.9
7.9
50
100
400
25.3
21.9
18.3
av:
145
11.6
145
18.8
slip surface
sample
Or
LL = 58
PI = 28
Mitchell (1976
15.5
15.5
FEH Wang
1
15
50
100
400
2
av:
15.5
3
145
10.5
slip surface
sample
Atterber Limits:
LL PL
PI
B -2 @ 43
65 27
38
Stark 2005
CF >50
LL LLeM
N (Wal
sec. Or
N [kPaj
I sec. or,
65 93
100
400
700
10.1
85
59
50
100
400
24.5
20.8
175
av:
145
9.9
145
17.5
Or
LL = 65
PI = 38
Mitchell 1976
15
14 5
1
FEH Wang 2
3
9.5
13.5
9
Valleyside Lane Landslide
Soil Assignments, file: aaxl.in
soil no.
soil type
Y r
Y SAT
c
+
basis
1
Fill (existing)
120
125
275
19
DS test
2
Slip surfacelQls
120
125
0
10
DS test, backcalc
3
Del Mar Form.
127
129
250
18
DS test
1
** PCSTABLSM **
by
Purdue University
- -Slope Stability Analysis --
Simplified Sanbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
Run Date: 8 -3 -09
Time of Run:
Run By: CH
Input Data Filename: aaxl.in
Output Filename: aaxl.ol
Plotted Output Filename: aaxl.pl
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Valleyside Lane- section A -A'
Back- calculation of current failure
BOUNDARY
8 Top Boundaries
21 Total Boundaries
Boundary
X -Left
Y -Left
X -Right
Y -Right
Soil Type
No.
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Below Bnd
1
.00
55.00
32.50
55.00
1
2
32.50
55.00
50.00
55.00
1
3
50.00
55.00
86.00
71.00
1
4
86.00
71.00
92.00
71.00
1
5
92.00
71.00
118.50
82.50
1
6
118.50
82.50
133.50
86.00
1
7
133.50
86.00
230.00
107.50
1
8
230.00
107.50
240.00
109.50
3
9
.00
48.30
35.00
48.30
3
10
35.00
48.30
41.90
48.30
2
11
41.90
48.30
95.30
48.40
2
12
95.30
48.40
151.70
82.00
2
13
151.70
82.00
210.00
101.00
2
14
210.00
101.00
215.00
102.60
2
15
215.00
102.60
230.00
107.50
3
16
35.00
48.30
54.40
44.40
3
17
54.40
44.40
68.50
43.00
3
18
68.50
43.00
166.00
51.00
3
19
166.00
51.00
189.00
59.00
3
20
189.00
59.00
205.00
78.00
3
21
205.00
78.00
215.00
102.60
3
1
1
1
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
1 120.0 125.0 275.0 19.0 .00 .0 1
2 120.0 125.0 .0 10.0 .00 .0 1
3 127.0 129.0 250.0 18.0 .00 .0 1
1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
Unit weight of Water = 62.40
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Water
Y -Water
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
.00
37.00
2
240.00
62.00
Janbus Empirical Coef is being used for the case of c & phi both > 0
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been
Specified.
500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
7 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base
Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of
Sliding Block Is 20.0
Box X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Height
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1
1 35.00
48.30
41.90
48.30
.00
2 54.40
45.40
54.40
45.40
2.00
3 68.50
44.00
68.50
44.00
2.00
4 100.00
46.60
100.00
46.60
2.00
5 117.00
54.00
117.00
54.00
2.00
6 127.00
67.30
129.00
68.50
.00
7 130.00
85.10
133.50
85.90
.00
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical
First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By Spencer's Method * *
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
25.58
55.00
2
39.95
48.30
3
54.40
46.03
4
68.50
43.39
5
100.00
46.17
6
117.00
54.87
7
127.78
67.77
8
133.03
85.79
9
133.04
85.89
* *+ FOS =
.983
Spencer's Theta = 7.97 * **
Individual data on the 18 slices
Water
Water
Tie
Tie
Earthquake
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Surcharge
Slice
Width
Weight
Top
Bot
Norm
Tan
Hor Ver
Load
No.
Ft(m)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
1
6.9
1340.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2
7.4
4435.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
3
2.0
1606.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
4
8.1
7427.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
5
4.4
5068.8
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
6
11.5
20158.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
7
2.6
5868.9
.0
60.8
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
8
17.5
48277.7
.0
968.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
9
6.0
18610.6
.0
401.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
10
3.3
10357.9
.0
236.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
4.7
15533.4
.0
354.7
.0
.0
3.1
10368.9
.0
133.3
.0
.0
13.9
46030.8
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.5
4753.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
9.3
23734.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
61.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
5.3
5355.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
25.58
55.00
2
39.95
48.30
3
54.40
46.03
4
68.50
43.39
5
100.00
46.17
6
117.00
54.87
7
127.78
67.77
8
133.03
85.79
9
133.04
85.89
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
* ** FOS = .983 Spencer's Theta = 7.97 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
28.72
55.00
2
39.99
48.30
3
54.40
44.90
4
68.50
43.35
5
100.00
46.98
6
117.00
54.27
7
127.89
67.83
8
132.29
85.62
9
132.32
85.73
* ** FOS = .983 Spencer's Theta = 7.64 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
1
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
28.72
55.00
2
39.99
48.30
3
54.40
44.90
4
68.50
43.35
5
100.00
46.98
6
117.00
54.27
7
127.89
67.83
8
132.29
85.62
9
132.32
85.73
* ** FOS = .983 Spencer's Theta = 7.64 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
27.16
55.00
2
37.15
48.30
3
54.40
44.58
4
68.50
44.57
5
100.00
46.71
6
117.00
54.23
7
127.98
67.89
8
133.27
85.85
9
133.27
85.95
* ** FOS = .983 Spencer's Theta = 8.73 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
27.16
55.00
2
37.15
48.30
3
54.40
44.58
4
68.50
44.57
5
100.00
46.71
6
117.00
54.23
7
127.98
67.89
8
133.27
85.85
9
133.27
85.95
* ** FOS = .983 Spencers Theta = 8.73 * **
1
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
28.57
55.00
2
40.63
48.30
3
54.40
45.49
4
68.50
43.55
5
100.00
46.25
6
117.00
54.83
7
127.05
67.33
8
132.19
85.60
9
132.28
85.71
* ** FOS = .984 Spencer's Theta = 7.78 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
28.57
55.00
2
40.63
48.30
3
54.40
45.49
4
68.50
43.55
5
100.00
46.25
6
117.00
54.83
7
127.05
67.33
8
132.19
85.60
9
132.28
85.71
* ** FOS = .984 Spencers Theta = 7.78 * **
1
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X -Surf Y -Surf
ON
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
26.62
55.00
2
40.09
48.30
3
54.40
45.21
4
68.50
44.01
5
100.00
47.46
6
117.00
54.80
7
127.65
67.69
8
132.79
85.74
9
132.87
85.85
* ** FOS = .984 Spencers Theta = 7.88 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
26.62
55.00
2
40.09
48.30
3
54.40
45.21
4
68.50
44.01
5
100.00
47.46
6
117.00
54.80
7
127.65
67.69
8
132.79
85.74
9
132.87
85.85
* ** FOS =
.984
Spencer's Theta = 7.88 * **
Y A X I S F T
.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 150.00
X .00 +---------+- W --- *-*- +---- ----- +-------- - +---- - - - --+
- 1
30.00 + 3
150
120
.e
[Ys7
30
[�7
aaxl.pl
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Valleyside Lane Landslide
Soil Assignments, file: aaxlb.in
soil no.
soil type
YT
(Pe fl:
YSAT
Ivan:
c
lPS
¢
d
basis
1
Fill (existing)
120
125
275
19
DS test
2
Slip surface/Qls
120
125
0
10
DS test, back -talc
3
Del Mar Form.
