Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6611; Park Dr Retaining Wall, Drainage & Slope Stab; Park Dr Retaining Wall, Drainage & Slope Stab; 2009-11-11
DESIGN STUDY REPORT * FOR » PARK DRIVE RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT, P DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, * & SLOPE STABILIZATION f» Job Number 15369 P*/^~e*^ JE. #58844 Exp. 06/11 Prepared for: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 (760)438-1161 Prepared by: Rick Engineering Company 5620 Friars Road San Diego, California 921 10-2596 (619) 291-0707 ft li November 11,2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 LOCATION AND VICINITY MAPS ........................................................... 4 *• 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/INTRODUCTION ............................................ 5 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND .......................................... 6 ^ 4.0 PROJECTNEED ........................................................................................... 8 ** 5.0 PROJECT GOALS ........................................................................................ 9 6.0 OWNERSHIP INFORMATION ................................................................... 9 r* 7.0 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY INFORMATION ..................................... 9 ^ 8.0 EXISTING UTILITIES .................................................................................. 10 9.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS ........................................ 10 10.0 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #1 ....................................................................... 11 "* 1 1.0 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #2 ........ ............................................................... 12 12.0 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #3 ....................................................................... 12 i. : 13.0 OTHER DESIGN ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................. 13 ** 14.0 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 13 ^ 15.0 APPENDIX A - FIGURES L 16.0 APPENDIX B - PROPERTY MAPS & DETAILS * 17.0 APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS " LOCATION MAP AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE TO LOS ANGELES PROJECT LOCATION 562°FRIARSSAN DIEGO, CA 92110 619.291.0707 I ENGINEERING COMPANY (FAX)619.291.4165 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE 4 G 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/INTRODUCTION h* The City of Carlsbad (City) has retained Rick Engineering Company to design andc* evaluate a slope stabilization and drainage system for property generally located in a f*! residential area on the northeast side of Park Drive between Cove Drive and Bayshore Drive (See Figure 1.0 for project location). Improvements in the area have occurred over E*• the past forty years. The improvements have included construction of several fj subdivisions and supporting infrastructure. The area is considered built-out with no major future development anticipated. E For the past thirty years City maintenance crews have installed many minor E improvements to address the slope stabilization and continuous run-off issues at this project location, hi addition, a retaining wall was constructed per City of Carlsbad §' Drawing No. 272-7 approved in 1987. Slope stabilization and runoff have continued to £be a nuisance. The purpose of this document is to develop several design alternatives for use to determine which concept minimizes impacts to the bluff and feasibly mitigates the If existing condition. This Preliminary Design Study (PDS) document discusses three project alternatives • ranging in construction costs from $960,000 to $1,720,000. Each alternative explores • possible solutions for the project and the resulting impacts. The information provided in this document is based on available information and record documents provided by the City. Environmental and biological information was provided by LSA Associates Inc., • Pacific Center, 703 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 260, Carlsbad, California. i Us r p» fc 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND Park Drive functions as a local street as defined in the City of Carlsbad Circulation Element. A local street has a right of way width of 60 feet and a minimum improved curb face to curb face width of 40 feet, hi addition, Park Drive is also identified as a potential scenic corridor. The designation requires that any design on the street need to I*I consider the potential scenic and historic amenities along the route. Park Drive functions gn as a collector street and has been widened throughout the years. Currently the street has a L~ curb face to curb face paved width of 48 feet. The final improvements to the 1 northeasterly side of Park Drive were completed in 1989 when the Park Drive *,, Assessment District widened Park Drive and installed a retaining wall, curb, gutter and it street improvements. F* to «** Currently, the northeasterly side of Park Drive is unimproved. The property consists of an existing bluff face that has been cut into several times for the widening of Park Drive. jy A subdivision, detention basin and small park have been constructed at the top of the p bluff. The bluff erodes and sloughs off during storm water events, hi addition, the slope i* continually weeps and water flows in a small canyon onto the sidewalk. Both water and III sediment slough off the wall onto the sidewalk and often times into the street. The P continuous flowing water tends to grow algae on the sidewalk and curb creating a dangerous and unappealing situation for pedestrians. Pedestrians are often forced to walk f y in the street to avoid sediment and algae. p ta Some of the project area is located on private property. The properties have slopes in «M ill excess of 40%. City ordinance does not allow development on slopes steeper than 40% f and greatly restrict development on slopes between 15% and 40%. The land in its|t undeveloped state is vegetated with native vegetation with pockets of disturbed areas. ^P? M IH|. The retaining wall and street widening were completed in 1989 per City of Carlsbad Drawing DWG 272-7'. The project was funded by Assessment District 86-4. i This PDS evaluates potential solutions to address soil retention, drainage deficiencies, pi erosion problems, and pavement conditions in the project area. The design alternatives to include the addition of above and below grade storm drain systems, erosion control and t prevention products, and grading options. The proposed solutions will require access and iff grading operations to be performed on private property. The proposed disturbed areas »include land that is classified as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) by the r^ California Coastal Commission (CCC). Comments and concerns that may result from a pi CCC review of the project could greatly impact and alter the project's alternatives. i. |0 The construction necessary for this project is expected to result in minor impact to the f" traffic patterns in the area. Pavement grinding and overlay operations will have the greatest affect on traffic but will be completed in a relatively short period of time. Street fI* parking will be limited during construction activities but ample street parking on the f* opposite side of the street should be adequate to support the residences in the project area. The sidewalk within the project limits will need to be closed during construction, but the sidewalk on the other side of the street, east of Marina Drive, may be utilized to provide *"* uninterrupted pedestrian movement in the area. There is currently no sidewalk on the south side of Park Drive west of Marina Drive, and there are numerous driveways with rolled curb. A traffic control plan will be needed to address the pedestrian access issues ** in this area during construction. M *. 4.0 PROJECT NEED m T! Drainage and erosion problems are causing an unsafe condition for pedestrians using the sidewalk in the project area. The active erosion and nuisance water sheet flows over the t sidewalk, creating a consistently wet and slippery surface. Extensive maintenance efforts P. are necessary to remove the eroded material and to keep sediment out of the public right- L of-way, including preventing it from entering the storm drain system. The existing L retaining wall adjacent to the sidewalk is deteriorating and is in need of replacement. P- Also, pavement conditions are poor in the project area and should be addressed as part of •M this project. **»^ Park Drive has high density housing on the southwesterly side and lower density housing f" on the northerly side. This combination requires parking on the northerly side of the street. In addition, there is no sidewalk on the southerly side of the street due to the || frequency of driveways and rolled curb. Pedestrians are often forced to walk in the f" street to avoid muddy or slippery conditions on the sidewalk to. r ^ 5.0 PROJECT GOALS •v The intent of this document is to explore potential solutions to the current problems in f* fc» order to improve public safety. This document also attempts to determine the most cost- f* effective solution that minimizes the impacts to the environment.m *" 6.0 OWNERSHIP INFORMATION <*» fc" Depending upon the design alternative selected, there are a number of land parcels on the i north side of Park Drive that are potentially affected by the project. The parcels are single-family residential lots (See Appendix B for property maps and associated details). L f 7.0 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY INFORMATION •1Cf The project area has both controlled and uncontrolled runoff. The Pannonia development _ adjacent to, and north of, the project conveys water to Park Drive through both an" Ibg underground storm drain system as well as a private concrete brow ditch. The brow ditch iL is perpendicular to the slope and empties into a public inlet behind the retaining wall on pp, Park Drive. The storm water is then conveyed in a public 36 inch RCP storm drain (in IM Park Drive and Bayshore Drive), ultimately discharging into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon y (See Figure 7.0-1 in Appendix A for additional details). Runoff from private properties that is not intercepted in an existing brow ditch are f» y allowed to sheet flow down the slope, over the top of the retaining wall, across the *• sidewalk, into the public street and ultimately into the existing public strom drain system that discharges into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. A high point in Park Drive causes a portion of this runoff to flow northwest to Cove Drive and a portion to flow southeast to Neblina Drive (See Figure 7.0-2 in Appendix A for additional details). 8.0 EXISTING UTILITIES There are several private, public, and franchise utilities in the area of the project. Private storm drain and sewer lines run between Park Drive and the Sunset Place development. Public, city-owned facilities are located within the street and sidewalk and include sewer, water, storm drain, streetlights, and associated appurtenances. Franchise-owned utilities include facilities owned by SDG&E, PacBell, and Time Warner Cable. These facilities are located in the street, in the sidewalk (above grade and below grade), and behind the sidewalk (See Figure 8.0-1 in Appendix A for additional details). 9.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS Kleinfelder and Associates prepared a report titled "Report of Geotechnical Exploration Park Drive Slope/Drainage study Carlsbad, California, City of Carlsbad Project No. 34781" dated May 4,1998. The report made the following recommendations: 1. Install three surface monuments adjacent to the small private park off Sunnyhill Drive and monitor annually the distance between the monument and the sidewalk on Park Drive to determine erosion rates. 2. Removal of unstable soil and replacement with Class II aggregate fill in area of retaining wall replacement. 10 3. Dewatering in area of retaining wall replacement. ** 4. Install a dewatering system behind the retaining wall. 5. Installation of a new street subdrain. *» 6. Removal of all trees within 50 feet of the perforated storm drains. JM «B Ninyo and Moore prepared an update to the Kleinfelder report, titled "Geotechnical m Evaluation, Drainage, Retaining Wall, and Pavement Improvements, Park Drive at UK Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California" dated September 24, 2008. Both reports are included j, in Appendix C. *• km 10.0 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #1if* •—"~~~~~—~~^~"^~~~~~~-~'~~~'"~"~-~~"^~~~ MM The first design alternative concept would replace the existing retaining wall in IP* in approximately the same position. The new retaining wall would also be extended to the "*" north approximately 300 feet to connect with an existing retaining wall, resulting in a IM total proposed wall length of approximately 810 feet. Drainage facilities would be added I* to capture and convey the uncontrolled runoff from the site. Water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be added to both the northerly and southerly ends m of the proposed retaining wall to capture the sediment before it leaves the site. A portion ** of the existing slope experiencing considerable erosion would be excavated down to a relatively smooth and stable face and a Geoweb slope protection system applied to eliminate further erosion (See geotechnical recommendations for Geoweb product details). Pavement grinding, overlay, and curb replacement are also proposed with this IP» alternative (See Figures 10.0-1 and 10.0-2 in Appendix A for design details). An 11 opinion of probable construction cost is shown in Figure 10.0-3 in Appendix A. Design fci Alternative #1 requires no additional right-of-way, however, since most of the grading operation will take place on private property, a temporary construction easement of «» approximately 0.9 acres will be required for construction. flW Frin £ 11.0 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #2 The second concept proposes to minimize the height of the retaining wall located at the |H back of the sidewalk, resulting in a significant grading operation. Graded benches in the ** slope and additional drainage ditches are proposed to capture runoff and limit the amount t of erosion and sediment transported from the site. Pavement grinding, overlay, and curb JP. replacement are also addressed in this alternative (See Figures 11.0-1 and 11.0-2 in 5 Appendix A for design details). An opinion of probable construction cost is shown in t Figure 11.0-3 in Appendix A. Design Alternative #2 requires no additional right-of-way, «• however, since most of the grading operation will take place on private property, a temporary construction easement of approximately 2.6 acres will be required for ^ construction. «•» 12.0 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #3 The third design alternative proposes a battered plantable retaining wall to replace the t* j^ existing retaining wall. This taller wall will decrease the steepness of the slopes behind "• it. The reduction of slope gradient will reduce the runoff velocity that contributes to the current erosion problems. Drainage facilities would be added to capture and convey the ^ uncontrolled runoff from the site. Water quality Best Management Practices (BMP' s) i 12 would be added to both the northerly and southerly ends of the proposed retaining wall to *• capture the sediment before it leaves the site (See Figures 12.0-1 and 12.0-2 in Appendix A for design details). An opinion of probable construction cost is shown in Figure 12.0-3 t» in Appendix A. Design Alternative #3 requires no additional right-of-way, however,j^H Lm since most of the grading operation will take place on private property, a temporary W»• construction easement of approximately 1.7 acres will be required for construction. 13.0 OTHER ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS ALTERNATIVE #4 (NO BUILD) This alternative would not alleviate the safety and maintenance problems that are present today. The deteriorating retaining wall will eventually fail causing an emergency situation, and the erosion problem will continue unchecked. Sediment transport to the lagoon will continue to impact the developments to the south and west of the project where the storm drain outfalls exist. 14.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The project lies within the California Coastal Commission (CCC) jurisdiction and any of the design alternatives outlined in this report could be found unacceptable by a CCC review. Early involvement with the CCC is recommended to understand the potential issues with each of the designs addressed in this report. A comprehensive hydraulic study of the existing storm drain systems is necessary to determine if additional storm water can be added at the proposed locations. Upsizing of 13 existing storm drain systems could add substantial costs to the project, but the increased cost would be similar for each of the design alternatives. The current draft general construction permit is expected to be adopted by the end of 2009. This project will need to adhere to the new permit requirements that could potentially make one or more of the design alternatives unacceptable. The alternatives should be re-evaluated once the new permit has been officially adopted. P* h. P* If 14 *" 15.0 APPENDIX A - FIGURES r I 1 1 v •j'f 1 "=100' TO LAGOON RICK 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 619.291.0707 (FAX)619.291.4165 LEGEND EXISTING BROW DITCH EXISTING STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE DIRECTION OF PIPE FLOW EXISTING RETAINING WALL ASSESORS PARCEL NUMBER DRAINAGE FROM PANNONIATO LAGOON FIGURE 7.0-1 • u " 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 619.291.0707 (FAX)619.291.4165 LEGEND EXISTING STORM DRAIN OUTFALL DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW EXISTING RETAINING WALL ASSESORS PARCEL NUMBER # 1"=200' SURFACE FLOW DRAINAGE PATTERN FROM PROJECT AREA FIGURE 7.0-2 RICK 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 619.291.0707£>'§ ••••••••• 619.291.0707pj? ENOINEERINO COMPANY (FAX)619.291.4165 EXISTING SDG&E FACILITIES EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM EXISTING WATER MAIN AND VALVES EXISTING STREET LIGHT EXISTING SEWER MAIN AND MANHOLE EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY 1"=100' EXISTING UTILITIES FIGURE 8.0-1 >• CONNECT TO EXISTING," RC> STORM 600 LF-RCPSTORM DRAIN SECTION 2+00SEE FIGURE 10.0-2 FOR WALL PROFILESEE FIGURE 10.0-2 . HORIZON EMP-ORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SECTION 6+00 SEE FIGURE 10.0-2 B RICK 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 619.291.0707 (FAX)619.291.4165 LEGEND EXISTING STORM DRAIN OUTFALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL EXISTING RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STORM DRAIN SYSTEM PROPOSED WATER QUALITY BMP PROPOSED BROW DITCH PROPOSED GEOWEB SLOPE PROTECTION 1"=200' ALTERNATE #1 PLAN VIEW FIGURE 10.0-1 40 PROP. TOP OF IWALL EXISTING! GROUND" BACK OF WALL EXISTING GROUND 6. FACE1 OF WALLEX. INLEU TOP TO BE MODIFIED10 0+00 10 30 • 20 10 ^PROPOSED WATER QUALITY; DEVICE) 1+00 PROPOSED WATER' QUALITY DEVICE 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 RETAINING WALL PROFILE BROW DITCH- TYPE 'B' PER D-75 •EXISTING GROUND 15' WIN BENCH BROW DITCH PER D-T5 BACK CUT SECTION 2+00 NTS 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 _^^_ 619.291.0707ENGINEERING COMPANY (FAX)619.291 4165 RICK NTS EXISTING GROUND GEOWEB SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM ' VAKlLb '•{15' MIN.)