127
129
250
18
DS test
4
New fill - import
120
125
100
35
assumed
V -- - -- -
•• PCSTABLSM ••
by
Purdue University
1
- -Slope Stability Analysis --
Simplified Sanbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
Run Date: 8 -3 -09
Time of Run:
Run By: CH
Input Data Filename: aaxlb.in
Output Filename: aaxlb.ol
Plotted Output Filename: aaxlb.pl
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Valleyside Lane- section A -A'
Proposed buttress 1
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
9 Top Boundaries
20 Total Boundaries
Boundary
X -Left
Y -Left
X -Right
Y -Right
Soil Type
No.
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Below Bnd
1
.00
55.00
26.00
55.00
1
2
26.00
55.00
50.00
55.00
4
3
50.00
55.00
86.00
71.00
4
4
86.00
71.00
92.00
71.00
4
5
92.00
71.00
118.50
82.50
4
6
118.50
82.50
133.50
86.00
4
7
133.50
86.00
224.60
106.30
4
8
224.60
106.30
230.00
107.50
3
9
230.00
107.50
240.00
109.50
3
10
26.00
55.00
35.00
48.30
1
11
35.00
48.30
68.50
40.00
3
12
68.50
40.00
92.00
40.00
3
13
92.00
40.00
103.80
45.90
3
14
103.80
45.90
214.40
101.20
2
15
214.40
101.20
224.60
106.30
3
16
.00
48.30
35.00
48.30
3
17
103.80
45.90
166.00
51.00
3
18
166.00
51.00
189.00
59.00
3
19
189.00
59.00
205.00
78.00
3
20
205.00
78.00
214.40
101.20
3
1
1
1
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
4 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt.
No. (pcf) (pcf)
1 120.0 125.0
2 120.0 125.0
3 127.0 129.0
4 120.0 125.0
Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
(psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
275.0 19.0 .00 .0 1
.0 10.0 .00 .0 1
250.0 18.0 .00 .0 1
100.0 35.0 .00 .0 1
1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40
Piezometric Surface No. 1 specified by 2 Coordinate Points
Point X -Water Y -Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 .00 37.00
2 240.00 62.00
Janbus Empirical Coef is being used for the case of c & phi both > 0
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been
Specified.
500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
5 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base
Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of
Sliding Block Is 20.0
Box X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Height
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1
1 103.80
X -Surf
45.90
105.80
46.90
.00
2 166.00
45.02
52.00
166.00
52.00
2.00
3 189.00
65.17
60.00
189.00
60.00
2.00
4 205.00
104.98
79.00
205.00
79.00
2.00
5 212.40
189.00
100.20
214.40
101.20
.00
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical
First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By Spencer's Method * *
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
45.02
55.00
2
45.82
54.41
3
65.17
49.35
4
84.98
46.63
5
104.98
46.49
6
166.00
52.56
7
189.00
59.90
8
205.00
79.52
9
212.92
100.46
10
215.05
104.17
* ** FOS =
1.517
Spencer's Theta = 11.74 * **
Individual data on the 17 slices
Water
Water
Tie
Tie
Earthquake
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Surcharge
slice
Width
Weight
Top
Bot
Norm
Tan
Hor Ver
Load
No.
Ft(m)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
Lbs(kg)
1
.8
28.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2
4.2
569.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
3
15.2
12802.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
4
19.8
43159.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
5
1.0
2955.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
6
6.0
17490.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
7
.0
76.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
8
13.0
42538.6
.0
583.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
9
3.7
13504.0
.0
331.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
10
9.9
39170.1
.0
914.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
11
15.0
64322.2
.0
1445.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1
12
32.5
151121.8
.0
3361.7
.0
.0
13
8.1
39056.3
.0
456.2
.0
.0
14
14.9
70211.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
15
16.0
58450.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
16
7.9
12190.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
17
2.1
413.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
0 .0
.0
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
45.02
55.00
2
45.82
54.41
3
65.17
49.35
4
84.98
46.63
5
104.98
46.49
6
166.00
52.56
7
189.00
59.90
8
205.00
79.52
9
212.92
100.46
10
215.05
104.17
* ** FOS =
1.517
Spencer's Theta = 11.74 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
44.33
55.00
2
46.06
53.99
3
66.05
53.40
4
85.91
50.98
5
105.45
46.72
6
166.00
51.53
7
189.00
60.24
8
205.00
78.33
9
212.75
100.37
10
213.88
103.91
* ** FOS =
1.544
Spencers Theta = 11.20 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
50.75
55.33
2
65.95
54.86
3
85.43
50.35
4
105.06
46.53
5
166.00
52.39
6
189.00
60.15
7
205.00
78.24
8
213.91
100.95
9
217.41
104.70
* ** FOS = 1.546 Spencer's Theta = 11.10 * **
1
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
52.16
55.96
2
65.25
53.30
3
85.11
50.96
4
104.56
46.28
5
166.00
51.85
6
189.00
59.92
7
205.00
78.74
8
212.79
100.40
9
217.00
104.61
* ** FOS = 1.547 Spencer's Theta = 11.02 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
55.43
57.41
2
64.74
52.76
3
84.65
50.88
4
104.05
46.03
5
166.00
51.74
6
189.00
60.68
7
205.00
79.64
8
213.37
100.68
9
214.50
104.05
NI
FI
* ** FOS = 1.549 Spencer's Theta = 10.98 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
57.61
58.38
2
65.42
55.64
3
84.49
49.64
4
104.18
46.09
5
166.00
51.15
6
189.00
60.81
7
205.00
79.06
8
213.65
100.82
9
215.56
104.28
* ** FOS =
1.550
Spencers Theta = 10.82 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
36.38
55.00
2
44.35
48.62
3
64.27
46.81
4
84.26
46.26
5
104.26
46.13
6
166.00
51.37
7
189.00
60.32
8
205.00
79.19
9
213.71
100.86
10
213.90
103.92
* ** FOS =
1.557
Spencer's Theta = 11.27 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
1
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
36.38
55.00
2
44.35
48.62
3
64.27
46.81
4
84.26
46.26
5
104.26
46.13
6
166.00
51.37
7
189.00
60.32
8
205.00
79.19
9
213.71
100.86
10
213.90
103.92
* ** FOS =
1.557
Spencers Theta = 11.28 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
56.41
57.85
2
64.77
53.91
3
84.01
48.46
4
103.85
45.93
5
166.00
51.97
6
189.00
59.29
7
205.00
79.62
8
212.67
100.33
9
213.59
103.85
* ** FOS =
1.563
Spencers Theta = 10.89 * **
Y A X I S F T
.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 150.00
X .00 +---------+- W --- *-*- +- ---- --- - +- -- ------ +---- - - - - -+
30.00 +
* 8
150
120
.E
Dit,
kill'
n
aaxtb.p7
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
4j N�
AA N- N-
MA-
fo,
B-10
OB 2
-4
TP
AS -BUILT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Valleyside Lane Landslide Partial Stabilization
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Olivenhain Meadows
Encinitas, California
L
_
JUL 1 2010
'RS
Progmt No. 6425.4
Log No. 14673
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY
June 30, 2010
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14673
Mr. Mark Brister Mr. David S. Bristol
1055 Valleyside Lane 1025 Valleyside Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024 Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: AS -BUILT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Valleyside Lane Landslide Partial Stabilization
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Olivenhain Meadows
Encinitas, California
References: Attached
Dear Messrs. Brister and Bristol:
In accordance with your request, we have performed geotechnical services in conjunction
with the installation of a tieback anchor and reinforced grade beam restraint system to
stabilize a portion of the February — March 2009 Valleyside Lane landslide at the subject
site. The purpose of the work addressed by this report was to achieve a gross static slope
stability factor -of- safety of 1.5 for the stabilized portion of the landslide. Our services
during installation of the tieback anchor and grade beam system consisted generally of
the following:
• Observation during excavation for the tieback anchors and grade beams.
• Observation of tieback anchor drilled holes.
• Testing of tieback anchors.
• Monitoring of slope inclinometer casings.
• Engineering and geologic analyses.
• The preparation of this report which presents the results of our testing and
observations, and our conclusions and recommendations.
GRADING OPERATIONS
Prior to the installation of the tieback anchor and grade beam restraint system, the site
was cleared of surface obstructions, vegetation and debris which were disposed of offsite.
A temporary backcut and bench were created during May 2010 to accommodate the
construction of the tieback anchor and grade beam system.
5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008 -4369 • (760) 931 -1917 • Fax (760) 931 -0545
327 Third Street • Laguna Beach, CA 92651.2306 • (949) 715 -5440 • Fax (949) 715 -5442
www.hetheringtonengineering.com
AS -BUILT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14673
June 30, 2010
Page 2
The backcut for the tieback anchor and grade beam system exposed previously placed fill
and landslide debris as anticipated. Tension cracks were noted within the fill during
excavation as indicated on the attached Plot Plan, Plate 1.
TIEBACK ANCHORS AND REINFORCED GRADE BEAMS
The tieback anchors and reinforced grade beams were installed between May 4 and June
4, 2010. The work was performed in accordance with the "Partial Landslide Stabilization
for Valleyside Lane ..." plans and specifications (Reference 4). The construction was
performed by J.C. Baldwin Construction Company. A total of sixteen high capacity
tieback anchors and three reinforced grade beams were installed. The tieback anchors
were drilled, installed, pressure grouted and tested between May 12 and June 4, 2010. An
engineer /geologist from this office observed the tieback anchor installation and testing.
All tieback anchors were load tested by an extended creep test, performance test, or proof
test and locked off at their design loads via the lift-off test. The approximate locations of
the reinforced grade beams and tieback anchors are indicated on the attached Plot Plan,
Plate 1. The tieback anchor testing data is included in Appendix A.
SLOPE MONITORING
One slope inclinometer casing (B- 1/I -1) was previously installed as part of the
"Geotechnical Investigation..." (Reference 2) and a second casing was installed
immediately prior to construction of the tieback anchor and grade beam system (B- 5/I -2).
Only the slope inclinometer casing identified as B -5/I -2 was accessible for monitoring
during construction. The locations of the slope inclinometer casings are indicated on the
attached Plot Plan, Plate 1. Slope inclinometer monitoring data through June 8, 2010 is
included in Appendix B.
ENGINEERING STABILITY ANALYSIS
Engineering stability analyses were performed to determine revisions to the construction
plans and specifications (References 3 and 4) necessary to increase the post construction
factor -of -safety from 1.2 to 1.5 (Reference 5). The analyses were performed on the geologic
conditions depicted on Geologic Cross - Section 1 -1', Figure 1 using the computer program
PCSTABLSM and based upon the modified Janbu method. Strength parameters utilized for
the analyses were based upon laboratory test data and back calculation. Computer printouts
of selected calculations are included in Appendix C.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our geotechnical observations and the results of our testing, it is our opinion
that the installation and construction of the tieback anchor and grade beam restraint
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
AS -BUILT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14673
June 30, 2010
Page 3
system was performed in general conformance with the project plans and specifications,
and our geotechnical recommendations. The repair achieves a 1.5 (static) minimum
factor -of -safety for gross slope stability for the portion of the landslide that has been
stabilized. The remainder of the landslide has not been stabilized.
We recommend that monitoring of the slope inclinometer casing placed as part of the
construction of the tieback anchor and reinforced grade beam system be continued for at
least one -year after the completion of the tieback anchor and grade beam installations.
Readings should be performed once every six months and finally (if necessary) yearly
thereafter.
LIMITATIONS
Our work was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing in
these or similar localities. No other warranty, express of implied, is made as to the
conclusions and professional advice included in this report.
This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Danny Cohen 4r O`
Civil Engineer
Geotechnical Engin�c c ea
(expires 3/31/12) �+�
IIo. 2346
0 CA1
au
Professional Geologist 3772
Certified Engineering Geologist 11
(expires 3/31/12)
DC/PAB/MDWdkw
Civil Engineer
Geotechnical I
(expires 3/314.
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
No. 397
AS -BUILT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14673
June 30, 2010
Page 4
Attachments: Plot Plan
Geologic Cross - Section 1 -I'
Tieback Anchor Test Data
Slope Inclinometer Data
Slope Stability Analyses
Distribution: 2 -Mr. Mark Brister
2 -Mr. David Bristol
2- Hardcopies and 1 -via e-mail Mr. David Winkler
Dw•inkler.PCSAroadrunner.com
1 -via e-mail J.C. Baldwin Construction
Attn: Mr. Jim Baldwin jcbincna.nacbell.net
Plate 1
Figure 1
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
REFERENCES
1) "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of Landslide and Proposal for Additional
Geotechnical Services, 1005, 1015, 1025, 1055 and 1065 Valleyside Lane,
Olivenhain Meadows, Lots 1 through 5, Encinitas, California," by Hetherington
Engineering, Inc., dated March 24, 2009
2) " Geotechnical Investigation, Valleyside Lane Landslide, Lots 1 Through 5,
Olivenhain Meadows and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 14489, Encinitas, California," by
Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated August 4, 2009.
3) Temporary Geotechnical Repair Recommendations, Valleyside Lane Landslide, Lots
2, 3 and 4, Olivenhain Meadows, Encinitas, California," dated November 12, 2009.
4) Partial Landslide Stabilization For Valleyside Lane — Lots 2, 3 & 4, Encinitas,
California, Sheets 1, 2, 3A & 4," by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated April 12,
2010.
5) "Proposed Revisions to Construction Plans, Partial Stabilization, Valleyside Lane
Landslide, Lots 2, 3 and 4, Olivenhain Meadows, Encinitas, California," by
Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated May 5, 2010.
6) "Interim As -Built Geotechnical Report, Valleyside Lane Landslide, Lots 2, 3 and 4,
Olivenhain Meadows, Encinitas, California," by Hetherington Engineering, Inc.,
dated June 17, 2010.
Project No. 6425.4
Log No, 14673
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
m
r
m
D
0
Z
m
m
210
e
W7141
WIL61
oil]
-m
1
LOT 5
LOT 4
EXISTING PAD - LOT 3
(PROJECTED - APPROX.