_, S u_o LU O 2X^ '''••, ^ DITCH Ax °"75 ^"^ I/ /"M 1 "T ^J CD O O LJ O U_ ^ b.b' S/W PARK DRIVE SECTION 6+00 NTS ALTERNATE #1 CROSS SECTIONS FIGURE 10.0-2 PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Park Drive Design Study Alternative #1 Description of proposed work and notes: The preliminary design to replace the existing retaining wall, stabilize the slope experiencing the most active erosion, capture and convey the uncontrolled runoff, and treat the storm water discharge from the project with water quality devices. ITEM BESGRJBTIOS: , ;. > . f; v , CLEARING AND GRUBBING EXCAVATE AND FILL EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CONSTRUCT BROW DITCH TYPE V RETAINING WALL PLANTING AND SEEDING TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM (GEOWEB) STORM WATER TREATMENT DEVICE CURB & GUTTER REMOVAL SIDEWALK REMOVAL RETAINING WALL REMOVAL 6" CURB & GUTTER 6" PCC SIDEWALK 18" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE TRENCH RESURFACING GRIND & OVERLAY AC PAVEMENT (3" THICK) ROLLED CURB UNIT" SF CY CY LF SF L SUM L SUM L. SUM L. SUM SF EA LF SF L SUM LF SF LF LF SF LF QUANTITY 40,000 200 6,500 1,200 3,725 1 1 1 1 12,000 2 850 5,100 1 850 5,100 600 600 38,000 450 UNITyPRJCE? $0.50 $20.00 $16.50 $15.00 $30.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $6.00 $50,000.00 $3.00 $1.50 $10,000.00 $20.00 $6.00 $100.00 $25.00 $2.50 $26.00 'TOTAL8 PRICE $20,000 $4,000 $107,250 $18,000 $111,750 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $72,000 $100,000 $2,550 $7,650 $10,000 $17,000 $30,600 $60,000 $15,000 $95,000 $11,700 SUBTOTAL $707,500 CONTINGENCY (25%) $176,875 MOBILIZATION (10%) $70,750 TOTAL SAY $960,000 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY Rick Engineering Company, Project J-15369 Prepared by: KJR Revised by: JDR Date: August 2009 FIGURE 10.0-3 T:\15369\Task-Order-Requests\Task-Order-8\Opinion of Probable Cost Alt-1.xls *A °o. >VCONNECT TO EXJSit fcNG^t 4"- RC"P STORM -DRAIN"" SECTION 2+00 SEE FIGURE 11.0-2 HORIZON 600 LF RCP STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION SECTION 6+00 SEE FIGURE 11.0-2 Sc RICK 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 619.291.0707 (FAX)619 291 4165 LEGEND EXISTING STORM DRAIN OUTFALL EXISTING RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STORM DRAIN SYSTEM PROPOSED WATER QUALITY BMP PROPOSED BROW DITCH B 1 "=200' ALTERNATE #2 PLAN VIEW FIGURE 11.0-1 It13 BROW DITCH TYPE 'B' PER D-T5 BROW DITCH TYPE 'B' PER D-75 EXISTING GROUND 20' WIDE BENCH PER CARLSBAD STD GS-14 BROW DITCH TYPE 'B' PER D-T5 BROW DITCH- TYPE 'B' PER D-T5 BROW DITCH TYPE 'B' PER D-75- SECTION 2+00 NTS EXISTING GROUND BROW DITCH- TYPE 'B' PER D-75 BROW DITCH TYPE 'B' PER D-75- PARK DRIVE SECTION 6+00 RICK 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 619.291.0707 NTS ALTERNATIVE #2 CROSS SECTIONS ENGINEERIjroCOM^NY (FAX)619.291.4165 FIGURE 11.0-2 PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Park Drive Design Study Alternative #2 Description of proposed work and notes: The preliminary design to remove the existing retaining wall and cut the slope back to elimate the need for a new retaining wall. This extensive grading operation proposes brow ditches and benches to capture and convey the uncontrolled runoff and cleanse the water before discharging it from the site. This alternative also rehabilitates the surface of Park Drive as done in alternative #1. ITEM BESeKlPTJON -,C »..,-/• x> ' ,- ;'?; •'•.-•- : : : " ' '•' CLEARING AND GRUBBING EXCAVATE AND FILL EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CONSTRUCT BROW DITCH STORM WATER TREATMENT DEVICE PLANTING AND SEEDING TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM REMOVE & REPLACE 36" STORM DRAIN REMOVE & REPLACE SEWER LINE SIDEWALK REMOVAL RETAINING WALL REMOVAL SEWER MANHOLE CATCH BASIN ADJUST MANHOLE TO GRADE (SEWER & SD) 4" PCC SIDEWALK 18" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE TRENCH RESURFACING GRIND & OVERLAY AC PAVEMENT ROLLED CURB ;UNIT? SF CY CY LF EA L SUM L. SUM L. SUM L SUM LF LF SF L SUM EA EA EA SF LF LF SF LF QUANTITY 103,000 1,100 44,200 2,400 2 1 1 1 1 220 220 5,100 1 2 2 2 5,100 600 600 38,000 450 UNIT PRICE $0.50 $20.00 $16.50 $15.00 $50,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $160.00 $100.00 $1.50 $10,000.00 $3,500.00 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 $6.00 $100.00 $25.00 $2.50 $26.00 TOTAt PRICE $51,500 $22,000 $729,300 $36,000 $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $35,200 $22,000 $7,650 $10,000 $7,000 $8,000 $2,000 $30,600 $60,000 $15,000 $95,000 $11,700 SUBTOTAL $1,272,950 CONTINGENCY (25%) $318,238 MOBILIZATION (10%) $127,295 TOTAL SAY $1,720,000 RICK ENGINEERINO COMPANY Rick Engineering Company, Project J-15369 Prepared by: KJR Revised by: JDR Date: August 2009 FIGURE 11.0-3 T:\15369\Task-Order-Requests\Task-Order-8\Opinion of Probable Cost Alt-2.xls TJS CONNECT TO EXISTING ' RCP STORM DRAIN *A 600 LF RCP STORM^DRAIN ^ ' <-s^ SECTION 2+00 SEE FIGURE 12.0-2 FOR WAL;L PROFILE SEE FIGURE 12.0-2 HORIZON •TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONEASEMENT- SECTION 6+00SEE FIGURE 12.0-2 IfU 03 P \\ Jt «°ox- >RICK 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 619.291.0707 ENCtNEERlNaCo^PANY (FAX)619.291.4165 LEGEND EXISTING STORM DRAIN OUTFALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL EXISTING RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STORM DRAIN SYSTEM PROPOSED WATER QUALITY BMP PROPOSED BROW DITCH B 1"=200' . ALTERNATE #3 PLAN VIEW FIGURE 12.0-1 40 EXIST. GROUND BACK OF S/WPRdP. GROUND i 26 BACK OF WALL : 20 •- 10 RETAINING WALL PROFILE NTS BROW DITCH TYPE 'B' PER D-75 BROW DITCH -^ TYPE 'B' PER D-75 BROW DITCH TYPE 'B' PER D-75 -EXISTING GROUND KEYSTONE WALL W/ PLANTER UNITS BROW DITCH TYPE 'B' PER D-75 BACK CUT SECTION 6+00 SECTION 2+00 NTS NTS RICK 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 619.291.0707 (FAX)619.291.4165 ALTERNATE CROSS SECTIONS FIGURE 12.0-2 PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Park Drive Design Study Alternative #3 Description of proposed work and notes: The preliminary design to replace the existing retaining wall with a taller, plantable keystone wall. This alternative will also capture and convey the uncontrolled runoff, and treat the storm water discharge from the project with water quality devices. This alternative rehabilitates the surface of Park Drive as done in alternative #1 & #2. ITEIW;DESCRIPTION K , CLEARING AND GRUBBING EXCAVATE AND FILL EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CONSTRUCT BROW DITCH KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL PLANTING AND SEEDING TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM STORM WATER TREATMENT DEVICE CURB & GUTTER REMOVAL SIDEWALK REMOVAL RETAINING WALL REMOVAL 6" CURB & GUTTER 6" PCC SIDEWALK 18" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE TRENCH RESURFACING GRIND & OVERLAY AC PAVEMENT (3" THICK) ROLLED CURB UNIT SF CY CY LF SF L SUM L SUM L SUM L. SUM EA LF SF L SUM LF SF LF LF SF LF QUANTITY 68,000 8,500 700 2,200 7,800 1 1 1 1 2 450 5,100 1 450 2,250 600 600 38,000 450 UNIT PRICE $0.50 $20.00 $16.50 $15.00 $20.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $50,000.00 $3.00 $1.50 $10,000.00 $20.00 $6.00 $100.00 $25.00 $2.50 $26.00 TOTAL PRICE $34,000 $170,000 $11,550 $33,000 $156,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $1,350 $7,650 $10,000 $9,000 $13,500 $60,000 $15,000 $95,000 $11,700 SUBTOTAL $752,750 CONTINGENCY (25%) . $188,188 MOBILIZATION (10%) $75,275 TOTAL SAY $1,020,000 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY Rick Engineering Company, Project J-15369 Prepared by: KJR Revised by: JDR Date: August 2009 FIGURE 12.0-3 T:\15369\Task-Order-Requests\Task-Order-8\Opinion of Probable Cost Alt-3.xls «" 16.0 APPENDIX B-PROPERTY MAPS & DETAILS SanGIS Interactive Mapping - Microsoft Internet Explorer File Edit View Favorites Tools Help <r"Back; f,I Search f*3 Favorites @?Media & Address | http://www.sangis.org/5angislnteractive/viewer/viewer.asp RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of 1 Property Detail Report For Property Located At 4435 SUNNYHILL DR, CARLSBAD CA 92008-3662 RealQuest?com DOC88-628705 IN LOT I SAN DIEGO, CA 178.10/1 Owner Information: Owner Name: Mailing Address: Phone Number: f Location Information: Legal Description: County: Census Tract / Block: Township-Range-Sect: Legal Book/Page: 213-3 Legal Lot: I Legal Block: Market Area: Neighbor Code: Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Sale Price: Document #: Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: 10/31/1997 / Sale Price: $176,000 Sale Type: FULL Document*: 549141 Deed Type: GRANT DEED Transfer Document #: New Construction: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: 10/25/1994 / Prior Sale Price: $220,000 Prior Doc Number: 623015 Prior Deed Type: DEED (REG) Property Characteristics: SHERMAN CRAIG W & MARILYN 4435 SUNNYHILL DR, CARLSBAD CA 92008-3662 C038 Vesting Codes: APN: Alternate APN: Subdivision: Map Reference: Tract #: School District: Munic/Township: Deed Type: 1 st Mtg Document #: 1st Mtg Amount/Type: 1st Mtg Int. Ratefi"ype: 1st Mtg Document*: 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: Price Per SqFt: Multi/Split Sale: HW// 207-100-64-00 RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA FOR /1106-H7 823 CARLSBAD UNIF $161,000/CONV / FIXED $47.72 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE LENDER SELLER MOSCO FAMILY TRUST 02-22-82 Prior Lender: Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: LENDER SELLER $200,000 / CONV /FIX Gross Area: Living Area: Tot Adj Area: Above Grade: Total Rooms: Bedrooms: Bath(F/H): Year Built / Eff: Fireplace: # of Stories: Other Improvements: S/te Information: Zoning: Flood Zone: Flood Panel: Flood Panel Date: Land Use: Tax Information: Total Value: Land Value: Improvement Value: Total Taxable Value: 3,688 3,688 3 3/1 /2001 1 X 0602850764F 06/19/1997 DUPLEX $812,026 $238,434 $573,592 $805,026 Parking Type: Garage Area: Garage Capacity: Parking Spaces: Basement Area: Finish Bsmnt Area: Basement Type: Roof Type: Foundation: Roof Material: Acres: Lot Area: Lot Width/Depth: Res/Comm Units: Assessed Year: Improve %: Tax Year: 1.93 84,071 x 21 2007 071% 2007 Construction: Heat Type: Exterior wall: Porch Type: Patio Type: Pool: Air Cond: Style: Quality: Condition: County Use: State Use: Site Influence: Sewer Type: Water Type: Property Tax: Tax Area: Tax Exemption: DUPLEX (112) $8,508.58 09000 HOMEOWNER ISanGIS Interactive Mapping - Microsoft Internet Explorer Files Edit View Favorites Tools Help \ Search f&3 Favorites Si? Media Address [ http: //www. sangis. org/SangisInteractive/viewer/viewer. asp BEST ORIGINAL RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of2 Property Detail Report For Property Located At 4640 PARK DR, CARLSBAD CA 92008-4243 RealQuest?com Owner Information: Owner Name: Mailing Address: Phone Number: Location Information: Legal Description: County: Census Tract / Block: Township-Range-Sect: COLBY TIMOTHY/PETRUCCI LINDA 4640 PARK DR, CARLSBAD CA 92008-4243 C007 Vesting Codes: I Legal Book/Page: Legal Lot: Legal Block: Market Area: Neighbor Code: Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Sale Price: Document #: Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: Sale Price: Sale Type: Document #: Deed Type: Transfer Document #: New Construction: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: Prior Sale Information: DOC88-674484 IN LOT I SAN DIEGO, CA 178.10/1 213-3 08/28/2002/07/12/2002 $630,000 FULL 734225 GRANT DEED APN: Alternate APN: Subdivision: Map Reference: Tract*: School District: Munic/Township: Deed Type: 1 st Mtg Document #: 1st Mtg Amount/Type: 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: 1st Mtg Document*: 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: Price Per SqFt: Multi/Split Sale: HW//JT 207-100-66-00 RANCHOAGUA HEDIONDA POR 14-C6/1106-H7 823 CARLSBAD UNIF $504,000 / CONV 5.50 /ADJ 734226 $187.17 CALIFORNIA TITLE CO WASHINGTON MUTUAL BK FA LEE D & H TRUST Prior Rec/Sale Date: Prior Sale Price: Prior Doc Number: Prior Deed Type: 02/16/1996 / $372,000 80737 CORRECTION DEED Prior Lender: Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: AMERICAN SVGS BK $262,000 / CONV /ADJ Property Characteristics: Gross Area: Living Area: Tot Adj Area: Above Grade: Total Rooms: Bedrooms: Bath(F/H): Year Built/Eff: Fireplace: # of Stories: Other Improvements: Site Information: Zoning: Flood Zone: Flood Panel: Flood Panel Date: Land Use: Tax Information: Total Value: Land Value: 3,366 3,366 9 4 4/ /1991 Y/2 2.00 Parking Type: Garage Area: Garage Capacity: Parking Spaces: Basement Area: Finish Bsmnt Area: Basement Type: Roof Type: Foundation: Roof Material: LAUNDRY ROOM 0602850764F 06/19/1997 SFR $696,340 $324,305 Acres: Lot Area: Lot Width/Depth: Res/Comm Units: Assessed Year: Improve %: GARAGE 2 2 SLAB TILE 1.04 45,302 x 2007 053% Construction: Heat Type: Exterior wall: Porch Type: Patio Type: Pool: Air Cond: Style: Quality: Condition: County Use: State Use: Site Influence: Sewer Type: Water Type: Property Tax: Tax Area: FORCED AIR STUCCO GOOD GOOD 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE (111) PUBLIC SERVICE PUBLIC $7,283.74 09000 File Edit View Favorites Tools Help .4=" Back -£ Search [#3 Favorites ^ Media Address |$|y http: //www. sangis. org/SangisInteractive/viewer/viewer. asp EST \ i '. "9 I RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of2 In f m r N P» to IN Property Detail Report For Property Located At 4650 PARK DR, CARLSBAD CA 92008-4243 RealQuesttcom Owner Information: Owner Name: Mailing Address: Phone Number: Location Information: Legal Description: County: Census Tract / Block: Township-Range-Sect: BRYAN GERALD W M & CARLINE K 4650 PARK DR, CARLSBAD CA 92008-4243 C007 Vesting Codes: DOC88-676252 IN LOT I SAN DIEGO, CA 178.10/1 213-3Legal Book/Page: Legal Lot: I Legal Block: Market Area: Neighbor Code: Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: 09/11/2003 / 09/03/2003 Sale Price: Document*: 1112429 Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Sale Price: Sale Type: Document #: Deed Type: Transfer Document #: New Construction: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: / APN: Alternate APN: Subdivision: Map Reference: Tract*: School District: Munic/Township: Deed Type: 1st Mtg Document #: 1 st Mtg Amount/Type: 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: 1st Mtg Document*: 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: Price Per SqFt: Multi/Split Sale: Prior Lender: HW / / JT 207-100-67-00 RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA POR 14-C6/1106-H7 823 CARLSBAD UNIF GRANT DEED 1112430 i Prior Sale Price: i Prior Doc Number: | Prior Deed Type: Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: / Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: / I Property Characteristics: | Gross Area: I Living Area: I Tot Adj Area: | Above Grade: I Total Rooms: i Bedrooms: i Bath(F/H): i Year Built /Eff: I Fireplace: I # of Stories: i Other Improvements: | Site Information: i Zoning: i Flood Zone: i Flood Panel: Flood Panel Date: I Land Use: I Tax Information: i Total Value: [ Land Value: ! Improvement Value: I Total Taxable Value: 3,939 3,939 4 3/1 M998 / 1 X 0602850764F 06/19/1997 SFR $797,517 $296,960 $500,557 $797,517 Parking Type: Garage Area: Garage Capacity: Parking Spaces: Basement Area: Finish Bsmnt Area: Basement Type: Roof Type: Foundation: Roof Material: Acres: Lot Area: Lot Width/Depth: Res/Comm Units: Assessed Year: Improve %: Tax Year: GARAGE 3 2.15 93,654 X 1 / 2007 063% 2007 Construction: Heat Type: Exterior wall: Porch Type: Patio Type: Pool: Air Cond: Style: Quality: Condition: 1 FAMILY County Use: RESIDENCE (111) State Use: Site Influence: Sewer Type: Water Type: Property Tax: $8,434.74 Tax Area: 09000 Tax Exemption: http://www.realquest.eom/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action=confirm&type=getreport&reco... 02/14/2008 *i|SanGIS Interactive Mapping - Microsoft Internet Explorer 2£2u&i^&' File Edit View Favorites Tools Help Back "@ Search (#3 Favorites ^J1 Media Address ! http://www.sangis.org/SangisInteractive/viewer/viewer.asp RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of2 Itt f* in SuP in mg /•*>> to n L Property Detail Report For Property Located At PARK DR, CARLSBAD CA ReaiQu€st?com Owner Information: Owner Name: Mailing Address: Phone Number: Location Information: Legal Description: County: Census Tract / Block: Township-Range-Sect: Legal Book/Page: Legal Lot: Legal Block: Market Area: Neighbor Code: Owner Transfer Information: BANCROFT FAMILY 11-07-05 2510 FIRE MOUNTAIN DR, OCEANSIDE CA 92054-6142 C432 (EX ST) LOT 73 SAN DIEGO, CA 207-15 73 Vesting Codes: APN: Alternate APN: Subdivision: Map Reference: Tract*: School District: Munic/Township: Recording/Sale Date: Sale Price: Document*: 1062053 Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: 04/12/1978 / Sale Price: $10,000 Sale Type: FULL Document*: 143840 Deed Type: DEED (REG) Transfer Document #: New Construction: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: / Prior Sale Price; Prior Doc Number: Prior Deed Type: Property Characteristics: 12/09/2005 /11/07/2005 Deed Type: 1st Mtg Document*: 1st Mtg Amount/Type: 1st Mtg Int. RateHype: 1 st Mtg Document #: 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: Price Per SqFt: Multi/Split Sale: Prior Lender: Prior 1 st Mtg Amt/Type: Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: //TR 207-150-57-00 SHELTER COVE 14-B6/1126-H1 5162 CARLSBAD UNIF TRUSTEE'S DEED (TRANSFER) / / / / $4.04 Gross Area: Living Area: Tot Adj Area: Above Grade: Total Rooms: Bedrooms: Bath(F/H): Year Built / Eft: Fireplace: # of Stories: Other Improvements: Site Information: Zoning: Flood Zone: Flood Panel: Flood Panel Date: Land Use: Tax Information: Total Value: Land Value: Improvement Value: 2,473 2,473 / / / 3 X 0602850764F 06/19/1997 RESIDENTIAL LOT $16,147 $16,147 Parking Type: Garage Area: Garage Capacity: Parking Spaces: Basement Area: Finish Bsmnt Area: Basement Type: Roof Type: Foundation: Roof Material: Acres: Lot Area: Lot Width/Depth: Res/Comm Units: Assessed Year: Improve %: Tax Year: 0.54 23,522 x 2007 2007 Construction: Heat Type: Exterior wall: Porch Type: Patio Type: Pool: Air Cond: Style: Quality: Condition: County Use: State Use: Site Influence: Sewer Type: Water Type: Property Tax: Tax Area: Tax Exemption: VACANT RESIDENTIAL (310) $262.56 09000 http://www.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action=confirm&type=getreport&reco... 02/14/2008 SanGIS Interactive Mapping - Microsoft Internet Explorer File Edit View Favorites Tools Help 4= Back -,[ Search f*3 Favorites t1 Media Address ||fj http: //www. sangis. org/SangisInteractive/viewer/viewer. asp rVMi^;; 204100570LiD^ V ^r. _ ^t«JjiB. .^e.