ELEV. 126.0')
V -DITCH
B -2
(PROJECTED)
1
1 I
1
1 r
LOT 3
r
,
8
B-5/1-2 (PROJECTED)
(TD = 42.5')
(TD 40') 1
i
� � I
1
1 I
1 1
RECENT
LANDSLIDE
DEBRIS
UNBONDED LENGTH - 50'
SCALE: V - 20'
0 1 2
0 10 20 30 40
LOT 2
B -3
(PROJECTED) ORIGINAL GROUND
(TD = 40')
I
GRADED SURFACE
t
I �
I
1
FILL
210
I Z
g
I o 1180
1 w
J
J
Q
1
FILL
BEDROCK
(DEL MAR FORMATION)
MIN. BONDED LENGTH 30'
TREND: S21
i
i
i
i
i
1
150
120
m
m
I
Lu
w
w
LL
Z
0
Q
w
w
GEOLOGIC CROSS - SECTION
Valleyside Lane /Stabilization
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Valleyside Lane - Lots 2 3 & 4 Encinitas, California
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425.4 1 FIGURE NO. 1
APPENDIX A
(Tieback Anchor Test Data)
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14673
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217 in'
240
kips
21.3
Time
(min)
53.5
feet
50
feet
30
feet
1.52
in'
28000 ksi
Anchor Number 1
Date Tested: 6/2 2010
Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS +1/2Lb
(inches)
(AL) 0.10
24.0
500
0.000
0 000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60.0
1275
0.588
0.494
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.570
1.407
1 1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2.649
2.411
1355
1.884
3,015
100
240.0
5100
3.796
3.483
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
5.128
4.704
4.166
3.333
5.334
1.33
319.2
6800
5.643
5.083
4.456
3 565
5.705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5.643
2
5.644
3
5.644
4
5.644
5
5.644
6
5.644
10
5.646
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.003
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock Off Load (kips): 240
i
r
v
c
c
0
N
T
C
O
W
0.2
0.15
rem
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 1
Date Tested: June 2, 2010
Time (minutes)
Creep Limn at 0.04 inches
-- O—Measured Creep
10
d
r
c
c
0
A
C
O
W
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 1
Date Tested: June 2, 2010
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— — Maximum Theoretical Elongation
—i— Measured Elongation
/
/
/
/
/
II
/
I•
I
/
II
I
/
II
/
I
I
/
II
I
I
/
I
I
I
/
I
I
/
I I
I
I
II
I
/
I
/
I
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— — Maximum Theoretical Elongation
—i— Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217
in2
240
kips
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
21.3
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
53.5
feet
50
feet
Anchor Number: 2
Date Tested: 6/2 /2010
30 feet
1.52 in Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
28000 ksi
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS +1/2Lb
(inches)
(AL) 0.10
24.0
500
0.000
0 000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60.0
1275
0.557
0 463
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.488
1.325
1.449
1 1.159
1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2.494
2.256
1355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240.0
5100
3.605
3.292
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
4.904
4.480
4166
3 333
5 334
1.33
319.2
6800
5.420
4.860
4 456
3.565
5 705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5.528
2
5.529
3
5.532
4
5.536
5
5.544
6
5.546
10
5.552
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.024
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING. INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock Off Load (kips): 240
a
m
L
fl
C
C
O
A
C
O
W
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 2
Date Tested: June 2, 2010
Time (minutes)
Creep Umit at 0.04 inches
--S--Measured Creep
10
m
r
v
c
z
0
n
a
c
0
�1
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 2
Date Tested: June 2, 2010
f-
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— — Maximum Theoretical Elongation
1110--Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217 in
240
kips
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
21.3
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
53.5
feet
50
feet
Anchor Number: 3
Date Tested. 6/3/2010
30 feet
1.52 in Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
28000 ksi
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS +112Lb
(inches)
(AL) 0.10
24 0
500
0.000
0.000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
600
1275
0.597
0.503
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.545
1.382
1449
1.159
1 1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2.568
2.330
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240.0
5100
3.602
3.289
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
4.821
4.397
4.166
3 333
5.334
1.33
319.2
6800
5.257
4.697
4.456
1 3 565
5.705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5.364
4.804
4.456
3.565
5.705
2
5.365
3
5.366
4
5.369
5
5.373
6
5.384
10
5.392
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.028
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock Off Load (kips): 240
k:
u
C
e
0
a
w
a
C
0
W
V
0.1
0.
0.
I
Ell
�1�
y
M
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 3
Date Tested: June 3, 2010
5
1 -
05
0
5
1
Time (minutes)
—Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
+Measured Creep
10
a
m
t
e
0
A
C
0
W
Z
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 3
Date Tested: June 3, 2010
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— Maximum Theoretical Elongation
t Measured Elongation
/
/
/
/
0
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— Maximum Theoretical Elongation
t Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane LandslideStabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
EXTENDED CREEP TEST
Anchor Number: 4
Date Tested: 6/2!2010
# of Strands
7
Pressure
(psi)
Effective Area (Per Strand)
0.217
in
Design Load (DL)
240
kips
Ram Calibration Slopel
21.3
500
Stressing Length
53.5
feet
Free Length (Lf)
50
feet
Bond Length (Lb)
30
feet
Area (A)
1.52
in Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
Modulus of Elasticity E
28000
ksi
Load
I% of
DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min.)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS +112Lb
(inches)
(AL)0.10
24
500
0.000
0.000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60
1275
0.549
0.443
0.543
0 435
0.696
0.25
60
1
0.549
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.543
0.435
0.696
2
0.549
3
0.549
4
0.549
5
0.549
6
0.549
10
0.549
0.10
24
500
0.106
0.000
0.000
0.000
0,000
0.25
60
1275
0.552
0.446
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.489
1.301
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.50
120
2550
1
1.489
1.301
1.301
1.301
1.301
1.301
1.301
1.301
1.301
1.301
1.301
1301
1.449
1.159
1.855
2
1.489
3
1.489
4
1.489
5
1.489
6
1.489
10
1.489
15
1.489
20
1.489
25
1.489
30
1.489
0.10
24
500
0.188
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Page 1 of 4
Load
(% of
DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min.)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS + 1l2Lb
(inches)
0.25
60
1300
0.648
0.460
0 543
0 435
0 696
0.50
120
2550
1522
1.334
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
1 180
1 3850
2.526
2.260
2.355
1.884
3.015
0.75
180
3850
1
2.526
2.260
2.260
2.260
2.260
2.260
2.260
2.260
2.260
2.261
2.261
2.262
2.355
1.884
3.015
2
2.526
3
2.526
4
5
2.526
2.526
6
2.526
10
2.526
15
2.526
20
2.527
25
2.527
30
2.528
0.10
24
500
0.266
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.25
60
1275
0.723
0.457
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.611
1.345
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180
3825
2.582
2.316
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240
5100
3 568
3.208
3.260
2.608
4.175
100
240
5100
1
3.572
3.208
3.208
3.208
3.208
3.208
3208
3.208
3.208
3.208
3.208
3.208
3.208
3.260
2.608
4.175
2
3.572
3
3.572
4
3.572
5
3.572
6
3.572
10
3.572
15
3.572
20
3.572
25
3.572
30
3.572
45
3.572
0.10
24
500
0.360
0.000
0 -000
0.000
0.000
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Page 2 of 4
Load
(% of
DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min.)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS + 1 /21-b
(inches)
0.25
60
1275
0.814
0.454
0.543
0 435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.721
1361
1.449
1159
1.855
0.75
180
3825
2.729
2.369
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240
5100
1 3.675
3.315
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300
6400
4.805
4.330
4.166
3.333
5.334
1.25
300
6400
1
4.810
4.335
4.335
4.335
4.335
4.335
4.335
4.335
4.335
4.335
4.335
4.335
4.343
4.346
4.166
3.333
5.334
2
4.810
3
4.810
4
4.810
5
4.810
6
4.810
10
4.810
15
4.810
20
4.810
25
4.810
30
4.810
45
4.818
60
4.821
0.10
24
500
0.475
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Page 3 of 4
Load
(% of
DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min.)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS + 1 /21-b
(inches)
025
60
1275
0.944
0.469
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.876
1.401
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
1 180
1 3825
1 2.896
2.421
2.355
1 1.884
1015
1.00
240
5100
3.882
3.407
3.260
2,608
4.175
1.25
300
6400
4.948
4.473
4166
3.333
5.334
1.33
319
6800
5.332
4.792
4.456
3.565
5.705
1.33
319
6800
1
5.332
4.792
4.456
3.565
5.705
2
5.332
3
5.332
4
5.332
5
5.332
6
5.332
10
5.332
15
5.332
20
5.332
25
5.332
30
5.332
45
5.332
60
5.332
75
5.332
90
5.332
100
5.332
120
5.332
150
5.332
180
5.332
210
5.332
240
5.332
300
5.332
0.10
24
500
0.540
0.000
0.000 1
0.000
0.000
Total Creep Between 1 and 300 minutes: 0 000 Lock off Pressure (psi): 5100
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Page 4 of 4
e
c
c
0
m
m
c
0
W
Extended Creep Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 4
Date Tested: June 3, 2010
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (Kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
—Mammum Theoretical Elongation
-- Measured Elongation
I
/
`
I
/
/
I
ar
/
/
I
/
I
/
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (Kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
—Mammum Theoretical Elongation
-- Measured Elongation
0.2
0.15
0.1
_ 0.05
S
r
u
C
e
C
0
a
•
01
C
O
W
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Extended Creep Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 4
Load: 60 kips
Date Tested: June 2, 2010
Time (minutes)
—Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
t—Measured Creep
10
N
d
L
u
c
c
0
q
m
C
O
W
J
is
Mi
-0.