^BK.al^^fa.t RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of2 IP*i fc, m m Property Detail Report For Property Located At 4720 PARK DR, CARLSBAD CA 92008-4265 ReaiQuest?com Owner Information: Owner Name: Mailing Address: Phone Number: Location Information: Legal Description: County: Census Tract / Block: Township-Range-Sect: Legal Book/Page: Legal Lot: Legal Block: Market Area: Neighbor Code: Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Sale Price: Document #: Last Market Sale Information: KERTESZ PAUL PO BOX 261041, SAN DIEGO CA 92196-1041 B010 Vesting Codes: PAR1 SAN DIEGO, CA 178.10/1 APN: Alternate APN: Subdivision: Map Reference: Tract*: School District: Munic/Township: Deed Type: 1 st Mtg Document #: UM// 207-100-57-00 /1106-H7 13337 CARLSBAD UNIF Recording/Sale Date: Sale Price: Sale Type: Document #: Deed Type: Transfer Document #: New Construction: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: Prior Sale Price: Prior Doc Number: Prior Deed Type: 10/10/2000/09/26/2000 $620,000 FULL 544836 GRANT DEED 1st Mtg Amount/Type: 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: 1st Mtg Document*: 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: 2nd Mtg Int. RateAType: Price Per SqFt: Multi/Split Sale: COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE CO. FINANCE AMERICA LLC ORMSBY KEVIN & ALECIA $496,000 / CONV 9.62 / ADJ 544837 $262.38 05/01/1998/04/03/1998 $384,000 253131 GRANT DEED Prior Lender: Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: UNION BK/CA NA $364,800 / CONV /ADJ Property Characteristics: Gross Area: Living Area: Tot Adj Area: Above Grade: Total Rooms: Bedrooms: Bath(F/H): Year Built / Eff: Fireplace: # of Stories: Other Improvements: Site Information: Zoning: Flood Zone: Flood Panel: Flood Panel Date: Land Use: Tax Information: Total Value: Land Value: Improvement Value: Total Taxable Value: 2,363 2,363 3 2/1 /1986 / 1 X 0602850764F 06/19/1997 SFR $697,307 $449,876 $247,431 $697,307 Parking Type: Garage Area: Garage Capacity: Parking Spaces: Basement Area: Finish Bsmnt Area: Basement Type: Roof Type: Foundation: Roof Material: Acres: Lot Area: Lot Width/Depth: Res/Comm Units: Assessed Year: Improve %: Tax Year: GARAG 2 2 2.72 118,483 X 1/ 2007 035% 2007 Construction: Heat Type: Exterior wall: Porch Type: Patio Type: Pool: Air Cond: Style: Quality: Condition: County Use: State Use: Site Influence: Sewer Type: Water Type: Property Tax: Tax Area: Tax Exemption: POOL 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE (111) $7,391.84 09000 http://www.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action-confirm&type=getreport&reco... 02/14/2008 jSanGIS Interactive Mapping - Microsoft Internet Explorer File , Edit View Favorites Tools Help <j=»Back' V [ Search f*3 Favorites w? Media Address |^|y http://www.sangis,org/SangisInteractive/viewer/viewer.asp RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of2 Property Detail Report For Property Located At 4730 PARK DR, CARLSBAD CA 92008-4265 ReaIQu€st!com PAR 2 SAN DIEGO, CA 178.10/1 Owner Information: Owner Name: Mailing Address: Phone Number: Location Information: Legal Description: County: Census Tract / Block: Township-Range-Sect: Legal Book/Page: Legal Lot: Legal Block: Market Area: Neighbor Code: Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: 06/24/2005 / 06/17/2005 Sale Price: Document #: 533324 Last Market Sale Information: TARUT FAMILY 12-17-97 4730 PARK DR, CARLSBAD CA 92008-4265 C002 Vesting Codes: APN: Alternate APN: Subdivision: Map Reference: Tract*: School District: Munic/Township: Deed Type: 1 st Mtg Document #: Recording/Sale Date: Sale Price: Sale Type: Document #: Deed Type: Transfer Document #: New Construction: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: / Prior Sale Price: Prior Doc Number: Prior Deed Type: Property Characteristics: Gross Area: 08/29/1985/08/1985 $198,000 FULL 316604 GRANT DEED 1st Mtg Amount/Type: 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: 1st Mtg Document*: 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: Price Per SqFt: Multi/Split Sale: SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE CO. NATIONAL PACIFIC L R PARTNERSHIP LTD / Prior Lender: Prior 1 st Mtg Amt/Type: Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: //TR 207-100-58-00 14-C5/1106-H7 13337 CARLSBAD UNIF GRANT DEED $1 58,000 / CON V /ADJ $83.79 Living Area: Tot Adj Area: Above Grade: Total Rooms: Bedrooms: Bath(F/H): Year Built / Erf: Fireplace: # of Stories: Other Improvements: Site Information: Zoning: Flood Zone: Flood Panel: Flood Panel Date: Land Use: Tax Information: Total Value: Land Value: Improvement Value: 2,363 3 2/1 1985/1986 Y/1 2.00 Parking Type: Garage Area: Garage Capacity: Parking Spaces: Basement Area: Finish Bsmnt Area: Basement Type: Roof Type: Foundation: Roof Material: COVERED PATIO;PATIO 0602850764F 06/19/1997 SFR $305,496 $108,497 $196,999 Acres: Lot Area: Lot Width/Depth: Res/Comm Units: Assessed Year: Improve %: Tax Year: SLAB TILE 2.80 121,968 x 2007 064% 2007 Construction: Heat Type: Exterior wall: Porch Type: Patio Type: Pool: Air Cond: Style: Quality: Condition: County Use: State Use: Site Influence: Sewer Type: Water Type: Property Tax: Tax Area: Tax Exemption: FORCED AIR STUCCO COVERED PATIO POOL TRADITIONAL GOOD GOOD 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE (111) PUBLIC SERVICE PUBLIC $3,238.48 09000 HOMEOWNER <f| SanGIS Interactive Mapping - Microsoft Internet Explorer File Edit View Favorites Tools Help 4s Back »,[ Search US Favorites <w Media Address [ http: //www. sangis, org/SangisInteractive/viewer/viewer, asp RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of2 Property Detail Report For Property Located At PARK DR, CARLSBAD CA Owner Information: Owner Name: Mailing Address: Phone Number: Location Information: Legal Description: County: Census Tract / Block: SPANGLER RAYMOND G 3774 SKYLINE RD, CARLSBAD CA 92008-2741 C006 Vesting Codes: DOC87-674465 IN LOT I SAN DIEGO, CA 213-3 I Township-Range-Sect: Legal Book/Page: Legal Lot: Legal Block: Market Area: Neighbor Code: Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Sale Price: Document #: Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Sale Price: Sale Type: Document #: Deed Type: Transfer Document #: New Construction: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: / Prior Sale Price: Prior Doc Number: Prior Deed Type: Property Characteristics: Gross Area: Living Area: Tot Adj Area: Above Grade: Total Rooms: Bedrooms: Bath(F/H): Year Built / Eff: Fireplace: # of Stories: Other Improvements: Site Information: Zoning: Flood Zone: Flood Panel: Flood Panel Date: Land Use: Tax Information: Total Value: Land Value: Improvement Value: Total Taxable Value: APN: Alternate APN: Subdivision: Map Reference: Tract #: School District: Municfi"ownship: Deed Type: IstMtg Document*: 1st Mtg Amount/Type: IstMtg Int. RateAType: 1 st Mtg Document #: 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: Price Per SqFt: Multi/Split Sale: Prior Lender: Prior 1 st Mtg Amt/Type: Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: 207-100-65-00 RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA FOR 14-C6/1126-J1 823 CARLSBAD UNIF Parking Type: Garage Area: Garage Capacity: Parking Spaces: Basement Area: Finish Bsmnt Area: Basement Type: Roof Type: Foundation: Roof Material: 0602850764F 06/19/1997 RESIDENTIAL (NEC) Acres: Lot Area: Lot Width/Depth: Res/Comm Units: x / Assessed Year: Improve %: Tax Year: Construction: Heat Type: Exterior wall: Porch Type: Patio Type: Pool: Air Cond: Style: Quality: Condition: County Use: State Use: Site Influence: Sewer Type: Water Type: Property Tax: Tax Area: Tax Exemption: RESIDENTIAL MISC(119) 09000 http://www.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client=&action=confirm&type=getreport&reco... 02/14/2008 >flSanGIS Interactive Mapping - Microsoft Internet Explorer File Edit View Favorites Tools Help 4aBack »Search [^Favorites edia Address i http://www.sangis.org/SangisInteractive/viewer/viewer.asp RealQuest.com ® - Report Page 1 of2 Property Detail Report For Property Located At HORIZON DR, CARLSBAD CA Owner Information: Owner Name: SUNSET PLACE ASSN OF CARLSBADTHE 7720 EL CAMINO REAL STE 2A, CARLSBAD CA 92009-8510 C006 C/O LINDSAY MANAGEMENT SERVICESMailing Address: Phone Number: Location Information: Legal Description: LOT 141 County: SAN DIEGO, Census Tract / Block: / Township-Range-Sect: Legal Book/Page: 207-42 Legal Lot: 141 Legal Block: Market Area: Neighbor Code: Owner Transfer Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Sale Price: Document #: Last Market Sale Information: Recording/Sale Date: / Sale Price: Sale Type: Document #: Deed Type: Transfer Document #: New Construction: Title Company: Lender: Seller Name: Prior Sale Information: Prior Rec/Sale Date: / Prior Sale Price: Prior Doc Number: Prior Deed Type: Property Characteristics: Gross Area: Living Area: Tot Adj Area: Above Grade: Total Rooms: Bedrooms: Bath(F/H): Year Built / Eff: Fireplace: # of Stories: Other Improvements: Site Information: Zoning: Flood Zone: Flood Panel: Flood Panel Date: Land Use: Tax Information: Total Value: Land Value: Improvement Value: Total Taxable Value: 0602850764F 06/19/1997 OPEN SPACE Vesting Codes: CA APN: Alternate APN: Subdivision: Map Reference: Tract*: School District: Munic/Township: Deed Type: 1stMtg Document*: 1st Mtg Amount/Type: 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: 1st Mtg Document*: 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: Price Per SqFt: Multi/Split Sale: Prior Lender: Prior 1 st Mtg Amt/Type: Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: 207-420-42-00 CARLSBAD TR 85- 18 UNITS 03 & 04 /1106-H7 12018 CARLSBAD UNIF Parking Type: Garage Area: Garage Capacity: Parking Spaces: Basement Area: Finish Bsmnt Area: Basement Type: Roof Type: Foundation: Roof Material: Construction: Heat Type: Exterior wall: Porch Type: Patio Type: Pool: Air Cond: Style: Quality: Condition: Acres: Lot Area: Lot Width/Depth: Res/Comm Units: Assessed Year: Improve %: Tax Year: 0.74 32,234 x County Use: State Use: Site Influence: Sewer Type: Water Type: Property Tax: Tax Area: Tax Exemption: OPEN SPACE (986) 09000 http://www.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&client-&action:=:confirm&type=getreport&reco... 02/14/2008 *• 17.0 APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS KLEJNFEIDER A report prepared for: City of Carlsbad Engineering Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4589 Attn: Mr. Galen N. Peterson, Consulting Project Manager REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PARK DRIVE SLOPE/DRAINAGE STUDY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT NO. 34781 Kleinfelder Job No. 51 -4659-01 Prepared by: Rick E. Larson Senior Engineer, KLEINFELDER, INC 9555 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 101 San Diego, California 92123 (619)541-1145 May 4, 1998 /Stephen R. Korbay Senior Engineering 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page ii of iv May 4, 1998 KLEINFELDER TABLE Of CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 GENERAL 1 • 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 2 1.4 AUTHORIZATION 3 2.0 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS 4 2.1 GEOLOGIC EVALUATION 4 2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING 5 3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 3.1 SITE CONDITIONS AND OBSERVATIONS , 6 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 8 3.2.1 Geologic Setting 8 3.2.2 Geologic Units 9 3.3SURFACEWATERANDGROUNDWATER 10 3.4 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE . 10 4.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 11 4.1 GROSS BLUFF STABILITY 11 4.2 EROSION AND CLIFF RETREAT 13 4.2.1 Surface Erosion of Natural Ravine, Station 9+75 13 4.2.2 Steep Cut Slope Erosion, Station 10+76 to Station 15+15 13 4.2.3 45° Slope, Station 15+15 to Station 17+93 14 4.3 SEEPAGE FROM TOE OF BLUFF 15 4.4 CURRENT SAND REMOVAL PROCEDURE 15 4.5 CONCLUSIONS 16 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 17 5.1 BLUFF EROSION MONITORING 17 5.2 REMEDIAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE 17 5.3 NEW RETAINING WALL AND SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT 19 5.4 DRAIN BEHIND EXISTING RETAINING WALL 20 5.5 EROSION MITIGATION STATION 15+15 TO STATION 17+93 21 5.6 NEW BROW DITCHES 22 5.7 SURFACE EROSION OF RAVINE AT STATION 9+75 23 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 24 7.0 LIMITATIONS . 25 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Pageiiiofiv May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kteinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figures Figure 4 Figures Figure 6 Figure? Figures Vicinity Map Site Plan and Geologic Map Geologic Cross Section Typical Retaining Wall Section and Limits of Foundation Improvement Typical Drain for Existing Retaining Wall Typical Detail of Street Outlets and Cleanouts Modified Type "B" Brow Ditch Gabion Cage Detention Basin APPENDICES Appendix A Boring Logs and Cone Soundings Appendix B Laboratory Test Data Appendix C Slope Stability Analyses Data Appendix D Geoweb® Slope Protection System Technical Overview Appendix E ASFE Insert 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page iv of iv May 4, 1998 KLEINFEIDER 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL This report presents the results of Kleinfelder's geotechnical exploration for the Park Drive Slope/Drainage Study repair project in the City of Carlsbad, California. A vicinity map showing the general location of the site is presented in Figure 1 at the end of this report. The objective of this report is to provide the design team with geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the stability and drainage of approximately 500 linear feet of the steep bluff on the east side of Park Drive just north of Marina Drive and the erosion of about 290 linear feet of the lower slope on the northeast side of Park Drive to the east of Marina Drive. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION As indicated in the previous paragraph, this project consists of providing geotechnical recommendations to mitigate the soil sloughing and drainage problems along the easterly and northerly sides of Park Drive hi the City of Carlsbad. For continuity, as well as for convenience, we have elected to use the stationing established by Willdan Associates for the Improvement Plan for Park Drive Assessment District, Project Nos. 3192 and 3216." For the Willdan project, the intersections of Park Drive with Cove Drive and Marina Drive were designated as Station 2+30 and Station 14+54, respectively, along the centerline of Park Drive (increasing station numbers to the south). Using this stationing system, the project study area extends from the east side of Park Drive at about Station 8+52 to east of Marina Drive along the north side of Park Drive to about Station 17+93. The improvements to the study area are likely to consist of the following: • Regrading and the addition of approximately 293 lineal feet of subsurface drainage and low height retaining wall; ' Willdan Associates, 1987, Improvement Plan for Park Drive Assessment District, Project Nos. 3192 and 3216, Drawing No. 272-7, Sheets 1,2, and 3. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page 1 of 25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER • Addition of about 80 feet of back drain to an existing retaining wall; H • Installation of approximately 730 lineal feet of subsurface street drain; !•• • Regrading and establishment of vegetation for approximately 1A acre of sloping ground; *•» 1-1 • Installation of approximately 750 lineal feet of new brow ditch; and to • Installation of gabion cage retention basin and inlet. ** U PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES «• ita The purpose of our study was to evaluate the general surface and subsurface soil and geologic p. conditions at the site to provide recommendations for the design of a new retaining wall, ^ drainage, and erosion mitigation at the base of the bluff and to evaluate the existing stability of the bluff. The scope of Kleinfelder's services were to complete a geologic evaluation of the bluff i and a limited geotechnical study at the bluff toe to evaluate foundation design parameters for the new retaining wall and subdrain system. The specific services provided to date include: m • Two meetings with the City's Consultant Project Manager, the Engineering Department, and *" City Maintenance. p* • Field reconnaissance and geologic mapping of surflcial and bedrock geologic units. IK • Geotechnical investigation of the upper bluff in the vicinity of the existing desilting basin . (northeast of the intersection of Marina and Park Drives) and portions of the bluff toe between Stations 9+72 and 13+16. Five test borings and two dynamic cone penetration *" soundings were made (Appendix A). *" • Laboratory testing of a few samples of geologic materials to correlate their pertinent *• engineering properties with our previous experience (Appendix B). •*•• *,, • Analysis of field data which included evaluation of the existing factor of safety of the steep bluff against deep seated circular and block failures for static and dynamic conditions (using ** 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page2of25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 KJeinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER m a pseudo-static slope stability analysis with a seismic component of 0.15g). We also — evaluated the need for a new retaining wall, drainage, and erosion mitigation. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Our scope of services was outlined in our Proposal No. 51-YP7-147 dated July 17, 1997 with ** requested additional exploration at the top of the slope. On April 19th, 1998, the city requested m that Kleinfelder also address the problem of storm erosion in the vicinity of Station 9+75 which m has become evident since the recent late winter and early spring storms. The recommendations contained within this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 7. An information sheet prepared by ASFE (the Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences) is also included as Appendix E. We recommend that all individuals utilizing this report read the limitations along with the attached document. * m 1.4 AUTHORIZATION * Our work for this project was authorized by the City of Carlsbad agreement for Engineering W Services for Project No. 34781 dated October 21,1997. lil m m mm m m i 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page3of25 May 4, 1998 • Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. m KLEI NFELDER 2.0 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS 2.1 GEOLOGIC EVALUATION Our geologic evaluation consisted of reviewing aerial photographs, researching geologic reports and maps reasonably available to our office, and observation of the geotechnical conditions in the field at the time of our subsurface investigation. The local area geology is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. A cross section of the slope and geologic profile is shown on Figure 3. 2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION For this investigation, we drilled five borings to depths ranging from 11.5 to 50.5 feet below the existing pavement or ground surface and advanced two cone soundings to depths up to 3.3 feet below ground surface. Borings 1 through 4 were drilled along the easterly edge of Park Drive; Boring 5 was drilled within the desilting basin at the top of the bluff. Borings were made by means of a truck mounted drill rig using nominal eight inch diameter, hollow-stem augers. The cone soundings were completed using a portable dynamic cone penetrometer which consisted of driving a nominal 1.5 inch diameter cone into the soil with a free-falling 35 pound hammer. Approximate boring and cone sounding locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. For the soil borings, the drilling and sampling procedures were in general accordance with ASTM Method D420 "Standard Recommended Practice for Investigating and Sampling Soils and Rock for-Engineering Purposes" and more particularly, ASTM Method D1452 "Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings." Our field engineer maintained a log of the borings, visually classified soils encountered according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and obtained representative samples of the subsurface materials. Logs for Borings 1 through 5 are included in Appendix A as Figures A3 through A8. A key to the boring logs is included as Figure Al; a description of physical property criteria for rock/formation is included as Figure A2. For the cone soundings, the actual blow counts in four-inch (10 centimeter) increments were recorded in the field and later converted to dynamic cone resistance by computer program. A plot of dynamic cone resistance and soil consistency is made for each sounding. The plots for Cone Soundings 1 and 2 are included in Appendix A as Figures A9 and A10. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page4of25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER Soil samples were obtained from the borings using either a California sampler or a standard penetration sampler. The standard penetration sampler (2.0-inch O.D.) and California sampler (3.0 inch O.D.) were generally driven 18 inches into undisturbed soil using a 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. Blow counts were recorded at six-inch intervals for each sample. Soil samples obtained from the borings were field classified, sealed in the field to reduce moisture loss and disturbance, and returned to our San Diego laboratory for further testing. After the borings were completed, they were backfilled with soil cuttings and capped with concrete that was dyed black (except for Boring 5 within the desilting basin). Please note that the blow counts recorded on the borings logs represent the raw field data and have not been corrected for the effects of overburden pressure or variation in sampler size. 23 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on representative bulk and disturbed driven samples to substantiate field classification and provide engineering parameters for geotechnicai design. Testing consisted of: in-situ moisture/density, sieve analyses, Atterberg limits, and direct shear testing. The test results are presented in Appendix B. 51-4659-01/5H8R014.DOC Page 5 of 25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELOER 3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 SITE CONDITIONS AND OBSERVATIONS It is obvious that about 500 feet of the east side of Park Drive just north of Marina Drive is experiencing some drainage and soil sloughing problems. Water is percolating through the lower portion of the slope where it is (a) passing through the existing retaining wall in some locations to the sidewalk and street; (b) partially ponding adjacent to the sidewalk; or (c) is being picked up by an existing pipe drain and subsequently deposited in the street. Cattails, bamboo, and algae growth tend to confirm that this area is probably continuously wet. The drainage for the existing retaining walls is primarily through open joints in the wall faces which allows drainage and soil to accumulate on the sidewalk area. The existing pipe drain collection system appears to be partially silted in and simply conducts the water through the sidewalk area where it tends to collect on the street, owing to the flat grade of Park Drive in the study area. The sidewalk and gutter areas that were wet during all our site visits from last July through the present generally had a growth of algae. We also observed that the lower 25 to 45 feet of the west facing sandstone bluff is experiencing typical bluff erosion similar to sea cliffs adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The steep portion above the toe of the bluff represents a cut slope that varies in height up to about 45 feet above Park Drive with inclinations ranging from about 1H:1V (horizontal to vertical) to as steep as '/zHrlV where more severe erosion has occurred along the top of the'cut. The steeper portions of the cut face exhibit occasional relatively small erosion gullies and shallow slope failures as evidenced by near-vertical scarps along the top of the cut. Brush is present along most of the slope from Station 8+52 to Station 14+54. The brush is somewhat more dense north of Station 13+16, probably due in part to the abundant moisture, A brush-filled natural drainage ravine is present at about Station 9+75, This ravine trends upslope in a northeasterly direction above the elevation of the top of the cut slope to a row of houses that occupy the level top of the bluff west of Sunnyhill Drive. Last December and January seepage was not observed at the head of the ravine, but was noted in the lower portion of the ravine at about the same elevation as observed along the adjacent cut slope south of the ravine. Shallow surface slumps were also present along the steep side slopes of the upper part of the ravine. 51-4659-01/5II 8R014.DOC Page 6 of 25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER Following the February and early March storms, a considerable amount of surface erosion occurred in the vicinity of Station 9+75 which deposited a 30-foot wide fan of sediment across - the sidewalk and into the street. Near the east side of the sidewalk the sediment had a maximum thickness of about 3 feet. The source of the sediment was from storm water removal (erosion) at the several pre-existing slumps in the ravine, additional slumping along the sides of the ravine due to erosion and loss of side support, and an increase in the erosion along the center of the drainage. In late April, seepage was not observed at the head of the ravine, but was noted in the lower portion of the ravine. The seepage appeared to be exiting the lower portion of the ravine at a slightly higher elevation than previously observed in December and January, probably as a result of the fresh erosion and a slight increase m the hydrostatic pressure head in the vicinity of the natural drainage. A small park is present on the level portion of the bluff between the bluff crest and the backyards of the residences along the west side of Sunnyhill Drive. The park is located from about Station 10+50 to Station 11+50 between the natural drainage ravine and the desilting basin (Boring 5). The park is obviously well irrigated as evidenced by the lush, spongy, green grass noted during our reconnaissance. Accumulations of eroded material at the base of the bluff are apparently washing further down the lower section of the bluff, over the existing retaining walls, and are being deposited on the sidewalk and street. Based on our reconnaissance, we did not note any conditions which would indicate that the gross stability of the bluff was being impacted other than the continuous erosion and occasional surface related sloughing as portions of the bluff are undermined by erosion. Two existing pipelines are visible along the eroded bluff face above the sidewalk area south of Station 10+76 which are being uncovered by erosion. We understand these pipelines are no longer in service. Severe rilling and erosion gullies are present along the 1H:1 V south facing portion of the bluff on the north side of Park Drive just east of Marina Drive. Bare soil and erosion gullies up to 3 feet deep are present. During our March and April site visits, we also noted that vegetation had eroded from the crest of the slope in several areas from about Station 8+52 to Station 10+76. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page7of25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, inc. KLEINFELDER Specific observations with respect to key project stationing are listed below: Station Feature 2+30 8+52 9+63 9+75 10+23 10+23 to 13+16 10+76 13+16 Intersection of Cove Drive with Park Drive. End of residential property; start of retaining wall to south. Start of observed water seepage problem through retaining wall onto sidewalk; significant algae growth on sidewalk. Natural drainage ravine trending upslope towards the northeast. South end of retaining wall. No retaining wall; ponded surface water and cattails/lush vegetation; algae. Start of significant cut slope erosion (bare sandstone, no vegetation across steep cut slope face). Toe of bluff retains vegetation to about Elevation 15 to 20. Start of retaining wall to south; some sand is coming over top of wall, but no obvious drainage problem. Station 14+54 15+15 to 17+93 Feature Intersection of Marina Drive with Park Drive. Triangular shaped wedge of slope with significant rill and gully erosion that spills over to sidewalk. Except for erosion and sediment deposition, no continuous water and algae problems were noted. Steep bluff erosion starting from Station 10+76 transitions into this area. 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.2.1 Geologic Setting The project area is within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. In general, this province consists of rugged mountains underlain by Mesozoic metamorphic and crystalline rock to the east, and a coastal plain underlain by Cenozoic marine and non-marine sediments. The subject site lies within the coastal plain section. In this section, low hills are eroded from marine sediments of Eocene age, with valley bottoms filled by Quaternary alluvium and slope wash/colluvium. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 8 of25 May 4, 1998 KLEINFELDER The geologic materials found at this site are marine and sedimentary rocks, slope wash/colluvium, topsoil, and artificial fill. This investigation did not identify any existing landslides, active or suspected active faults, or other major geologic hazards in the project area or its immediate vicinity. 3.2.2 Geologic Units 3.2.2.1 Santiago Formation (Tsb) The Eocene age Santiago Formation underlies the entire site. As observed on the face of the bluff, this bedrock generally consists of light olive to light yellowish gray, silty fine to coarse- grained sandstone. The sandstone is typically massive with occasional interbeds and intraclasts of olive green clayey sandstone and clayey siltstone. Intraclasts of up to 20 feet in diameter have been encountered in grading projects around the Agua Hedonia Lagoon. The sandstone is weakly consolidated, moderately weathered, moderately friable, and exhibits a low to non-expansive potential. The clayey siltstone may exhibit moderate to high expansiveness. The formation is considered relatively incompressible. 3.2.2.2 Topsoil/Colluvium The base of the bluff from about Station 14+54 to the north is mantled by a variable thickness of topsoil and colluvium. Colluvial deposits are accumulated by slope wash of weathered bedrock and topsoil creep. These deposits range from silty or clayey sands to silty clay, and are generally loose/soft to medium dense. The topsoil is generally less than 4 inches thick. The colluvium was observed to be as much as 16 feet thick in Boring 1, but is generally on the order of 10 feet thick or less. The upper two to three feet of the topsoil and colluvium are loose to medium dense and should be considered compressible. 3.2.2.3 Artificial Fill Approximately eight feet of artificial fill were found in the upper portion of Boring 5 within the desilting basin. The fill soil is silty sand and likely represents reworked Santiago Formation. 51-4659-01/5H8R014.DOC Page9of25 May4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEIN FELDER ^ 3.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER !•""Surface water and groundwater were encountered during the site reconnaissance and subsurface investigation. Free water was encountered in Borings 1 and 2 at depths of 9 feet and 3 feet below l"" the pavement surface, respectively. The water level observed in the two borings (Elevations of l* 9.5 to 3 feet) is well above the water surface (Elevation of ± 1.0 foot) of the Agua Hedonia *•" Lagoon inlet located directly behind the apartments on the west side of Park Drive. This free t« water in the two borings is likely water that has seeped out of the bluff toe between Stations „,, 9+63 and 13+16 and is perched on impervious soils below the ground surface. Standing or m ponded seepage water was observed at the surface of Cone Soundings 1 and 2. Seepage water was also observed in March and late April from the sides of the natural ravine at Station 9+75.IP* Free water was not encountered in any of our other borings. The water level may change due to variations in precipitation, site drainage, or other factors that may have not been present at the m time of our investigation and subsequent site reconnaissances. m y 3.4 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ,; Generally, the structure of the Santiago Formation consists of gently dipping sedimentary bedrock. As observed in the cut slope, little or no fracturing is apparent, and bedding planes are f indistinct except for faint near-horizontal stratification that dips gently (± 10 degrees) to the ™ southwest. This structure is consistent with the local attitudes provided in Open-File Report 82- P- 12 LA . However, the open-file report does show a change in the bedding in the vicinity of Iw Station 15+15 to Station 17+93 where a bedding attitude was recorded with a northeast strike and ^ a 2 to 5 degree dip to the southeast. k» Large landslides were not detected during this investigation. Systems of small recent slope failures exist on or near the site which are related to the ongoing cut slope erosion and the erosion of the natural ravine. As indicated earlier, the late winter/early spring storms have "" resulted in considerable erosion of the existing slumps and steep sides of the natural ravine at ** Station 9+75. However, no credible evidence exists for geologically recent major landsliding in «•- this area. " California Department of Conservation Open-File Report 82-12 LA, July 1, 1982, Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC PagelOof25 May4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 4.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1 GROSS BLUFF STABILITY Although occasional slabs of sandstone will continue to fail downslope as a result of erosion, the sandstone is relatively massive without adverse planes of weakness. Therefore, the sandstone is not likely to experience large rotational or translational slope failures. There is no indication of landslides, either recent or ancient, at the site, and none are shown on available published geologic maps. The gross stability of the existing steep bluff along the assumed critical Section A-A' (see Figures 2 and 3) was analyzed using the computer program XSTABL (a modified version of the STABL Program originally developed at Purdue University). This program generates random failure surfaces based on specified strength parameters and slope geometry. Typically, the gross stability of formational bluffs are expected to be controlled primarily by weakened planes such as bedding and/or fractures. Although little or no apparent fracturing and distinct bedding planes were observed in the Santiago Formation cut slope, the gross bluff stability was analyzed assuming that these features could potentially be present. The stability of the bluff was primarily analyzed using a sliding block generator which searches for a critical failure plane and can be concentrated along known or anticipated planes of weakness within the profile. This option is also suitable for analyzing transitional slope failures which often tend to follow soil-rock interface. The block surfaces are developed by connecting points that have been randomly selected within specified search boxes. The generated block surfaces consist of three distinct portions: (1) passive block, (2) central block, and (3) active block. The central block is generated first and is then followed by generation of the passive and active wedges. The passive wedge is generated from the leftmost search box, and the active wedge extends upwards from the rightmost search box. In addition to the sliding block generator, we also analyzed the factor of safety using a critical slip-circle analysis. For each slip-circle analysis, the sliding mass is divided into a series of vertical slices which are acted upon by the weight of the slice, the lateral (pseudo-static) forces, and the resisting forces from the slip surface. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page 11 of 25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEI NFELDER Dynamic conditions resulting from seismic forces generated during an earthquake were modeled using a pseudo-static method. The pseudo-static method introduces a horizontal force at the center of each slice or block of the sliding segment. The magnitude of the horizontal force is. equal to the weight of the slice or block multiplied by a selected seismic coefficient. The selection of the seismic coefficient is based on expected ground accelerations, subsurface conditions, and geometry. For the pseudo-static analyses performed for this study, a maximum seismic coefficient of 0.15 was considered appropriate. The selection of strength parameters within the bedrock materials for slope stability analyses was based on a combination of: (a) laboratory test results performed for this investigation, (b) our observations of the materials characteristics in the subsurface, in-place condition, and (c) our previous experience with similar geotechnical conditions. The following isotropic soil parameters were assumed: Friction Angle: 39.5 degrees Cohesion: 500 psf Moist Density: 120pcf Saturated Density: 135 pcf The critical geometry was based on Figure 3. Since no water was encountered within Boring 5, the groundwater table was assumed to be at the line which connects the bottom of Boring 5 and the seepage observed at the toe of the bluff. The results of our analysis are included in Appendix C and indicate a minimum factor of safety of 1.7 for static conditions and 1.3 for pseudo-static conditions. These calculated factors of safety are likely lower than actually exist because little or no apparent fracturing or distinct bedding were actually apparent during our field reconnaissance. Minimum factors of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 are normally considered acceptable static and pseudo-static conditions, respectively. Therefore, the results of our analyses indicate the bluff currently possess acceptable factors of safety against deep seated failures for static and pseudo-static conditions. However, calculated factors of safety are essentially point measurements in time and change constantly over the years, as the slope ages due to exposure to the elements and the effects of erosion. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page 12 of 25 May 4. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kteinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 4.2 EROSION AND CLIFF RETREAT 4.2.1 Surface Erbsion of Natural Ravine, Station 9+75 Severe gully erosion has recently occurred within this ravine due to the season's heavy rains. As the existing slump material was removed and the central portion of the drainage was lowered by erosion, continued slumping of the drainage side walls and erosion occurred. The primary water causing the major erosion is surface water that falls onto the ravine below the sidewalk at its crest and the surface water that flows to the drainage area from beyond the sidewalk at the crest of the ravine. A minor source of water within the ravine during the heavy storm surface flows may be due to a slight increase in the hydrostatic head at the subsurface water which raised the point of seepage from the time between middle January and late April of this year. The severe degree of recent erosion is apparently a direct function of the severity of the storm rainfall. No significant accumulations of eroded material were observed at the base of the ravine during our site visits of last July, December, and January. Furthermore, City Maintenance personnel did not indicate that routine removal of sediment from the lower sidewalk was an issue north of about Station 13+16 during our site visit in January. 