EM
'LD
5
Mg
0
5
1
Extended Creep Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 4
Load: 120 kips
Date Tested: June 2, 2010
10
Time (minutes)
Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
—6—Measured Creep
100
M
•
L
Y
C
C
O
C
O
W
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Extended Creep Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 4
Load: 180 kips
Date Tested: June 2. 2010
10
Time (minutes)
Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
t Measured Creep
100
a
z
u
c
c
0
rn
c
0
w
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
eenli
M
915161
-0.2
Extended Creep Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 4
Load: 240 kips
Date Tested: June 2, 2010
10
Time (minutes)
Creep Urnk at 0.04 inches
—0—Measured Creep
100
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
tw
U
C
0 0
a
C
C
0
w
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Extended Creep Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 4
Load: 300 kips
Date Tested: June 2, 2010
10
Time (minutes)
Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
tMessured Creep
100
Extended Creep Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 4
Load: 319 kips
Date Tested: June 2, 2010
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
E
0
a
�o
w
-0.05
.im
-0.15
10 100
Time (minutes)
—Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
t Mesured Creep
1000
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217 in2
240
kips
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
21.3
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
53.5
feet
50
feet
30
feet
1.52
in
28000
ksi
Anchor Number: 5
Date Tested: 6/3/2010
Note. Zero scale after AL is applied
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS +112Lb
(inches)
(AL) 0.10
24.0
500
0.000
0.000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60.0
1275
0.509
0.415
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.518
1.355
1.449
1 1159
1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2.663
2.425
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
2400
5100
3.842
3.529
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
5.256
4.832
4.166
3.333
5.334
133
319.2
6800
5.831
5.271
4.456
3.565
5.705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5.338
4.778
4.456
3.565
5.705
2
5.838
3
5. B40
4
5.841
5
5.844
6
5.847
10
5.853
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.015
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock Off Load (kips): 240
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
a
m
L
u
c
c 0
0
a
m
c
0
w
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 5
Date Tested: June 3, 2010
Time (minutes)
Creep Umit at 0.04 inches
tMeasured Creep
10
°m
L
C
C
iJ
A
D
W
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 5
Date Tested: June 3, 2010
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
—Ma)dmum Theoretical Elongation
— Measured Elongation
/
♦I
I
/
♦
I
♦
♦
♦
r
♦
r
r
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
—Ma)dmum Theoretical Elongation
— Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
PERFORMANCE TEST
# of Strands
7
Pressure
(psi)
Effective Area (Per Strand)
0.217
inz
Design Load DL
240
kips
Ram Calibration Slopel
21.3
500
Stressing Length
53.5
feet
Free Length (Lf)
50
feet
Bond Length (Lb)
30
feet
Anchor Number: 6
Date Tested: 6/3/2010
Area (A) 1.52 in' Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
Modulus of Elasticity (E) 28000 ksi
Load
(% of DL
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min.)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS +1/2Lb
(inches)
010
24
500
0.000
0.000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60
1275
0.570
0.450
0.543
0 435
0.696
0.10
1 24
1 500
1
1 0120
1 0.000
1 0.000
1 0.000
0.000
0.25
60
1275
0.570
0.450
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.468
1.282
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.10
24
500
0.186
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.25
60
1275
0.647
0.461
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.467
1.281
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180
3825
2.420
2.159
2.355
1.884
3.015
0.10
24
500
0.261
0.000
0.000
0.000
10.000
0.25
60
1275
0.699
0.438
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.551
1.290
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180
3825
2.450
2.189
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.0
240
5100
3.403
3.091
3.260
2.608
4.175
0010
24
500
0.312
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.25
60
1275
0.749
0.437
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.615
1.303
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180
3825
2.541
2.229
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.0
240
5100
3.428
3.116
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300
6400
4.470
4.015
4.166
3.333
5.334
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Page 1 of 2
Load
(% of DL
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min.)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS + 112Lb
(inches)
0.10
24
500
0.455
0.000
0.000
0 000
0.000
0.25
60
1275
0.870
0.415
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.742
1.287
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180
3825
2.659
2.204
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240
5100
3.575
3.120
3.260
2.608
4.175
125
300
6400
4.525
4.070
4.166
1333
5334
1.33
319
6800
4.920
4.235
4.456
3.565
5.705
1.33
319
6800
1
4.952
2
4.952
3
4.952
4
4.952
5
4.952
6
4.952
10
4.952
15
4 952
0.10
24
0
0.685
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total Creep between 1 and 15 minutes: 0 000
(less than 0.04 inch)
Lock off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock off Load (kips): 240
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Page 2 of 2
c
u
c
n
U
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
Ell]
-0.15
-0.2
Performance Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 6
Date Tested: June 3, 2010
10 100
Time )minutes)
--G—Measured Creep
—Creep Unnit at 0.04 inches
m
r
u
c
c
O
W
C
O
W
M
Performance Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 6
Date Tested: June 3, 2010
/
/
/
r
Z111
♦
♦
♦
J♦♦
♦
♦
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— Maximum Theoretical Elongation
t Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217
in
240
kips
21.3
Measured
Elongation
(Inches)
53.5
feet
50
feet
Anchor Number: 7
Date Tested: 5/26/2010
30 feet
1.52 in Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
28000 ksi
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(Inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS + 1 /21-b
(inches)
(AL) 0.10
24.0
500
0.000
0.000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60.0
1275
0.565
0.471
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.525
1.362
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2.624
2.386
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240.0
5100
3.826
3.513
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
5.229
4.805
4.166
3.333
5.334
1.33
319.2
6800
5.799
5.239
4.456
3.565
1 5.705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5.900
2
5.903
3
5.905
4
5.909
5
5.914
6
5.916
10
5.921
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.021
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5050
Lock Off Load (kips): 237
a
d
C
U
C
C
O
9
w
O1
C
O
W
02
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 7
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
Time (minutes)
Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
tMeasured Creep
10
d
L
V
C
G
O
A
O1
C
O
W
!i
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 7
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— Maximum Theoretical Elongation
t Measured Elongation
/
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
/
II
I
I
I
/
I
/
I
/
I
I I
I
I
I
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— Maximum Theoretical Elongation
t Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217
in
240
kips
21.3
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
53.5
feet
50
feet
Anchor Number: 8
Date Tested: 5!26!2010
30 feet
1.52 in Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
28000 ksi
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS +112Lb
(inches)
(AL) 0.10
24.0
500
0.000
0.000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60.0
1275
0.581
0.487
0 543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.561
1.398
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2.616
2.378
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240.0
5100
3.656
3.343
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
4.889
4.465
4.166
3.333
5.334
1.33
319.2
6800
5.443
4 883
4.456
3.565
5.705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5.525
2
5.525
3
5.528
4
5.528
5
5.531
6
5.534
10
5.544
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.019
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5050
Lock Off Load (kips): 237
a
m
t
u
c
c
0
a
n
m
c
0
w
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 8
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
Time (minutes)
Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
--*—Measured Creep
10
°o
L
C
C
O
A
C
C
O
W
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 8
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— Maximum Theoretical Elongation
4111---Measured Elongation
♦
r
i
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— Maximum Theoretical Elongation
4111---Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217
in'
240
kips
21.3
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
53.5
feet
50
feet
Anchor Number: 9
Date Tested: 5/26/2010
30 feet
1.52 in' Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
28000 ksi
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS + 1 /2Lb
(inches)
(AL) 0.10
24.0
500
0.000
0 000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60.0
1275
0.603
0.509
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.602
1 1.439
1.449
1.159
1 1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2.693
2.455
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240.0
5100
3.878
1565