4.2.2 Steep Cut Slope Erosion, Station 10+76 to Station 15+15 Like other bluffs in the area, the bluff in the study area is experiencing progressive failure. The friable, but massive, sandstone that comprises the cut slope is erodable. The sandstone is not cemented or indurated, and is weaker near the top of the slope which is more susceptible to erosion. The bare, steeply sloping cut face of sandstone is particularly prone to erosion through mass wasting, primarily in the form of slaking. Slaking is an ongoing process where physical weathering and animal activity loosen the face of the bluff. Weathering is the process by which the sandstone is disaggregated in place for erosion to take over. The common weathering agents are oxygen, carbon dioxide, water, and salt crystal growth which alter and dissolve the sandstone binding. Direct rainfall and runoff from the crest of the slope tend to erode the sand particles and cause periodic saturation of the cliff face which enhances slumping. Although occasional erosion gullies are present, they are relatively small and most of the erosion is from surface water that sheet flows unchecked from the natural slope 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page 13 of 25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER above the cut slope. The loose debris from the erosion process accumulates along the toe of the bluff. The rate of cliff retreat is highly variable from place to place and from time to time. Based on our past experience and the technical literature on cliff retreat rates, we estimate the long term cliff retreat rate may be on the order of 1 to 4 inches per year. This rate is comparable to other rates for Southern California coastal bluffs. The two existing pipelines observed along the bluff face are reportedly abandoned. Portions of the abandoned pipelines, especially those at the higher elevations, may be conduits of drainage water and could be locations where concentrated erosion can occur. Erosion of the steep cut slope does not place any structure or utility in immediate risk of failure. However, the accumulation of eroded Santiago Formation at the bluff toe is a nuisance that requires continual removal. With respect to slowing the process of cut slope erosion, there are methods which may be successful, but may not be acceptable to the California Coastal Commission. These include covering of the slope face with lower permeability materials and installation of anchored walls. Implementing a monitoring program over the next several years may be a more practical approach. Removing or capping the pipelines on either side of the cut face would also reduce the potential for concentrated erosion along those conduits. 4.2.3 45° Slope, Station 15+15 to Station 17+93 Severe rill and gully erosion is occurring on this relatively bare, triangular-shaped, south facing slope. The depth of erosion on this 1H:1V slope reaches about 3 feet in some locations. The erosion processes are similar to those for the steep cliff area. However, in this immediate area, the lithology and bedding are such that the rain wash and runoff stay concentrated on the slope to the extent that deep channels are eroded into the slope. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Pagel4of25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 4.3 SEEPAGE FROM TOE OF BLUFF The sources of the groundwater seeping from the toe of the bluff between Station 9+63 and 13+16 are likely irrigation water and rainfall that fall on the lawns of the vast residential area northeast of the study area. It is likely that groundwater is at a low gradient and at an elevation not much higher than seepage elevation at the mouth of the natural ravine near Station 9+75. Although the small park located directly at the top of the bluff adjacent to the seepage area has green, lush vegetation from frequent irrigation, it is unlikely that a large portion of the seepage water is attributable to this source since: • No evidence of seepage was observed on the cut slope face directly down slope from the park; and • The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Santiago Formation in this area is relatively slow due to the presence of clay and silt layers, the density, and cementation of the sandstone. The lateral hydraulic conductivity is anticipated to be several times that of the vertical. 4.4 CURRENT SAND REMOVAL PROCEDURE Based on our meeting of January 15, 1998 with representatives of the City's Engineering and Maintenance Department, City maintenance crews periodically (usually after heavy rain storms) remove accumulated sand deposits (sediment from cliff/slope erosion carried by stormwater runoff) from the sidewalk on the easterly side of Park Drive from approximately Station 13+16 to about Station 17+93. In addition to removing the accumulated sand from the sidewalks, loose sand that accumulates at the ground surface behind the low retaining wall from Station 15+15 to Station 17+93 is excavated with a small backhoe. The representatives of the City Maintenance Department indicated that sand removal in this manner has not been a significant burden since some periodic maintenance is already included in the annual budget. However, the water seepage and algae growth on the sidewalk and street have been a significant nuisance and safety hazard to pedestrian traffic. The seepage and algae problem occurs from about Station 9+63 to Station 13+16. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Pagel5of25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEI NFELOER The sand that eroded out from the natural ravine at Station 9+75 and was deposited on the sidewalk and street was both a nuisance and safety hazard since it precluded use of the sidewalk and part of the street until its clean-up could be completed. Since clean-up crews were busy throughout the city, it took longer than normal to service this site. 4.5 CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are based on our field observations, five test borings, two dynamic cone penetration tests, and our laboratory tests and analysis: • Like other bluffs hi the community, the bluff in the study area is experiencing progressive failure through mass wasting. Although occasional slabs of sandstone will continue to fail as a result of erosion, the sandstone is relatively massive and not likely to experience large rotational or translational slope failures. The deposition of eroded materials at the base of the bluff is a clean-up nuisance. • The bluff presently exhibits static and pseudo-static factors of safety which most practitioners agree are acceptable for gross stability against landslide. Although the steeper portions of the cut face and the steeper side slopes of the natural drainage ravine exhibit occasional shallow slope and/or slump failures, no recent or ancient landslides are indicated for the site. • As a result of heavy storms in February and March, severe gully erosion has occurred within the northeast trending ravine at Station 9+75. The erosion was due primarily to uncontrolled surface drainage, although increase subsurface drainage may have been involved to a minor extent. Erosion from this ravine has apparently not been a past periodic maintenance problem. • The severe rill and gully erosion from Station 15+15 to Station 17+93 leaves sediment deposits on the sidewalk area which are also a nuisance. • The seepage and algae growth on the sidewalk and street from about Station 9+63 to Station 13+16 are both a nuisance and a potential slip hazard for pedestrian traffic. 51 -4659-01/5118R014.DOC Pagel6of25 May4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFEIDER 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 BLUFF EROSION MONITORING * P We recommend that a minimum of three surface monuments be established along the west side * of the sidewalk (at about Stations 10+00, 12+00, 14+00) at the east end of the small park at the —plff top of the bluff. We recommend that the distance between the monuments and the cut slope face m be monitored on a yearly basis to assess erosion rates and note any significant changes. If necessary, recommendations for erosion protection and/or specific treatment of localized areas can be made in the future. n^Although they don't pose an immediate problem, consideration should be given to capping and/or removing the two existing abandoned pipelines to reduce their potential for increasing MI local erosion. m 5.2 REMEDIAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE To remedy the major seepage problem from the toe of the bluff we recommend placement of a new retaining wall and drain from Station 10+23 to Station 13+16. Prior to construction of the retaining wall and retaining wall drain, some remedial grading and drainage will be required. Figure 4 shows the general recommendations for the limits and procedures for the remedial grading and drainage. Based on the two cone soundings and Borings 2, 3, and 4 we anticipate that relatively stable foundation material should be encountered within three feet of the existing ground surface. The soils within two to three feet of the existing ground surface are expected to be relatively loose and saturated. We recommend the contractor predrain the subgrade prior to starting excavation to reduce instability and slumping of the existing sandstone cut slope and the adjacent retaining walls. Temporary sump pits (slotted 55 gallon barrels embedded 4 feet below sidewalk elevation at 75- foot centers) with pumps are recommended for the drainage system. The barrels should be wrapped in a geotextile fabric (Mirafi 140N or. equivalent) or provided with a six inch wide sandy gravel filter (3/4 inch drain rock mixed with washed concrete sand) to reduce the potential of pumping out fines resulting in potential loss of stability to excavation slopes and subgrade. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page 17 of 25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER The Regional Water Quality Control Board is likely to restrict the discharge of water without proper NPDES permits. The primary considerations in the remedial grading are that the unstable soil is removed, and adequate drainage to accept the seepage water is provided. The unstable soil below a nominal ViR:\ V downward projection from the base of retaining wall to firm, underlying material should be removed and replaced with good foundation soils. The bottom of the excavation should be sloped 2 percent towards the existing cut slope. The existing soils are expected to be saturated. Since the bottom of the excavation is also expected to be fairly wet due to the on-going seepage, we recommend that the excavated soils be replaced with Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base compacted to 90% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. If drainage permits, the aggregate base should be placed and compacted in nominal 8- inch thick lifts. However, to preserve stability of the side slopes, it may be necessary to increase the lift thickness by a factor of 2 to 3 in some locations. Details of the geotextile wrapped drains to collect the seepage and outlet to the street drain are shown on Figures 4 and 6, respectively. The fabric wrapped drain can be modified to adjust to field conditions, especially with respect to the spacing between the drain and the back edge of the foundation for the new retaining wall. All pipe drains should be 6 inches minimum diameter to allow proper cleaning. The pipes should be constructed of schedule 40 PVC pipe. Pipes completely embedded within geotextile fabric should be perforated (perforations placed down) and placed 6 inches above the bottom of the geotextile fabric. All other pipes should not be perforated. Collection and outlet drains should be placed with a minimum gradient of 0.10 feet/100 feet where possible. If topography dictates, a flatter gradient may be used, but should not be less than 0.05 feet/100 feet for collection drains; outlet and street drains may have lesser gradients provided they are positive to some degree. We are recommending that two outlets to the new street subdrains be constructed at about Station 10+23 and Station 11+70. This spacing is fairly close, but is intended to provide some redundancy in exit drainage. The outlets and cleanouts should be constructed in general accordance with the detail shown on Figure 6. Since no subdrains are known to exist in the vicinity of Station 10+23 or Station 11+70, a new street subdrain will need to be constructed. It 51 -4659-01/5118RO14.DOC Page 18 of 25 May 4, 1998 Copyright! 998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER should be constructed of unperfbrated 6-inch diameter schedule 40 PVC pipe. The nearest point of connection to a storm drain appears to be at about Station 4+42 where there is an existing 24 inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe crossing Park Drive. It is likely that additional permits will be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to connect this subdrain to the existing storm drain since it does appear to drain into the Agua Hedonia Lagoon. Any permitting for this drainage should be coordinated with temporary dewatering permits to avoid construction delays and additional permitting costs. Unless other City of Carlsbad standard details dictate, we recommend the narrow trenching for the street subdrain follow the details provided on San Diego Regional Drawing Number G-34 for a Type C resurfacing. The Willdan plans for the Park Drive improvements indicate the existing pavement section consists of 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 10 inches of aggregate base. To reduce the potential for clogging, we recommend that all trees be removed from within 50 feet of perforated subdrains. Although cleanouts have been recommended in the event drains become clogged, removal of the root source is recommended if at all possible. 5.3 NEW RETAINING WALL AND SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT We recommend that a new concrete retaining wall be constructed between Station 10+23 and Station 13+16 to tie in with the existing retaining walls on either end. The existing retaining walls are on the order of 18 to 24 inches high; however, it may be desirable to increase the height by two to three feet to provide additional sediment storage volume. Figure 4 shows the key design items. Bearing capacity of the retaining wall foundation soils, after removal of the loose, compressive soils and replacement with properly compacted aggregate base as described in Section 5.2, can be assumed as 4,000 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for seismic loading. The depth of embedment should be at least one foot. For sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. Passive pressure resistance against the toe of the retaining wall (and keyway if one is included) can be calculated assuming an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Pagel9of25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. The passive resistance may be increased by one-third for seismic loading. The lateral earth pressure value for the cantilever retaining wall should be assumed as an active equivalent fluid weight of 55 pounds per cubic foot. This value assumes a sloping backfill up to 1.5H to IV to allow for some temporary accumulation of eroded soil between periodic sediment removal. This value also assumes that the backfill above the foundation of the wall will be non- expansive sandy soil classified as SP, SM, or SC and that a suitable wall drain will be constructed as shown in Figure 4. Wall backfill should be placed in nominal 8-inch thick lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction hi accordance with ASTM D1557. We recommend that where the existing curb and gutter need to be replaced that they be replaced with a 6" P.C.C. Type "G" curb and gutter. To accommodate occasional traffic loads on the pavement, we recommend that the sidewalk thickness should be at least 6 inches. 5.4 DRAIN BEHIND EXISTING RETAINING WALL To pick up the water seeping through the existing retaining wall and to discourage algae growth on the sidewalk, we recommend that 80 feet of drain be constructed behind the existing retaining wall from about Station 9+43 to the start of the new wall at Station 10+23. The 80 feet of new drain extends 20 feet beyond the north end of the observed problem area. Figure 5 shows details of the proposed drain. To avoid clogging of the drain, we again recommend that all trees be removed from within 50 feet of the wall backdrains, if possible. As discussed in the field meeting of January 15th, 1998, no drams or improvements to the retaining walls north of Station 9+43 or south of Station 13+16 are recommended at this time. If drainage from either wall area proves to be a problem in the future, additional slot drains can be excavated along the back of the retaining walls and connected to the proposed 6-inch diameter drain lines recommended in this report. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page20of25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLE1NFELDER 5.5 EROSION MITIGATION STATION 15+15 TO STATION 17+93 To improve its appearance, but more important, to address the continued erosion of the existing 1H:1V slope, we recommend remedial grading of the slope and establishment of native vegetation. Since the existing slope has numerous rills and gullies up to 3 feet in depth, simply filling the rills and gullies on such a steep slope is not practical. The fill would likely fail before sufficient deep roots could grow to help with its reinforcement. The slope should be excavated to a uniform depth below the deepest gullies (estimated depth = 3 feet) to firm material. The excavated soil can be used as backfill for the new section of retaining wall from Station 10+23 to Station 13+16. Some of the existing vegetation may have to be removed above the eroded area to provide a gradual transition in grade between the two areas. Once the slope has been excavated to the proper gradient, we recommend installation of a slope protection system to provide a suitable growing medium and to anchor the vegetation until it is well established. For the steep slope conditions present in this case we recommend using Presto's Geoweb® System, or equivalent. The Geoweb® System is an open (top and bottom) lattice, cellular confinement that is staked to the slope and filled with topsoil or other select infill materials. Typical components of the Geoweb® System and a technical overview are included in Appendix D. Additional information, including typical installation drawings, project design support, specifications, and material ordering is available through Mr. Tom Siverly (phone (209) 383-3296) of the Soil Stabilization Company, Inc. Based on our geotechnical knowledge of this project, we provide the following suggestions for incorporation into the overall drainage, landscaping, and Geoweb® System design: • To provide better overall performance and reduce the loss of infill material, a lightweight (4 - *}6 oz/yd ), needle-punched, non-woven geotextile fabric should be placed on the slope prior to installation of confinement cells. The geotextile fabric should be placed as smooth and wrinkle-free as possible; the fabric should be unrolled from top to bottom of the slope. Adjacent rolls of geotextile fabric should be overlapped at least two feet. Pins or nails will be required to maintain geotextile fabric positions during placement of the Geoweb® System. 1 51-4659-01/51 18R014.DOC Page21of25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. p i KLEINFELDER • Assuming that the regraded slope will be at nearly a 1H:1V slope, an 8-inch Standard Geoweb® cell should be used. This will allow the use of vegetable topsoil infill with the lowest acceptable infill angle of repose (19°) for the regraded slope. • For preliminary costing, surface anchorage of each 8-ft. wide Geoweb® section should include at least 4 tendons with 18 inch long clip anchors at 3-foot intervals along each tendon. Specific anchoring requirements for the selected infill material and slope geometry should follow the manufacturer's recommendations. • Vegetated topsoil infilling, selected plant species, irrigation requirements, and fertilization should be established by the design landscape architect for the project. The angle of repose for the infilling material proposed by the landscape architect should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to final design of the Geoweb® System so that the stability of the overall system is consistent with the cell size selected. • The topsoil infilling should proceed from the top of the slope to toe. The infill material should be processed as required to remove clumps greater than 1 inch in diameter prior to placement. Ah- voids should be removed during the placement process by light hand tamping. The cells should be completely filled, but overfilling should be avoided. • Seeding and the installation of a degradable erosion blanket should follow immediately after infilling is complete. • The design landscape architect should make provisions for maintenance, repair, and/or replanting until an adequate vegetation cover is well established. 5.6 NEW BROW DITCHES New brow ditches and any required down drains are recommended at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. The exact location of brow ditches should be established by the civil designer, however, the general intent is that the brow ditch north of Station 14+54 should intercept surface water runoff before it enters the natural drainage ravine and should be situated at least 10 feet from the cut slope crest to allow for some natural erosion of the steep slope face without impacting the integrity of the ditch. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page22of25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER The new brow ditch between Station 15+15 and Station 17+93 should be located just above the eroded portion of the slope in an area that has existing good vegetation cover that can be quickly reestablished. » Figure 7 shows a typical detail of the brow ditch that has been used in the immediate area in the past. Since the design has been used successfully on the steep slope areas in the past, its continued use is recommended, however, the actual details can be amended to fit the site conditions as recommended by the civil designer. 5.7 SURFACE EROSION OF RAVINE AT STATION 9+75 Correction of the surface water erosion within the ravine due to heavy storm flows requires additional civil design studies that are beyond the intent and scope of this geotechnical study. We anticipate subsurface drainage recommended for this project should accommodate most of the subsurface drainage problems we have observed next to the natural northeast trending ravine near Station 9+75. The installation of the new brow ditch across the upper end of the drainage should help reduce the sediment and runoff from typical five year storms. However, we recommend that a complete surface drainage study be undertaken to evaluate specific drainage requirements to safely carry surface water through the ravine and into a proper storm water conveyance system. A gabion cage retention basin, similar to the typical detail shown in Figure E, can be constructed to collect storm water runoff and sediment deposition. Based on the drainage study, a separate inlet may be required at the base of the ravine within the ponding area. The City Maintenance Department should be consulted regarding the configuration of the retention basin so that it can be properly cleaned on a periodic basis with available equipment. To repair the eroded steep slopes, we recommend that grass be hydroseeded on the bare spots. To promote plant growth on the steeply inclined surface, we recommend that the seed be hydroseeded with a cementitious binder mixed with water and mulch to produce an erosion- resistant crust. Airtrol Geobinder produced by the United States Gypsum Company (Technical Department telephone number 1-800-487-4431) is a nontoxic, noncombustible cementitious binder produced from gypsum that has been used with seed, fertilizer, and mulch to provide vegetation coverage on steep slopes. 51-4659-01/5118ROI4.DOC Page23of25 May 4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELOER 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES It has been our experience that civil designers providing project design or contractors bidding on the project often contact us to discuss the geotechnical aspects of the project. Informal contacts between Kleinfelder and an individual designer or contractor could result in incorrect or incomplete information being provided. Therefore, we recommend that all design questions be routed through the City's Engineering Department in writing. We also recommend Kleinfelder conduct a general review of final plans and specifications to evaluate that our geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented during design. In the event Kleinfelder is not retained to perform this recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. We further recommend that a pre-bid meeting be held to answer any questions about the report prior to submittal of bids. If a pre-bid meeting is not possible, questions or clarifications regarding this report should be directed to the project owner or his designated representative. After consultation with Kleinfelder, the project owner (or his representative) should provide clarifications or additional information to all contractors bidding the job. All drains should be reviewed in the field prior to backfilling and all backfill placement should be monitored by a representative from Kleinfelder. The purpose of these services would be to provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the soil conditions encountered during construction, evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the soil conditions encountered, and recommend appropriate changes in design or construction procedures if conditions differ from those described herein. 51-4659-01/5U8R014.DOC Page24of25 May4,1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEIN FELDER 7.0 LIMITATIONS Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations, five test borings, two dynamic cone penetration soundings, data from laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. The study was performed using a mutually agreed upon scope of work. It is our opinion that this study was a cost-effective method to evaluate the subject site and evaluate some of the potential geotechnical concerns. More detailed, focused, and/or thorough investigations can be conducted. Further studies will tend to increase the level of assurance; however, such efforts will result in increased costs. If the client wishes to reduce uncertainties beyond the level associated with this study, Kleinfelder should be contacted for additional consultation. It is possible that subsurface conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil and groundwater conditions are encountered during construction which differ from those described herein, our firm should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction, including proposed loads, grades or structural locations change from that described in this report, our recommendations should also be reviewed. Our firm has prepared this report for the City of Carlsbad's exclusive use on this project in substantial accordance with the local geotechnical practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted by our firm during the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance with our recommendations. If we are not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume Kleinfelder's responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during or after construction. This report is issued with the understanding that the City chooses the risk it wishes to bear by the expenditures involved with the construction alternatives and scheduling that is chosen. It is the City's responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the civil design engineer, project landscape architect, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. 51-4659-01/5118R014.DOC Page25of25 May4, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. 2400 4800 APPROXIMATE GRAPHIC SCALE SOURCE: THE THOMAS BROS. GUIDE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 1995 EDITION. REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR RESALE, WITHOUT PERMISSION. KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 CHECKED BY:FN: VICINITY 'ROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 IDATF- 17/79/07 VICINITY MAP PARK DRIVE SLOPE / DRAINAGE STUDY CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 1 NORTH END OF PROPOSED BACKDRAIN (STATION 9+43) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED BROW DITCH \ \ * -GEOLOGIC CONTACTSOUTH END OF EXISTING RETAINING WALL (-STATION 10+23) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING DESILTING BASIN PROPOSED RETAININGNORTH END OF EXISTING RETAINING WALL (~STATON 13+16) EXISTING STORM DRAIN AND/OR SURFACE DITCH (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)WALL AND DRAIN (~293') ' APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION APPROXIM, SOUNDING A APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CONE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED BROW DITCH AND DOWN DRAINAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION (SEE FIGURE 3) _ _ _, APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT 5T /APPROXIMATE LOCATIO SEVERE RILL AND GULLY EROSION APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING BROW DITCH AND DOWN DRAINSANTIAGO FORMATION SLOPE WASH/COLLUVIUM ARTIFICIAL FILL ^STATION 17+90 DRIVE SITE PLAN AND GEOLOGIC MAPKLEIN FELDER PARK DRIVE SLOPE / DRAINAGE STUDY CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUfTE 101 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123APPROXIMATE GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)jfN: 4659SITECHECKED BY: REL PROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 | DATE: 5/4/98 ii § • I • II V * ii ri ii ri f i ri i if n ri i i i i i i i i i i • i i 115-1 zo LU 55 - OBSERVED SEEPAGE AT FACE OF BLUFFX -ASSUMED "WORST CASE" WATER TABLE1 500 APPROXIMATE GEOLOGIC CONTACT BETWEEN Tsb AND Qsw 150 200 250 300 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM ORIGIN (FEET) 350 400 450 LEGEND: NOTE: 1. SINCE NO WATER TABLE WAS OBSERVED IN BORING 5 (LOCATED AT TOP OF BLUFF) WITHIN IT'S MAXIMUM DEPTH OF 50.5 FT., A WORST CASE WATER TABLE CONDITION WAS ASSUMED. THIS WORST CASE CONDITION IS BASED ON A PROJECTED LINE FROM THE SEEP ALONG THE SLOPE FACE TO THE BOTTOM OF BORING 5. w 0 X Tsb Qsw Oaf APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORINGS (OFFSET TO SECTION A-A') GROUNDWATER LEVEL OBSERVED SANTIAGO FORMATION SLOPE WASH/COLLUVIUM ARTIFICIAL FILL APPROXIMATE GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 HORIZONTAL: 1"=50' VERTICAL: 1 "=50" KLE1NFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA CHECKED BY: REL IFN:4659XSECT PROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 [DATE: 2/23/98 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION PARK DRIVE SLOPE / DRAINAGE STUDY CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE TEMPORARY STOCKPILE OF ACCUMULATED ERODED SLOPE MATERIAL (TO BE PERIODICALLY REMOVED) SEE NOTE 8 REPLACE EXISTING SIDEWALK. CURB, AND GUTTER AS NECESSARY LEVEL FINISHED GROUND SURFACE (AFTER CONSTRUCTION) REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING SOIL (SEE NOTE 5) GEOTEXTILE WRAPPED WALL DRAIN (SEE NOTE 7) 60 SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE 1 (SEE NOTE 9) GEOTEXTILE WRAPPED BACK DRAIN (SEE NOTE 6) 6"0 SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE 1 1/2 d MIN WWw 5' TYP. (1/2 d MIN.) 1. Wall may be of other configuration (ex. San Diego Regional Drawing C-2, C-4, and C-6, except that drainage shall follow, note 7 below). 1 2, H = Height of wall. H mqy extend above level backfill if additional sediment storage volume desired. 3. B = Width of wall foundation *<•. d = 2B or depth to adequate bearing material (approximate Elev. 10 from Station 10+23 to Station 13+16) whichever is less except that "d should not be less than 2 feet. 5. Remove and replace existing soil in the zone indicated for the length of the wall. Backfill below bottom of footing to be Caltrons Gloss 2 Aggregate boserock compacted in 8 inch loose lifts to 90% ASTM D1557. Backfill above footing bottom to be non-expansive sandy soil classified as SP, SM, or SC, compacted in 8 inch loose lifts to 90% ASTM D1557. Excavated soils free of excess moisture, vegetation, and muck are suitable sandy soils, especially soils graded from Station 15+15 to Station 17+93. Water was encountered at about Elev. 13.3 on 12/5/97. Some predrainage should be anticipated. 6. Geotextile wrapped back drain to consist of 3/4" to No. 4 drain rock wrapped in Mirofi 140N or equivalent. 6 inch minimum fabric overlap. Provide 9 cubic feet mimimum of drain rock per lineal foot of drain. Perforated 6 0 PVC Schedule 40 pipe (perforations down) should be placed 6 inches above bottom. Provide outlet to street subdrain at Station 10+23 and Station 11+70. See Figure 6. 7. Geotextile wrapped wall drain to consist of 3/4" to No. 4 drain rock wrapped in Mirafi 140N or equivalent, 6 inch minimum fabric overlap. Width of drain to be 1.5 feet minimum and should extend from top of footing to 2/3 H. Perforated 6"$ PVC Schedule 40 pipe (perforations down), should be placed 6 inches above footing. Provide suitable outlet to street subdrain at Station 10+23 and Station 11+70. See Figure 6. 8. Provide suitable waterproofing as designated by the wall designer. 9. A 1H : 1V back cut is typical, but can be steepened to near vertical in sandstone to avoid undercutting bluff. KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE ORWE. SUITE 101 SAN DiECO, CALIFORNIA 92'23 :HECKED BY: REL PROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 FN: 4659SHT1 PATE: 5/4/98 TYPICAL RETAINING WALL SECTION AND LIMITS OF FOUNDATION IMPROVEMENT STATION 10+23 TO STATION 13+16 PARK DRIVE SLOPE / DRAINAQE STUDY CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE CLEANOUT AT STATION 9-)-43 (SEE NOTE 6) EXISTING RETAINING WALL WATERPROOF BACK OF WALL CLEAN AND SEAL EXISTING OPEN JOINTS AT BASE OF WALL 6"d SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE COMPACTED AGGRETATE BASEROCK (SEE NOTE 4) GEOTEKT1LE WRAPPED WALL DRAIN (SEE NOTE 5) 1. H = Height of wall 2. From Station 9+43 to Station 10+23 a new drain should be installed directly adjacent to the existing retaining wall. A nominal 18 inch wide slot should be excavated to the top of the footing. 3. After the drain slot is excavated, the back of the wall should be waterproofed to mitigate moisture passing through the wall. The type of waterproofing should be specified by the wall designer. 4. To mitigate erosion, the upper 12 inches of backfill should be Caltrans Class 2 aggregate boserock compacted in two 6 inch level lifts with hand tools. 5. Geotextile wrapped wait drain to consist of 3/4" to No. 4 drain rock wrapped in Mirafi 140N or equivalent, 6 inch minimum fabric overlap. Width of drain to be 1.5 feet minimum and should extend from top of footing to 2/3 H. Perforated 6"0 PVC Schedule 40 pipe (perforations down), should be placed 6 inches above footing. Provide suitable outlet to street subdrain at Station 10+23. See Figure 6. 6. A cleanout with protective cover should be added to the surface at the end of the wall drain. m m KLEIN FELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 CHECKED BY: REL FN: 4659SHT1 PROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 DATE: 2/23/98 TYPICAL DRAIN FOR EXISTING RETAINING WALL STATION 9*43 TO STATION 10*23 PARK DRIVE SLOPE / DRAINAGE STUDY CTTY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE CLEANOUT WITH PROTECTIVE COVER LEVEL FINISHED GROUND SURFACE (AFTER CONSTRUCTION) GEOTEXTILE WRAPPED WALL DRAIN GEOTEXTILE WRAPPED BACK DRAIN SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE -STREET SUBDRAIN TO STORM DRAIN 1. If conditions permit, subdrains should have a minimum positive gradient of 0.10 ft/100 ft. A flatter gradient may be used if topography dictates, but the gradient should be positive to some degree. 2. The street subdrain and all outlet/cleanout pipes should be unperforated. 3. See Figure 4 for other specific items. KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92)23 (CHECKED BY: REL [PROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 FN: 4659SHT1 DATE: 5/4/98 STREET OUTLETS AND CLEANOUTS TYPICAL DETAILS STATION 10+23 AND STATION fl+70 PARK DRIVE SLOPE / DRAINAGE STUDY CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 6 PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE -MODIFIED TYPE 45' TYP. "B" BROW DITCH w m •2"X12 CALIFORNIA REDWOOD NO. 1 CHEVRONS. 10' ON CENTER. LENGTH TO EXTEND TO UNDISTURBED EXISTING GROUND OR 5' WIN. MODIFIED TYPE "B" BROW DITCH PER REG. STD. DWG. D-75 #5 REBAR. 3' IN LENGTH, DRILL REDWOOD CHEVRON AS REQUIRED TO DRIVE REBAR THROUGH REDWOOD CHEVRON 5' ON CENTER, ONE AT EACH END WITH A MAXIMUM OF 5' SPACING IN BETWEEN DETAIL A NOT TO SCALE •CUT 6"X6" NOTCH IN REDWOOD CHEVRON CAULK BETWEEN CONCRETE AND REDWOOD i KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUrTE tOI SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 CHECKED BY: REL 'ROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 FN: BROWDET DATE: 2/23/98 MODIFIED TYPE "B" BROW DITCH WITH REDWOOD CHEVRONS PARK DRIVE SLOPE / DRAINAGE STUDY CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE fi M m «M ^ P» F fa £ VELOCITY REDUCER GRAVEL FILTER I EROSION PROTECTED INLET •GABION CAGE (DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS)60 SECOND RETENTION TIME- 2 YEAR STORM ill -24" MAX HEIGHT FOR GRAVEL FILTER EROSION PROTECTED INLET •VELOCITY REDUCER SEEPAGE CUT OFF (PLASTIC FILM, CEMENT. ETC.) GRAVEL FILTER DESIGNED TO SLOW FLOW. ALLOWING SEDIMENT TO DROP OUT (2"-3"0 GRAVEL) SECTION A-A' KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 HECKED BY: REL ROJECT "NO. 51-4659-01 FN: GABCAGE DATE: 2/23/98 GABION CAGE RETENTION BASIN PARK DRIVE SLOPE / DRAINAGE STUDY CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 8 PROJECT NO- 51-4659-01 LOG OF BORING LEGEND SHEET OF DRILLING EQUIPMENT PROJECT NAME PARK DRIVE SLOPE STUDY LOCATION CARLSBAD, CA TYPE OF BIT HAMMER DATA: WT.L8S. DROP INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION TOP OF CASING ELEVATION STARTED: COMPLETED: BACKFILLED: DRILLING AGENCY LOGGED BY SURFACE CONDITIONS GROUNDWATER EUEVATION DATE Q SOIL DESCRIPTION WELL DETAILS moo QO 2" NOTES 3-C 6-t U-4 15H 18H 25326-4 WELL-GRADED GRAVELS AND GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, UTTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS AND GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS AND GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS AND GRAVELLY SANDS LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS. ROCK .OUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY NORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDS OR SILTS, ELASTIC SILTS NORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY AT CLAYS ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY PEAT, MUCK AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS VATD WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING = WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN WELL 29—I GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT 'f BENTONITE CAVED AREA CEMENT CONCRETE NATURAL BACKFILL BENTONITE PACKER SAND BACKFILL SAND VOLCLAY GROUT PIPE SLOTTED PIPE 30.