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
5.214
4.790
4.166
3.333
5.334
1 33
319.2
6800
5.788
5.228
4.456
3 565
5.705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5.887
2
5.887
3
5.889
4
5.893
5
5.898
6
5,898
10
5.906
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.019
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock Off Load (kips): 240
M
m
L
u
C
C
O
a
m
m
c
0
W
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
1
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 9
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
Time (minutes)
—Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
tMeasured Creep
10
°o
r
c
e
0
w
C
C
0
W
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 9
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
/
/
/
/
/ ••
•
•
•
•
•
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— — Maximum Theoretical Elongation
t Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217 inz
240
kips
21.3
Time
(min)
53.5
feet
50
feet
30
feet
1.52
in
28000 ksi
Anchor Number: 10
Date Tested: 5/26!2010
Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS +1/2Lb
(inches)
(AL) 0.10
24.0
500
0.000
0.000
0.362
0.290
0 464
0.25
60.0
1275
0.624
0.530
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.625
1 1.462
1.449
1.159
1 1.855
075
180.0
3825
2.708
2.470
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240.0
5100
3.857
3.544
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
5.220
4.796
4.166
3.333
5 334
1.33
319.2
6800
5.859
5.299
4 456
3.565
5.705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5.954
2
5.954
3
5 955
4
5.955
5
5.955
6
5.956
10
5.960
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.006
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock Off Load (kips): 240
a
m
t
v
c
c
0
a
A
C
O
W
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-02
1
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 10
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
Time (minutes)
—Creep Limit at 0.04 Inches
tMeasured Creep
10
d
r
c
c
0
.q
C
O
W
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 10
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
/
/
/
/
/ II
♦
/ I♦
/ II
/ I
♦
I
♦
/ I ♦
/ I
I
I
/ ♦ I
I
I
r ♦
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - ttinimum Theoretical Elongation
-� Maximum Theoretical Elongation
—1110—Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
I�d�Z�1�1�91
VA
0.217
in
240
kips
21.3
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
53.5
feet
50
feet
30 feet
1.52 inZ
28000 ksi
Anchor Number: 11
Date Tested: 5/26/2010
Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80 %,Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS +112Lb
(inches)
(AL) 0.10
240
500
0.000
0.000
0 362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60.0
1275
0.579
0.485
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.634
1.471
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2.799
2.561
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240.0
5100
4.041
3.728
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
5.429
5.005
4.166
3.333
5.334
133
319.2
6800
5.934
5.374
4.456
3.565
5705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5.942
2
5.942
3
5.943
4
5.943
5
5.944
6
5.944
10
5.947
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.005
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5050
Lock Off Load (kips): 237
a
m
t
u
c
e
0
a
A
O
C
O
W
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
1
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 11
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
Time (minutes)
Creep Limit at 0.04 inures
tMeasured Creep
10
W.
ly
L
V
C
C
W
C
D
W
a
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 11
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
—Mapmum Theoretical Elongation
—41--Measured Elongation
/
J
/
/
r
I
I
/
rr
r
/
r
♦
r
/
/
r
r
r
/
/
/
/
r
i
/
/ r
/
r
/
r
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
- - - Minimum Theoretical Elongation
—Mapmum Theoretical Elongation
—41--Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
PERFORMANCE TEST
# of Strands
7
Pressure
(psi)
Effective Area (Per Strand)
0.217
in'
Design Load DL
240
kips
Ram Calibration Slopel
21.3
500
Stressing Length
53.5
feet
Free Length (Lf)
50
feet
Bond Length (Lb)
30
feet
Area (A)
1.52
in'
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
28000
ksi
Anchor Number: 12
Date Tested: 5/26/2010
Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
Load
(% of DL
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min.)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS + 112Lb
(inches)
0.10
24
500
0.000
0.000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60
1275
0.530
0.473
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.10
24
500
0.057
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.25
60
1275
0.540
0.483
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1445
1.331
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.10
24
500
0.114
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.25
60
1275
0.590
0.476
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.454
1.340
1.449
1159
1.855
0.75
180
3825
2.450
2.262
2.355
1.884
3.015
010
24
500
0.188
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.25
60
1275
0.650
0.462
0.543
0.435
0.696
050
120
2550
1526
1.338
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180
3825
2 475
2.287
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.0
240
5100
3.510
3.242
3.260
2.608
4.175
0.10
24
500
0.268
0.000
0.000
0.000
0 000
0.25
60
1275
0.737
0,469
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.626
1.358
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180
3825
2.601
2.333
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.0
240
5100
3.559
3.291
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300
6400
4.673
4.332
4.166
3.333
5.334
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Page 1 of 2
Load
(% of DL
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min.)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS + 1121-b
(inches)
0.10
24
500
0.341
0.000
0 000
0.000
0.000
0.25
60
1275
0.813
0.472
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120
2550
1.733
1.392
1.449
1.159
1.855
0.75
180
3825
2.741
2.400
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240
5100
3.705
3.364
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300
6400
4.742
4.401
4.166
3.333
5.334
1.33
319
6800
5.202
4.747
4.456
3.565
5.705
1.33
319
6800
1
5.233
2
5.233
3
5.236
4
5.238
5
5.239
6
5.242
10
5.248
15
5.259
0.10
24
0
0.455
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total Creep between 1 and 15 minutes: 0.026
(less than 0.04 inch)
Lock off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock off Load (kips): 240
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Page 2 of 2
Fl
e
n
v
0.
!,X,
-0.
-0.1
)f2
a
1
05
0
5
1
5
0. 15
Performance Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 12
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
10 100
Time (minutes)
--*—Measured Creep
—Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
m
r
c
e
a°
w
m
0
W
1
Performance Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 12
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
/
/
/
/
♦
♦
♦
♦
/10"1110
♦
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
Minimum Theoretical E"adon
— Maximum Theoretical Elongation
—4—Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217 in2
240
kips
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
21.3
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
53.5
feet
50
feet
Anchor Number: 13
Date Tested: 5 /2 612 0 1 0
30 feet
1.52 in Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
28000 ksi
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS +1 /2Lb
(inches)
(AL) 010
240
500
0.000
0.000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60.0
1275
0.608
0.514
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.605
1.442
1.449
1 1.159
1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2.705
2.467
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
2400
5100
3 822
3.509
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
5.110
4.686
4.166
3333
5.334
1.33
319.2
6800
5 685
5.125
4.456
3.565
5.705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5.739
2
5.740
3
5.740
4
5.742
5
5.746
6
5.750
10
5.759
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.020
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock Off Load (kips): 240
0.:
0.15
0.1
0.05
a
d
L
u
c
0 0
a
A
C
O
W
-0.05
'.31
-0.15
-0.2
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 13
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
Time (minutes)
Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
tMeasured Creep
10
d
z
c
0
.q
O
W
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 13
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
/
Jb
/
/ II
I
I
I
/ II
/ I I
I
/ I I
I
r �
I
II
I
I
/ I
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— Maximum Theoretical Elongation
--O—Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217 in
240
kips
21.3
Time
(min)
53.5
feet
50
feet
30
feet
1.52
in'
28000
ksi
Anchor Number: 14
Date Tested: 6/3/2010
Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
Load
( %, of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS + 1l21-b
(inches)
(AL) 0.10
24 0
500
0.000
0.000
0.362
0.290
0 464
0.25
600
1275
0.549
0.455
0.543
0.435
0.696
0,50
120.0
2550
1.508
1.345
1.449
1 1.159
1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2.551
2.313
2.355
1.884
3.015
1.00
240.0
5100
3.595
3.282
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
4.769
4.345
4.166
1333
5.334
1.33
319.2
6800
5.199
4.639
4.456
3.565
5.705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5199
2
5.199
3
5.199
4
5.199
5
5.199
6
5.199
10
5.199
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.000
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock Off Load (kips): 240
w
•
L
V
C
C
O
A
w
C
O
W
0.:
0.15
0.1
0.05
5XI
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 14
Date Tested: June 3, 2010
Time (minutes)
—Creep Limit at 0.04 Inches
--O—Measured Creep
10
C?