- CONTINUOUS SAMPLER GRAB I SAMPLE I CALIFORNIA{SAMPLER MODIFIEDCALIFORNIA SAMPLER NO RECOVERY PITCHER SAMPLER SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER STANDARD PENETRATION SAMPLER REFER TO FIGURE A2 FOR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES CRITERIA FOR ROCK/ FORMATION DESCRIPTIONS. 'N: 4659LOGS KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 FIGURE NO.A1 CONSOLIDATION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS; usuoliy obtained from unweathered samples. Largely H/anonHanf An rampnfnfinndependent on cementation. U = unconsolidoted P = poorly consolidated M = moderately consolidated W = well consolidated BEDDING OF SEDIMENTARY ROCKS Splitting Property Massive Blocky Slobby Flaggy Sholy or platy Papery Thickness Greater than 4.0 2.0 to 4.0 ft. 0.2 to 2.0 ft. 0.05 to 0.2 ft. 0.01 to 0.5 ft. Less than 0.01 ft. Stratification very thick bedded thick-bedded thin-bedded very thin-bedded laminated thinly laminated FRACTURING Intensity Very little fractures Occasionally fractured Moderately fractured Closely fractured Intensely fractured Crushed Size of Pieces in Feet Greater than 1.0 to 4.0 0.5 to 1.0 0.1 to 0.5 0.05 to 0.1 Less than 0.05 4.0 HARDNESS 1. Soft - Reserved for plastic material alone 2. Low hardness - can be gouged deeply or carved easily with a knife blade 5. Moderately hard - can be readily scratched by a knife blade; scratch leaves a heavy trace of dust and is readily visible after the powder has been blown away. 4. Hard - can be scratched with difficulty; scratch produces little powder and is often lainly visible. 5. Very hard - cannot be scratched with knife blade; leaves a metallic streak. STRENGTH 1. Plastic or very low strength 2. Friable - crumbles easily by rubbing with fingers 3. Weak - An unfractured specimen of such material will crumble under light hammer blows. 4. Moderately strong - Specimen will withstand a few heavy hammer blows before breaking. 5. Strong - Specimen will withstand a few heavy ringing hammer blows and will yield with difficulty only dust and small lying fragments. 6. very strong - Specimen will resist heavy ringing hammer blows and will yield with difficulty only dust and small flying fragments. WEATHERING - The physical and chemical disintegration and decomposition of rocks and minerals by natural processes such as oxidation, reduction, hydration, solution, carbonation, freezing, and thawing. D. Deep - Moderate to complete mineral decomposition; extensive disintegration; deep and thorough discoloration; many fractures, all extensively coated or filled with oxides, carbonates, and/or clay or silt. M. Moderate - Slight change or partial decomposition of minerals,; little disintegration, cementation-little to unaffected, moderate to occasionally intense discoloration, moderately coated fractures. L. Little - No megascopic decomposition of minerals, little or no effect on normal cementation, slight and intermittent, or localized discoloration, few stains on fracture surfaces. F. Fresh - Unaffected by weathering agents. No disintegration or discoloration. Fractures usually less numerous than joints. KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 :HECKED BY: REL 3ROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 FN: A2 DATE: 2/23/98 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES CRITERIA FOR ROCK/FORMATION DESCRIPTIONS PARK DRIVE SLOPE / DRAINAGE STUDY CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA FIGURE A2 PROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 DRILLINGEQUIPMENT CMC 55 (W/AUTOHAMMER) TYPE OF BIT 8" HSA LU t< STARTED: 1 2~ 5~ 97 COMPLETED: 1 2~5 — 97 BACKFILLED: 1 2~ 5~ 97 1SYMBOL LOG OF BORING 1 PROJECT NAME PARK DRIVE SLOPE STUDY HAMMER DATA: WT. 1 40 L0S. DROP 30 INCHES DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING LOGGED BY GMB SURFACE CONDITIONS 6" AC / 6" GRANULAR BASE LOG OF MATERIAL -Jp^^S" ASPHALT CONCRETE ^ 3— 4 — 7— 8 9 10 ^ 11 — — > 12 13 14— 15— 16- 17— 18— 19— 20— 21- 22— 23— 24— 25— 26— 27— 28- 29- •30- FN: - ty/. -// 'ffi*&./.ssyffi *%/.•/•/j! &y W/. W* S$i| ^%&.$s. 4659LOGS \ OLIVE BROWN \MOIST COU.UVIUM: SILTY SAND, FINE-GRAINED. i FINE TO MEDIUM-GRAINED, MOIST MEDIUM DENSE, BROWN CLAYEY SAND, VERY DENSE, TRACE GRAVEL _ MEDIUM DENSE WET CUTTINGS AT WET 11 FT. BORING STOPPED AT 16.5 FT. CAVING OBSERVED AT 9 FT. FREE WATER OBSERVED AT 9 FT. BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS AND CAPPED WITH CONCRETE DYED BLACK IHKLE 1 SURFACE . -, ELEVATION ' ^ GROUNDVWJER Q nFI FVA-nnw 5-u (/> q SM sc WELL DETAILS BLOW 1COUNTS |13 54 31 34 SHEET 1 OF 1 *« LOCATION {•STATION 9+72 C TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE ATD DATE t MOISTURECONTENT(%)14 N r r 1 n C 0 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101f C L U C K SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 y~ — LI_ QC ^ O Q^' yQ_ f . 16.5' •" NOTES I 1 121 •n u P FIGURE NO.: A3 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 1 1 m m m PROJECT NO51-4659-01 LOG OF BORING 2 SHEET \ OF "} DRILLING PROJECT NAME LOCATION SPSS (W/AUTOHAMMER) PARK DRIVE SLOPE STUDY STATION 10+23 TYPE OF BIT 8" HSA HAMMER DATA; WT. 1 40 LBS. DROP 30 INCHES STARTED: 1 £-5-97 DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING !< COMPLETED: 1 2~5-97 LOGGED BY GMB -_.!_. . ,- . A f\ r~ f\**t oURFACE CQNDfflONSBACKFILLED: ] 2. — 3~y / i Q" »Q / c" DACC -o— 1 — 2— 3 — • 4— 6— 7— 8— — • Q«— 10— 11 — 12— 13— 14 — 15— 16— 17— 18— 19— 20— 21— 22— 23— 24— 25— 26— 27— 28— 29—9 SYMBOL*$/ /•/fj, '$&. % *$s ''$/ WJfi ty/ FN: 4659LOGS LOG OF MATERIAL LjO" ASPHALT CONCRETE ^ i OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND, FINE-GRAINED, \MOIST / ry QOL^MVIMM: MEDIUM DENSE, BROWN CLAYEY SAND, FINE TO MEDIUM- GRAINED, MOIST VERY DENSE, MOIST, (OUTSIDE OF SAMPLER WET) BORING STOPPED AT 11.5 FT. NO CAVING OBSERVED FREE WATER OBSERVED AT 3 FT. ATD BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS AND CAPPED WITH CONCRETE DYED BLACK SURFACE ,, _, ELEVATION 12-5 TOTAL DEPTH .., OF HOLE ' ' -5 GROUNOWATER $ Q' AJD Q^ 12-5-97 c/i o 01 sc WELL DETAILS O ^ CD Oo 26 55 18 MOISTURECONTENT(%)12 «v i ciiucei r»cn 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101KLtliNrtLUtK SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 *i? Q^I • NOTES 1 122 • ur FIGURE NO.: A4 PR"ECT5Ni-4659-oi LOG OF BORING 3 DRILLING PROJECT NAME SHEET LOCATION W& (W/AUTOHAMMER) PARK DRIVE SLOPE STUDY STATION 1 TYPE OF err 8" HSA HAMMER DATA.- w. 1 40 LBS. DROP 30 INCHES STARTED: 12-5—97 DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILUNG t< COMPLETED: 1 2~ 5~ 97 LOGGED BY CMS r, m 1 0 C 07 SURFACE CONDITIONSBACKFILLED: 1 2~5-97 g" AC / g- 8ASE — n M SYMBOLLOG OF MATERIAL ••• K" ACDUAI T nnMI-OCTC-« IFFTT 9— - —3—"*" 4 — 5— 6— 7— 8— 9— - 10— 11— I 12— - 13 — —I 14— 15— 16— 17— 18—— 19— 20— 21— 22— 23— 24— 25— 26— 27— 28— 29— ^ .X -S- fyrt ss/ &/^s:S- /Y:/ '$$ '/fj/yS P?y/////////// FN: 4659LOGS i OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND, FINE-GRAINED, / \MOIST / COLUJViyjy); MEDIUM DENSE, BROWN CLAYEY SAND, FINE TO MEDIUM-GRAINED, MOIST VFPY nrw^r HARD, OLIVE SILTY CLAY, DRY MOIST BORING STOPPED AT 11.5 FT. NO CAVING OBSERVED NO FREE WATER OBSERVED BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS AND CAPPED WITH CONCRETE DYED BLACK SURFACE , -• TOTAL DEPTH ELEVATION 1 •* OF HOLE GROUNDWATER MTE , ,1 r L 1+47 11.5':m t/j q C/J Z) SM sc CL WELL DETAILS BLOWCOUNTS42 69 81 MOISTURECONTENT(%)14 «!/•! Efk.irCI nrn 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101KLtliNrtLLJcK SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 v^C a*"' I 2 NOTES |yIHAHALJIUIn U•n FIGURE NO.: A5 m m m m m m m m m HK M (^ Ml •M m m m Hk •M v» M e •1 • PRWEC5T-4659-oi LOG OF BORING 4 DRILLING PROJECT NAME CMEM55 (W/AUTOHAMMER) PARK DRIVE SLOPE STUDY TYPE OF err 8" HSA HAMMER DATA: m. 140 LBS. DROP 30 INCHES f[^£oN 13' STARTED: 12~5~97 DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING UJ — — — — — — — — — — — " — ' !< COMPLETED: 1 2~5~97 LOGGED BY GMB 8ACKFILLED: 1 2~5-97 fUFjg /^BASE -0— 1 — 3— 4 — 5— 6— 7— Q 9— 1 n n— 12— 13— 14— 16— 17— 18— 19— 20— 21— 22 — 23— 24— 25— 26— 27— 28— 29—~m SYMBOL/^ V/ W FN: 4659LOGS LOG OF MATERIAL Lj6" ASPHALT CONCRETE ^ i OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND, FINE TO / \MEDIUM-GRAINED, MOIST / \LIGHT BROWN CLAYEY SAND, FINE-GRAINED, / \MOIST / COLLUVIUM; BROWN SILTY CLAY, MOIST GRAVEL LAYER SANTIAGO FORMATION: LIGHT BROWN SANDSTONE, POORLY TO MODERATELY CONSOLIDATED, MASSIVE. MODERATELY HARD, WEAK, MODERATELY WEATHERED, MOIST HARD DRILLING LAYER OF HARD BROWN CLAYSTONE AT BOTTOM, ' DRY BORING STOPPED AT 15 FT. NO CAVING OBSERVED NO FREE WATER OBSERVED BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS AND CAPPED WITH CONCRETE DYED BLACK GROUNDWATER PI FWION t/i 6 t/i 5M_ sc CL WELL DETAILS 0^8 24 26 50/5" 50/5" SHEET 1 OF \ LOCATION STATION 13+10 TOTAL DEPTH .,, OF HOLE T DATE og M I/I rib.ieri r»ci» 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUITE 101KLtlNrtLUtK SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 13 13 12 LjJx^Q 111 101 116 SAMPLE TYPE ]| I FIGURE h NOTES JO.: A6 51-4659-01 LOG OF BORING 5 SHEET 1 OF £ FOiliPUFNT PROJECT NAME LOCATION CME 55 (W/AUTOHAMMER) PARK DRIVE SLOPE STUDY DESILTING BASIN TYPE OF BIT 8" HSA HAMMER DATA: WT. 1 40 LBS. DROP 30 INCHES |{^^N 1t4' o^m^™ 50.5' STARTED: 1 £~5-97 DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING !< COMPLETED: 12-5-97 LOGGED BY GMB OATK ni I PTV 1 9 c;~q7 SURFACE CONDITIONSBACKFILLED-. 1 2-5-9 / GRASS / 3» ROOT ZONE — 0— • _Jom2 in .^_^_ LOG OF MATERIAL -fl^H\ROOT ZONE / CONCRETE X1 — 2~2 3— 4 — 5— 6— 7— 8 ..,.. g 10 —* \S 11 — 12— 13— 14— 15— 16— 17— 18— 19— 20— 21— 22— 23— 24— 25— 26— 27— 28— 29— . • H SEDIMENTS / FILL: J .1. . J BROWN SILTY SAND VERY FINE-GRAINED 1 ••] MOIST j£\'.-'.'. FN: 4659LOGS VERY DENSE, MOIST, (OUTSIDE OF SAMPLER WET) SANTIAGO FORMATION; BROWN SANDSTONE, FINE-GRAINED, MODERATELY TO WELL CONSOLIDATED, MASSIVE, WEAKLY CEMENTED, MODERATELY HARD, WEAK, FRESH. MOIST WATER ADDED TO COOL AUGERS MOTTLING WITH RED-BROWN, YELLOW-BROWN, AND OLIVE LIGHT OLIVE, MODERATELY CEMENTED WITH WELL CEMENTED FRAGMENTS SLIGHTLY MORE CLAYEY GROUNDWATER mrcriFVA-nriKf . URIC- q ri SM^JIVl WELL DETAILS i^S 50/3" 50/2.5 50/3' 50/5.5 50/3" £t-Oi Z ?^wfeS- 18 n 12 12 11 11 M Y \ CIMCCI n C D 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUITE 101^LCirxrcLUCK SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 f^ ^. fi^^ JL/\O* Q UJ y NOTES0. -1n / VyAm 120 Hn M ••114 ••n u 117 •n u 119 •rn; ,2, m w . FIGURE NO.: A7 IP m mwp m • m m |H M •1 M H m a m m m m m m m I• m m m ™5T-4659~01 LOG OF BORING 5 SHEET 2 OF 2 DRILLING PROJECT NAME LOCATION CMEM5S (W/AUTOHAMMER) PARK DRIVE SLOPE STUDY DESILTING BASIN TYPE OF BIT 8" HSA HAMMER DATA: OT. 1 40 LBS. DROP 3Q INCHES ^^j^ 114' STARTED: 1 2~5~97 DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING LJ • !< COMPLETED: 1 2 — 5~ 97 LOGGED BTT QMB airvnnm. 19 *, 07 SURFACE CONDfpONSBACKFILLED. 1 2-5-97 GRASS / 3.. ROOT ZON£ i$fc£O>— < 31 — 32— 33— 34— 35 — TR 37— 38-^ 39-H 40— 41 — 42— 43— 44— 45 — 46— | 47— A P 49 — 50— 51— 52— 53— C A \J^ 55— 56— 57— 58— 59—SYMBOLFN: 4659LOGS LOG OF MATERIAL "HARD, BROWN TO LIGHT OLIVE SILTY CLAYSTONE. MODERATELY CONSOLIDATED, MASSIVE, LOW HARDNESS, WEAK, LITTLE WEATHERING, DRY "VERY DENSE, DARK OLIVE SILTY FINE-GRAINED SANDSTONE, MODERATELY TO WELL CONSOLIDATED, MASSIVE, MODERATELY HARD, WEAK, FRESH. MOIST LESS SILT, GRADATION CHANGE FROM FINE- GRAINED TO MEDIUM-GRAINED "VERY DENSE, OLIVE-GRAY CLAYEY SANDSTONE, MODERATELY TO WELL CONSOLIDATED. MASSIVE, MODERATELY HARD, WEAK, FRESH, MOIST BORING STOPPED AT 50.5 FT. NO CAVING OBSERVED NO FREE WATER OBSERVED BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS TOTAL DEPTH c- K, OF HOLE 50'5 GROUNDWATER ^-rr FIFVAIWJ Wlt i/> O V> z> WELL DETAILS BLOWCOUNTS50/5 59/6 50/ 3.5" 60/6 70/4'MOISTURECONTENT(%)17 8 5 4 10 UJ >^ *ggg y NOTES Q 3 no M 120 •• II u 119 • I 123 H M tf t ClhJCCI r»CD 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUfTE 10T IKLEINrELDER SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 j FIGURE- NO.: AS 4" 8" r 1'4M 2' 2'4" 2'8" 3' 3'4" 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 3 6 30 20 38 30 31 36 36 38 13.3 26.6 ***** 133.2 ***««»***•*»»•***«*»•»«***» go Q *»«•******»»****•» 168.7 133.2 ******* 4 07 R *******•*****•**•**•*••*•*»* 1 59 8 *»********•********!»»***»*»***** 159.8 . «****•«'•»*•**»««***•«**«*«»•*« 168-7 *** "** * 3 7 - 25 - _ - - VERY LOOSE LOOSE DENSE MED. DENSE DENSE DENSE DENSE . DENSE DENSE DENSE DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING 1 DATE PERFORMED: 12-05-97 CREW: • G. Singer CONE AREA: 10 SO, CM HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 pounds DEPTH DEPTH BLOWS RESISTANCE FT M PER 10 CM K6/CMA2 0 SURFACE ELEVATION: 13 ft. WATER ON COMPLETION: 13' 4" LOCATION: Sta. 10 + 76 JP m m m m CONE RESISTANCE 50 100 150 TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND SILT CLAY • m Notes: 1 A "-" in the N* column indicates an equivalent SPT N' value greater than 25. 2. The soil was classified in the field as a brown silty SAND (SM) to clayey SAND (SC). 3. Standing water level was approximately 4 inches above the existing ground surface. 4. Effective cone refusal was encountered at approximately 3'4". I0J KLEI NFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 PROJECT NO. CHECKED BY: 51-4659-01 (O/jfc, IDATE. 01-28-93 DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING LOG PARK DRIVE SLOPE / DRAINAGE STUDY CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA FIGURE A9 I M f* tt «• to m to 4" 8" r 1'4" V8" 2' 2'4" 2'8" 3' 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 3 4 5 6 7 7 7 7' 120 13.3 17.8 22.2 **** 26.6 31.1 ****** 31.1 ****** 31.1 ****** 31.1 ****** c-jo a •»****•**•**** **»****iH 3 5 6 7 8 8 8 8 »****«*****»***» ******** VERY LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE LOOSE VERY DENSE DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING 2 DATE PERFORMED: 12-05-97 CREW: 6. Binger CONE AREA: 10SQ.CM HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 pounds BLOWS RESISTANCE PER 10 CM KG/CM*2 0 SURFACE ELEVATION: 13ft. WATER ON COMPLETION: 13' 4" LOCATION: Sta. 12 + 74 CONE RESISTANCE 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND SILT CLAY Notes: 1. A"-" in the N' column indicates an equivalent SPT N' value greater than 25. 2. The soil was classified in the field as a brown sitty SAND (SM) to clayey SAND (SC). 3. Standing water level was approximately 4 inches above the existing ground surface. 4. Effective cone refusal was encountered at approximately 3'4". •i to to |99 KLEI NFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 ROJECTNO. 51-4659-01 HECKED8Y: Cofai |DATE: 01-23-98 DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING LOG PARK DRIVE SLOPE / DRAINAGE STUDY . CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE A10 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 1UU yu BOoil in/\i O anZ DU w1IS. cr>3D1o Pi 40U 4UQ. d O onJU 20 ID 0 »~ i "sfc.N \ HYDROMETER U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES #16 #30 #60 #100 #200i it \\\ 1i 10 GRAVEL coarse fine \ \ \ \Vj X. I 0 10 20 30 Q 40 £ i— 50 ^ h- Ul(J 60 2a. <E 70 o 80 90 1 0. 0.01 0.001 6RAIN SIZE (mm) SAND coarse j medium Symbol Boring No • 3 , Depth (ft) 6.5 fine SILT CLAY Description Brown clayey SAND Classification SC Hfln KLEINFELDER•m..H PROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 Park Drive Slope/Drainage Study Carlsbad, California GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE Bl j Iff yU^: 1^ •m min • m m* •• p* «i M M It • Ptt Pm : : E am iM IM ftHM IM IM M IM : 3 ] ;j i IIM I 3 100 90 80 7.0 i 60 HCO 50t- LUCJ IM /inuj 40 OQH. JU 2,0 10 0 SIEVE ANALYSIS 1.5"3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 1 1 t •^ "X, ^•»I*•». — < HYDROMETER U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 1 III ^ 10 GRAVEL coarse 1 Symbol • » » t fine '1 N S •S V \ V \ S 1 0 10 20 30 Q 40 ^ H <E Ul 50 a uo 60 S0. <n 70 o 80 90 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE (mm) SAND coarse medium Boring No. 5 Depth (ft) 20.5 fine SILT CLAY Description Light olive SANDSTONE • ' Kl KLEINFELDER , PROJECT NO.51-4659-01 Park Drive Slope/Drainage Study Carlsbad, California GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE B2 3 100 90 80 70 i 60 BCO<r °- 50i— Ulu£V LU 4UCL cc O -jnj_ JU 20 1 A1U 0 SIEVE ANALYSIS 11 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" i i i » t^ 4 fr-^^ #10 — ^ HYDROMETER U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 i iii. ^ 10 GRAVEL coarse Fine \ \ \ v\ \ \ \ k 0 10 20 30 40 | H<n uj 50 a \- Ulo 60 ffiQ. 4 70 o 80 90 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE Cmm) SAND coarse medium | fine Symbol Boring No. • 5 Depth (ft) 30.5 SILT CLAY Description Light olive SANDSTONE •Sn KLEINFELDER PROJECTNO. 51-4659-01 Park Drive Slope/Drainage Study Carlsbad, California GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE B3 > P m PH m.m m |H 1*m E E I » M mm w m m m i* m Pm *i M ' W m I ilM 1M M I'm m tin M ilM !M "\PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)I-* to OJ -fx (j\ asO O O O O O 0-CL •-MI ) 10 Boring CL S j S D ML OL / 20 30 40 LIQUID Depth (ft)LL(%) , ' / 50 LIMIT PL{%) / CH s/ / ^r MH OH ,f / / S 60 70 80 90 100 110 (LL) PI(%)LI(-)Description 3 LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plasticity Limit NP - Nonpiastic PI - Plasticity Index LI - Liquidity Index Unified Soil Classification Fine Grained Soil Groupsa ! i ML CL OL LL < 50 Inorganic clayey silts to very fine sands of slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low tomedium plasticity Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Htl KLEINFELDER PROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 MH CH OH LL> 50 Inorganic silts and clayey silts of high plasticity Inorganic clays of high plasticity Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts Park Drive Slope/Drainage Study Carlsbad, California PLASTICITY CHART FIGURE B4 s 8 7 6 5 4-V)X. V *to UJa: w £ 3 UJ to 2 1 0 0 • 1 / /s/ A 1 Dry Density - pcf 118 Initial Water Content - % 12 Final Water Content - % 19 Normal Stress - ksf 1.00 Maximum Shear - ksf 1,40 i / fc // 2 / / / / / / • s' s 345678 NORMAL STRESS - ksf 114 12 18 2.00 2.01 Jgfl KLEINFELDER PROJECT NO. 51-4659-01 116 12 17 3.00 3.06 Boring No. 4 Depth -ft 11.0 Friction Angle - deg 40 Cohesion -ksf 0.50 Description Light brown SANDSTONE Park Drive Slope/Drainage Study Carlsbad, California DIRECT SHEAR TEST FIGURE B5 s : *in VM E i i n Mk 11 m mm mm mi m 1m nm E g I i i i i ii f i II i i i i II ii li i i i i i i i i I i i . l i i i i 46595C 12-30-97 13:01 500 400 _ a? 300 Q) X < 200 100 _ 0 Park Drive (Static) 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS - 1.726 _w 1 . 1 , ! 