5
4
a
e
s
U
c 3
a°
c
0
W
2
0
Proof Test
Elongation Y. Load
Anchor No.: 14
Date Tested: June 3, 2010
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— — Maximum Theoretical Elongation
t Measured Elongation
i
i
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— — Maximum Theoretical Elongation
t Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217 in'
240
kips
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
21.3
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
53.5
feet
50
feet
Anchor Number: 15
Date Tested: 5/26!2010
30 feet
1.52 in Note. Zero scale after AL is applied
28000 ksi
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS + 112Lb
(inches)
(AL) 0.10
24.0
500
0.000
0.000
0.362
0.290
0.464
0.25
60.0
1275
0.610
0.516
0 543
0 435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.563
1.400
1.449
1159
1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2,575
2.337
1 2.355
1.884
3015
1.00
240.0
5100
3.643
3.330
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
4.848
4.424
4.166
3.333
5.334
1.33
319.2
6800
5.380
4.820
4.456
3.565
5.705
1.33
319.2
6800
1
5.436
2
5.438
3
5.441
4
5.443
5
5 -447
6
5.449
10
5.458
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.022
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock Off Load (kips): 240
0.2
0.15
HU
0.05
a
d
t
u
C
C 0
0
a
R
rn
c
0
w
5XIM
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 15
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
Time (minutes)
Creep Limit at 0.04 inches
--*--Measured Creep
10
C�
5
4
a
m
r
c
0
3
a
c
0
w
2
0
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 15
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
/
/
/
/
f
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
Minimum Theoretical Elongation
— Maximum Theoretical Elongation
t Measured Elongation
Project Name: Valleyside Lane Landslide Stabilization
Project Number: 6425.4
Inspector: CW
# of Strands
Effective Area (Per Strand)
Design Load (DL)
Ram Calibration Slope
Stressing Length
Free Length (Lf)
Bond Length (Lb)
Area (A)
Modulus of Elasticity (E)
PROOF TEST
7
0.217 in
240
kips
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
21.3
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
53.5
feet
50
feet
30
feet
Anchor Number: 16
Date Tested: 5/26/2010
1.52 inz Note: Zero scale after AL is applied
28000 ksi
Load
(% of DL)
Load
(kips)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(min)
Dial
Reading
(inches)
Measured
Elongation
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
80% Theo
Elong.
LS
(inches)
Theo
Elong.
LS + 1/21-b
(inches)
(AL) 010
24.0
500
0.000
0.000
0 362
0.290
0 464
0.25
600
1275
0.599
0.505
0.543
0.435
0.696
0.50
120.0
2550
1.418
1.255
1 1.449
1159
1.855
0.75
180.0
3825
2.428
2.190
2.355
1.884
1 3.015
1.00
240.0
5100
3.503
3.190
3.260
2.608
4.175
1.25
300.0
6400
4.775
4.351
4.166
3.333
5.334
1.33
319.2
6800
5.305
4.745
4.456
3.565
5.705
1 33
319.2
6800
1
5 325
2
5.325
3
5.325
4
5.326
5
5.326
6
5.328
10
5.328
Total Creep Between 1 and 10 minutes: 0.003
(less than 0.04 inches)
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING. INC.
Lock Off Pressure (psi): 5100
Lock Off Load (kips): 240
b
9
L
U
C
C
O
A
C
C
O
W
0.:
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Proof Test
Creep v. Time
Anchor No.: 16
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
Time (minutes)
Creep Limit at 004 inches
—411—Measured Creep
Il
a
t
e
0
a
o•
0
W
M
Proof Test
Elongation v. Load
Anchor No.: 16
Date Tested: May 26, 2010
/
/
/
/
•
•
r
J••
/ •
if OOVOI
•
•
/ •
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Load (kips)
Minimum Theoretiol Elongation
— Maximum Theoretical Elongation
-- Measured Elongation
Appendix B
(Slope Inclinometer Data)
Projml No. 6425.4
Log No. W73
Angular Deflection - -A -- [degrees]
-1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0 . 6 i .> Base Date:
04 May 10
07 May 10
• 10 May 10
11 May 10
* 12 May 10
13 May 10
r X 14 May 10
18 May 10
t� ♦ 21 May 10
I 25 May 10
♦ 28 May 10
08 Jun 10
N
v 15
w �
a
2.
35
Point: Instrument: A+ gearing:
1 -2 162
SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS
Valleyside Lane/Stabilization
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Valleyside Lane -Lots 2,3 &4, Encinitas, CA
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT N0. 6425.4 FIGURE NO. B -'l
d 1
v
w
L
N
o.
v
0
WA
a
Displacement Profile-- A- -[in.]
1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 i.
0
A
! I:i
5 � I11 ♦ dt
I I I I j
I I►I II I
� I ♦ d♦
t III
II
i
I
0 S�
5
Point: Instrument: A+ gearing:
1.2 162
SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Base Date:
04 May 10
07 May 10
• 10 May 10
11 May 10
12 May 10
13 May 10
X 14 May 10
18 May 10
♦ 21 May 10
25 May 10
♦ 28 May 10
08 Jun 10
Valleyside Lane - Lots 2, 3 & 4, Encinitas, CA
PROJECT NO. 64255.4 FIGURE NO. B -2
Angular Deflection - -B -- [degrees]
-1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6
0 - Base Date:
04 May 10
07 May 10
5 • 10 May 10
C 11 May 10
is 12 May 10
r G 13 May 10
X 14 May 10
10 �3 18 May 10
♦ 21 May 10
25 May 10
♦ 28 May 10
1 08 Jun 10
V
15
W
�r
a �r
v
0
20
25
30
35
Point: Instrument: A+ Bearing:
1 -2 162
SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS
Valleyside Lane /Stabilization
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Valleyside Lane - Lots 2, 3 & 4, Encinitas, CA
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 642$.4 FIGURE NO. B-3
Displacement Profile-- B- -[in.]
-1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6
o Base Date:
04 May 10
07 May 10
kl • 10 May 10
I t O 11 May 10
I l * 12 May 10
I O 13 May 10
X 14 May 10
0 1 0 18 May 10
I j ♦ 21 May 10
Ill 25 May 10
♦ 28 May 10
08 Jun 10
15
w
y 1.
JJ [
a
v
20
I
35
Point: Instrument: A+ Bearing:
1.2 162
SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS
Valleyside Lane/Stabilization
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Valleyside Lane -Lots 2,3 &4, Encinitas, CA
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425.4 I FIGURE NO B-4
Resultant Displacement
[in]
-0.6 -0.2
0.2 0.6
Base Date:
04 May 10
07 May 10
♦ 4 t
'II 1
0 10 May 10
I
• t
11 May 10
1
* 12 May 10
QII 1 t
_ 13 May 10
* i
X 14 May 10
10
I1 *b f
18 May 10
�ll I
• 21 May 10
_. 25 May 10
i�f
♦ 28 May 10
IIII
•pt
08 Jun 10
m 15
1
y�/
20
25
30
35
Point:
Instrument:
A+ Bearing:
1 -2
162
SLOPE INCLINOMETER
RESULTS
Valleyside Lane /Stabilization
HETHERINGTON
ENGINEERING, INC.
Valleyside Lane - Lots 2, 3 & 4, Encinitas,
CA
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
PROJECT NO. 6425.4 FIGURE NO.
B -$
1
N
v 1
v
w
s
a
v
0
2
3
3.
Resultant Direction [degrees]
■_
5
I is
3 \1
Base Date:
04 May 10
07 May 10
• 10 May 10
1 O 11 May 10
t 12 May 10
O 13 May 10
X 14 May 10
18 May 10
♦ 21 May 10
25 May 10
♦ 28 May 10
❑ 08 Jun 10
+ - -4 .................
..:'.......:�.
Point: Instrument:
1 -2
A+ Bearing:
162
SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS
Valleyside Lane/Stabilization
HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Valleyside Lane - Lots 2,3 & 4, Encinitas, CA
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 6425.4 FIGURE NO. B-6
Appendix C
(Slope Stability Analyses)
Project No. 6425.4
Log No. 14673
1
1
** PCSTABLSM **
by
Purdue University
- -Slope Stability Analysis- -
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
Run Date: 1 -20 -10
Time of Run:
Run By: CH
Input Data Filename: cc4a.in
Output Filename: cc4a.o9
Plotted Output Filename: cc4a.p9
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Valleyside; section 1 -1'
Tie -backs placed at elev 121.5 (y =91.5)
High groundwater
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
5 Top Boundaries
14 Total Boundaries
Boundary
X -Left
Y -Left
X -Right
Y -Right
Soil Type
No.
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Below Bnd
1
.00
87.00
30.00
87.00
1
2
30.00
87.00
54.00
87.00
2
3
54.00
87.00
105.00
111.00
2
4
105.00
111.00
151.00
111.00
2
5
151.00
111.00
240.00
111.00
1
6
30.00
87.00
33.00
84.00
1
7
33.00
84.00
36.00
81.00
3
8
36.00
81.00
127.00
81.00
3
9
127.00
81.00
136.00
85.00
2
10
136.00
85.00
145.00
96.00
1
11
145.00
96.00
151.00
111.00
1
12
136.00
85.00
240.00
89.00
2
13
127.00
81.00
240.00
84.00
3
14
.00
84.00
33.00
84.00
3
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
1
1
1
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
1 120.0 125.0 275.0 19.0 .00 .0 1
2 120.0 125.0 .0 10.0 .00 .0 1
3 127.0 129.0 250.0 18.0 .00 .0 1
1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 5 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Water
Y -Water
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
.00
84.00
2
54.00
88.00
3
95.00
99.00
4
125.00
106.00
5
240.00
110.00
TIEBACK LOADS)
1 Tieback Load(s) Specified
Tieback X -Pos Y -Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length
No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft)
1 63.56 91.50 30000.0 1.0 20.00 50.0
NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks
Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between
Individual Tiebacks.
Janbus Empirical Coef is being used for the case of c & phi both > 0
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been
Specified.
1
500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
5 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base
Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of
Sliding Block Is 5.0
Box
X -Left
Y -Left
X -Right
Y -Right
Height
No.
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
1
36.00
82.50
60.00
82.50
1.50
2
125.90
83.80
127.00
81.00
.00
3
133.70
88.30
136.00
85.00
.00
4
140.60
98.50
145.00
96.00
.00
5
145.10
110.00
151.00
110.00
.00
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical
First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * *
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
39.07
87.00
2
41.17
85.07
3
44.91
81.76
4
126.51
82.25
5
133.91
87.99
6
142.61
97.36
7
150.18
110.00
8
150.93
111.00
* **
1.581
* **
Individual data on the 13 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Hot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
Ft (m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
.1
.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2.0
251.6
.0
166.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
3.7
1679.2
41.5
1174.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
9.1
5926.4
367.1
3325.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
41.0
74676.4
.0
28595.9
14786.5
16703.6
.0
.0
.0
10.0
32751.3
.0
10990.0
573.9
2167.7
.0
.0
.0
20.0
71265.1
.0
26125.4
589.0
3142.3
.0
.0
.0
1.5
5389.5
.0
2239.4
30.6
197.1
.0
.0
.0
7.4
23772.6
.0
12308.9
787.5
836.3
.0
.0
.0
8.7
19709.2
.0
10984.6
978.4
937.0
.0
.0
.0
5.7
6191.1
.0
3178.1
788.4
622.8
.0
.0
.0
1.9
595.7
.0
.0
229.3
207.2
.0
.0
.0
.7
44.9
.0
.0
65.8
76.0
.0
.0
.0
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
48.28
87.00
2
50.91
85.26
3
54.48
81.76
4
126.46
82.37
5
134.26
87.49
6
140.91
98.32
7
150.00
110.00
8
150.89
111.00
* **
1.589
* **
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
48.28
87.00
2
50.91
85.26
3
54.48
81.76
4
126.46
82.37
5
134.26
87.49
6
140.91
98.32
7
150.00
110.00
8
150.89
111.00
* **
1.589
* **
1
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
46.79
87.00
2
49.33
84.60
3
53.44
81.75
4
126.32
82.74
5
134.01
87.85
6
142.66
97.33
7
148.59
110.00
8
148.82
111.00
* **
1.606
* **
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
46.79
87.00
2
49.33
84.60
3
53.44
81.75
4
126.32
82.74
5
134.01
87.85
6
142.66
97.33
7
148.59
110.00
8
148.82
111.00
* *+
1.606
* **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
42.78
87.00
2
45.51
85.57
3
50.50
85.27
4
54.25
81.96
5
126.84
81.41
6
134.75
86.79
7
141.89
97.76
1
1
8 149.99 110.00
9 150.97 111.00
* ** 1.607 * **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
42.78
87.00
2
45.51
85.57
3
50.50
85.27
4
54.25
81.96
5
126.84
81.41
6
134.75
86.79
7
141.89
97.76
8
149.99
110.00
9
150.97
111.00
* **
1.607
* **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
31.62
87.00
2
32.57
86.11
3
37.53
85.51
4
41.10
82.00
5
126.82
81.46
6
134.31
87.42
7
141.04
98.25
8
149.11
110.00
9
149.21
111.00
* **
1.620
* **
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
1
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
31.62
87.00
2
32.57
86.11
3
37.53
85.51
4
41.10
82.00
5
126.82
81.46
6
134.31
87.42
7
141.04
98.25
6
149.11
110.00
9
149.21
111.00
* **
1.620
* **
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
:4
Point
X -Surf
Y -Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1
36.09
87.00
2
40.02
85.33
3
43.56
81.79
4
126.97
81.07
5
134.87
86.62
6
140.63
98.48
7
146.95
110.00
8
147.64
111.00
* **
1.623
* **
Y A X I S F T
.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 150.00
.00 +---------+--------- +------- * * +------ --- +------- --+
30.00 +
811
1.4
-
.22
-
2.*
A
60.00
+
„ 1
-
T
X
90.00
+
-
W
-
T
-
1
I
120.00
+
-
*4 W
-
*1
-
.2
-
' 0
S
150.00
+
180.00
+
F
210.00
+
T
240.00
+
* +
Will
ii om
.l
30
[a]
cc4a.p9
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240