0 100 200 i ' r 300 400 500 X-AXIS (feet) 600 700 800 XSTABL File: 4659SC 12-30-97 13:01 **************** *************************** XSTABL * * * * * * * * Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices Copyright (C) 1992 a 96 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. MOSCOW, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * * * * * All Rights Reserved ** * * Ver. 5.200 96 a 1437 ******************************************* •m m m m mm mm Problem Description : Park Drive (Static)Pi SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 X-left (ft) .0 100.0 155.0 190.0 195, 210, 245.0 262.0 272.0 290.0 310.0 420.0 ,0 ,0 y-left (ft) 111.0 111.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 129.0 175.0 185.0 190.0 200.0 200.0 205.0 x-right (ft) 100.0 155.0 190.0 195.0 210.0 245.0 262.0 272.0 290.0 310.0 420.0 500.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 1 Soil unit(s) specified y-right (ft) 111.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 129.0 175.0 185.0 190.0 200.0 200.0 205.0 209.0 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P m m m i IB^A Soil Unit weight Unit Moist Sat. ,,No. (pcf) (pcf) Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Intercept Angle Parameter Constant. Surface (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No,. 120.0 135.0 500.0 39.50 .000 .0 im H, 1 Water surf ace (s) have been specified Unit weight of water - 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. l specified by 5 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-water (ft) .00 100.00 155.00 190.00 500.00 y-water (ft) 107.00 107.00 115.00 120.00 165.00 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 75.0 ft and x = 155.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 290.0 ft and x = 360.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft 10.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope.angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 19 coordinate points m m Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 x-surf (ft) 155.00 164.92 174.91 184.90 194.83 204.64 214.26 223.63 232.67 241.35 249.59 257.35 264.57 271.21 277.22 282.56 287.20 291.10 293.40 y-surf (ft) 115.00 113.72 113.25 113.59 114.74 116.69 119.43 122.94 127.19 132.17 137.83 144.14 151.06 158.54 166.53 174.99 183.85 193.05 200.00 HI m mm m ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.726 ** (Fo factor = 1.069) pi Failure surface No. 2 specified by 19 coordinate points _ lji Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) ^ 1 155.00 115.00 * 2 164.96 114.07 3 174.96 113.91 P 4 184.94 114.53 * 5 194.84 115.93 6 204.60 118.08 . 7 214.17 120.99 J! 8 223.49 124.62 m 9 232.49 128.97 10 241.13 134.01 if 11 249.36 139.69 H 12 257.12 146.00 13 264.36 152.89 P 14 271.05 160.33 * 15 277.15 168.25 16 282.61 176.63 m 17 287.41 185.40 18 291.51 194.52 19 293.48 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS - 1.737 ** (Fo factor = 1.067) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 21 coordinate points M Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 x-surf (ft) 146.11 155.87 165.77 175.75 185.75 195.71 205.56 215.26 224.74 233.95 242.82 251.31 259.36 266.93 273.96 280.43 286.28 291.49 296.01 299.83 301.70 y-surf(ft) 114.35 112.17 110.75 110.10 110.24 111.14 112.82 115.26 118.44 122.35 126.96 132.25 138.18 144.71 151.82 159.45 167.56 176.10 185.01 194.25 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.744 ** (Fo factor = 1.072) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 21 coordinate points Point x-surf y~surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 155.00 115.00 2 164.66 112.42 3 174.51 110.66 4 184.46 109.73 5 194.46 109.63 6 204.43 110.37 7 214.31 111.94 8 224.02 114.33 9 233.50 117.53 10 242.67 121.50 11 251.48 126.23 12 259.87 131.68 13 267.77 137.81 14 275.13 144.57 15 281.90 151.93 16 288.03 159.83 17 293.48 168.22 18 298*21 177.03 19 302.19 186.21 20 305.38 195.68 *l 21 306.45 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.751 ** (Fo factor = 1.075) * H Failure surface No. 5 specified by 21 coordinate points IH Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 x-surf (ft) 146.11 155.33 164.88 17.4 . 68 184.63 194.63 204.58 214.40 223.97 233.22 242.05 250.37 258.10 265.18 271.52 277.07 281.78 285.59 288.48 290.41 291.25 y-surf (ft) 114.35 110.47 107.52 105.52 104.50 104.46 105.40 107.32 110.20 114.01 118.71 124.25 130.59 137.66 145.39 153.71 162.53 171.77 181.35 191.16 200.00 m mm mn ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.768 ** (Fo factor = 1.084) H m Failure surface No. 6 specified by 24 coordinate points m Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 x-surf (ft) 137.22 146.39 155.86 165.57 175.44 185.41 195.41 205.37 215.22 224.90 234.32 243.44 252.19 260.50 268.32 275.60 282.28 288.31 293.67 y-surf(ft) 113.71 109.72 106.51 104.10 102.51 101.74 101.80 102.70 104.42 106.96 110.29 114.39 119.24 1.24.80 131.03 137.89 145.34 153.31 161.75 m m 1 am 20 298.30 170.62 21 302.18 179.84 22 305.27 189.34 23 307.57 199.08 24 307.71 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.804 ** (Fo factor =1.081) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 23 coordinate points M m Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 x-surf (ft) 137.22 146.22 155.56 165.19 175.01 184.97 194.97 204.93 214.79 224.46 233.86 242.92 251.58 259.75 267.38 274.40 280.77 286.42 291.32 295.43 298.71 301.14 302.70 y-surf (ft) 113.71 109.33 105.78 103.06 101.22 100.25 100.17 100.97 102.66 105.22 108.62 112.85 117.86 123.63 130.09 137.21 144.92 153.17 161.89 171.00 180.45 190.15 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.806 ** (Fo factor = 1.083) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 24 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 119.44 112.41 2 128.63 108.45 3 138.10 105.24 4 147.79 102.80 5 157.66 101.15 6 167.62 100.29 7 177.62 100.24 8 187.59 100.99 9 197.47 102.55 10 207.19 104.89 11 216.69 108.00 12 225.92 111.87 13 234.80 116.47 14 243.28 121.76 15 251.31 127.72 16 258.83 134.31 . 17 265.80 141.48 * 18 272.18 149.19 » 19 277.91 157.38 20 282.96 166.01 j§ 21 287.31 175.02 m 22 290.91 184.34 23 293.76 193.93 M 24 295.04 200.00 m ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.839 ** (Fo factor = 1.080) ^^Bm Failure surface No. 9 specified by 23 coordinate points Hi m m m Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 x-surf (ft) 128.33 138.26 148.24 158.24 168.23 178.18 188.07 197.85 207.51 217.02 226.34 235.45 244.33 252.94 261.25 269.26 276.92 284.22 291.14 297.66 303.75 309.40 312.53 y-surf (ft) 113.06 111.85 111.19 111.07 111.50 112.47 113.99 116.04 118.62 121.72 125.34 129.46 134.07 139.16 144.71 150.71 157.13 163.97 171.19 178.77 186.70 194.95 . 200.12 H m £ 1 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = • 1.888 ** (Fo factor = 1.060) ^ » Failure surface No.10 specified by 22 coordinate points it Point x-surf y-surf m No. (ft) (ft) J 1 137.22 113.71 2 147.21 113.15 ™ 3 157.21 113.10 * 4 167.20 113,55 '5 177.15 114.51 6 187.04 115.97 7 196.85 117.93 8 206.54 120.39 9 216.10 123.33 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 225.50 234.71 243.71 252.49 261.00 269.25 277.19 284.82 292.11 299.04 305.61 311.78 317.17 126.75 130.64 134.99 139.79 145.03 150.69 156.77 163.23 170.08 177.28 184.83 192.69 200.33 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.907 **(Fo factor = 1.055) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Park Drive (Static) Modified JANBU FOS 1. 1.726 2. 1.737 3. 1.744 4. 1.751 5. 1.768 6. 1.804 7. 1.806 8. 1.839 9. 1.888 10. 1.907 Correction Factor 1. 1. 1, 1, 1. 069 067 1.072 ,075 084 1.081 083 080 060 1.055 Initial x-coord (ft) 155.00 155.00 146.11 155.00 146.11 137.22 137.22 119.44 128.33 137.22 Terminal x-coord (ft) 293.40 293.48 301.70 306.45 291.25 307.71 302.70 295.04 312.53 317.17 Available Strength (Ib) 3.035E+05 2.878E+05 3.917E+05 4.487E+05 4.286E-I-05 5.522E+05 5.471E+05 4.721E+05 3.890E+05 3.805E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * 4659S 12-30-97 12:40 500 _ 400 _ 0) 300 (D 00 X < 200 I 100 _ 0 0 Park Drive (Static) 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU F05 = 1.746 100 -W 1 200 300 400 500 X-AXIS (feet) 600 700 800 mm ii mm » i • i •• • • mm II • i • •mm • i XSTABL File: 4659S 12-30-97 12:40 ****************************************** itt * * * * * * * * * * * XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices Copyright (C) 1992 a 96 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. MOSCOW, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved Ver. 5.200 96 a 1437 * * * * * * * * * Problem Description : Park Drive (Static) SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ISOTROPIC x-left (ft) .0 100.0 155.0 190.0 195.0 210.0 245.0 262.0 272.0 290.0 310.0 420.0 y-left (ft) 111.0 111.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 129.0 175.0 185.0 190.0 200.0 200.0 205.0 x-right (ft) 100.0 155.0 190.0 195.0 210.0 245.0 262.0 272.0 290.0 310.0 420.0 500.0 y-right (ft) 111.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 129.0 175.0 185.0 190.0 200.0 200.0 205.0 209.0 Soil Parameters Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 120.0 135.0 500.0 39.50 .000 .0 1 Water surf ace (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. l specified by 5 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-water (ft) .00 100.00 155.00 190.00 500.00 y-water (ft) 107.00 107.00 115.00 120.00 165.00 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random <* technique for generating sliding BLOCK surfaces, has been specified. P m The active and passive portions of the sliding surfaces p are generated according to the Rankine theory. m 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. W 2 boxes specified for generation of central block base P m Length of line segments for active and passive portions of • sliding block is 10.0 ft E BOX no. 1 2 x-left (ft) 150.0 275.0 y-left (ft) 85.0 160.0 x-right (ft) 220.0 360.0 y-right (ft) 90.0 160.0 Width (ft) 20.0 40.0 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : ***** SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 11 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 x-surf(ft) 178.58 182.14 191.19 200.23 209.28 218.32 286.79 291.06 295.32 299.59 302.51 y-surf (ft) 118.37 116.68 112.42 108.15 103.89 99.62 166.68 175.72 184.77 193.81 200.00 m ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.746 ** (Fo factor ~ 1.082) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 14 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 x-surf (ft) 169.78 170.84 179.89 188.93 197.98 207.02 216.06 277.60 281.86 286.13 290.39 294.66 298.92 300.78 y-surf (ft) 117.11 116.61 112.34 108.08 103.81 99.54 95.28 150.83 159.88 168.92 177.97 187.01 196.05 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.773 ** (Fo factor = 1.085) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 12 coordinate points M Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 166.53 116.65 2 169.93 115.04 3 178.97 110.78 m 4 188.02 106.51 5 197.06 102.25 6 206.11 97.98 '«* 7 280.93 156.03 8 285.20 165.07 •9 289.46 174.12 m • • ' 10 293.73 183.16 11 297.99 192.21 12 301.67 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.788 **(Fo factor = 1.078) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 14 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 x-surf (ft) 170.34 178.23 187.28 196.32 205.36 214.41 276.06 280.32 284.59 288.85 293.12 297.39 301.65 304.25 y-surf(ft) 117.19 113.47 109.21 104.94 100.68 96.41 140.22 149.26 158.31 167.35 176.40 185.44 194.49 200.00 m m m m mm m P ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.789 **(Fo factor = 1.083) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 15 coordinate points ii Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 x-surf (ft) 171.68 172.95 181.99 191.04 200.08 209.13 218.17 280.00 284.26 288.53 292.79 297.06 301.33 305.59 307.39 y-surf (ft) ,117.38 116.79 112.52 108.25 103.99 99.72 95.46 141.92 150.97 160.01 169.06 178.10 187.15 196.19 200.00 Pn ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.804 **(Fo factor = 1.084) P M i Failure surface No. 6 specified by 14 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-surf(ft) 161.44 170.20 179.25 188.29 197.34 y-surf (ft) 115.92 111.79 107.52 103.26 98.99 E 6 . 206.38 94.72 7 215.43 90.46 8 275.56 149.58 9 279.83 158.62 10 284.09 167.67 11 288.36 176.71 12 292.62 185.76 13 296.89 194.80 14 299.34 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.811 ** (Fo factor = 1.088) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 12 coordinate points M Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x-surf (ft) 164.77 165.26 174.30 183.34 192.39 201.43 210.48 219.52 302.10 306.37 310.63 312.94 y-surf (ft) 116.40 116.16 111.90 107.63 103.37 99.10 94.84 90.57 177.14 186.19 195.23 200.13m itm ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.821 ** (Fo factor = 1.086) IM Failure surface No. 8 specified by 11 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 x-surf (ft) 162.83 168.24 177.29 186.33 195.38 204.42 213.47 284.83 289.09 293.36 295.83 y-surf (ft) 116.12 113.57 109.30 105.04 100.77 96.51 92.24 176.68 185.72 194.77 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS =» 1.832 ** (Fo factor = 1.087) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 11 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. ... (ft) (ft) 1 167.92 116.85 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 172.55 181.59 190.64 199.68 208.73 217.77 314.61 318.88 323.14 326.05 114.66 110.40 106.13 101.86 97.60 93.33 176.47 185.52 194.56 200.73 m m m m Hi ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.837 **(Fo factor - 1.081) Failure surface No.10 specified by 16 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 x-surf (ft) 152.54 153.85 162.90 171.94 180.99 190.03 199.08 208.12 277.87 282.13 286.40 290.66 294.93 299.20 303.46 304.61 ** Corrected JANBU FOS y-surf (ft) 114.82 114.20 109.94 105.67 101.41 97.14 92.87 88.61 143.29 152.34 161.38 170.43 179.47 188.52 197.56 200.00 1.847 ** m m m m m m (Fo factor = 1.086) i • The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Park Drive (Static) Modified JANBU FOS 1. 1.746 2. 1.773 3. 1.788 4. 1.789 5. 1.804 6. 1.811 7. 1.821 8. ,1.832 9. -1.837 10. 1.847 Correction Factor 1. 1, 1, 1, 1. 1. l, 1. 1. 082 085 078 083 084 088 086 087 081 1.086 Initial x-coord (ft) 178.58 169,78 166.53 170.34 171.68 161.44 164.77 162.83 167.92 152.54 Terminal x-coord (ft) Available Strength 302.51 300.78 301.67 304.25 307.39 299.34 312.94 295.83 326.05 304.61 4.216E+05 4.647E+05 4.273E+05 4.957E+05 5.272E+05 4.968E+05 5.490E+05 4.205E+05 5.924E+05 5.527E+05 P to to i * * * END OF FILE * * * 4659D - 12-30-97 12:42 500 _ 400 _ o> 300 _ CD (/] X < 200 J 100 _ 0 Park Drive (Dynamic) 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1.386 o _w 1 100 200 300 400 500 X-AXIS (feet) 600 700 800 • I f ff 1 it II II 1 II f I II VI II VI V XSTABL File: 4659D 12-30-97 12:42 ****************************************** XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using the Method of Slices * * * * * * * * * * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 96 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.* * All Rights Reserved* * Ver. 5.200 96 a 1437 ****************************************** * * * Problem Description : Park Drive (Dynamic) SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x-left (ft) .0 100.0 155.0 190.0 195.0 210.0 245.0 262.0 272.0 290.0 310.0 420.0 y-left (ft) 111.0 111.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 129.0 175.0 185.0 190.0 200.0 200.0 205.0 x-right (ft) 100.0 155.0 190.0 195.0 210.0 245.0 262.0 272.0 290.0 310.0 420.0 500.0 y-right (ft) 111.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 129.0 175.0 185.0 190.0 200.0 200.0 205.0 209.0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 1 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Unit Moist No. (pcf) Weight Sat. (pcf) Cohesion Friction Intercept Angle (psf) (deg) Pore : Paramete: Ru Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 sssure Water Constant Surface (psf) No. 120.0 135.0 500.0 39.50 .000 .0 1 water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water * 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point NO. 1 2 3 4 5 x-water (ft) .00 100.00 155.00 190.00 500.00 y-water (ft) 107.00 107.00 115.00 120.00 165.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .150 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating sliding BLOCK surfaces, has been specified. The active and passive portions of the sliding surfaces are generated according to the Rankine theory. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 boxes specified for generation of central block base Length of line segments for active and passive portions of sliding block is 10.0 ft Box no. 1 2 x-left (ft) 150.0 275.0 y-left (ft) 85.0 160.0 x-right (ft) 220.0 360.0 y-right (ft) 90.0 160.0 Width (ft) 20.0 40.0 Factors of- safety have been calculated by the : ***** SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD ***** The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. l specified by 11 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 x-surf (ft) 178.58 182.14 191.19 200.23 209.28 218.32 286.79 291.06 295.32 299.59 302.51 y-surf (ft) 118.37 116.68 112.42 108.15 103.89 99.62 166.68 175.72 184.77 193.81 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.386 ** (Fo factor - 1.082) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 12 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 X-surf (ft) 166.53 169.93 178.97 188.02 197.06 206.11 280.93 285.20 289.46 293.73 297.99 301.67 y-surf (ft) 116.65 115.04 110.78 106.51 102.25 97.98 156.03 165.07 174.12 183.16 192.21 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.394 ** (Fo factor = 1.078) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 14 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 x-surf (ft) 170.34 178.23 187.28 196.32 205.36 214.41 276.06 y-surf (ft) 117.19 113.47 109.21 104.94 100.68 96.41 140.22 8 280.32 149.26 9 284.59 158.31 10 288.85 167.35 11 293.12 176.40 12 297.39 185.44 13 301.65 194.49 14 304.25 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.396 ** (Fo factor = 1.083) Pn Failure surface No. 4 specified by 14 coordinate points SPoint No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 x-surf(ft) 169.78 170.84 179.89 188.93 197.98 207.02 216.06 277.60 281.86 286.13 290.39 294.66 298.92 300.78 y-surf (ft) 117.11 116.61 112.34 108.08 103.81 99.54 95.28 150.83 159.88 168.92 177.97 187.01 196.05 200.00 im ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.400 ** (Fo factor = 1.085) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 15 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 x-surf (ft) 171.68 172.95 181.99 191.04 200.08 209.13 218.17 280.00 284.26 288.53 292.79 297.06 301.33 305.59 307.39 y-surf (ft) 117.38 116.79 112.52 108.25 103.99 99.72 95.46 141.92 150.97 160.01 169.06 178.10 187.15 196.19 200.00 E I g I I •i ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.409 ** (Fo factor = 1.084) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 11 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 x-surf (ft) 167.92 172.55 181.59 190.64 199.68 208.73 217.77 314.61 318.88 323.14 326.05 y.-surf (ft) 116.85 114.66 110.40 106.13 101.86 97.60 93.33 176.47 185.52 194.56 200.73 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.417 ** (Fo factor = 1.081) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 12 coordinate points M Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x-surf (ft) 174.76 180.65 189.70 198.74 207.79 216.83 303.87 308.13 312.40 316.67 320.93 323.42 y-surf (ft) 117.82 115.04 110.78 106.51 102.24 97.98 159.16 168.20 177.25 186.29 195.34 200.61 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.423 ** (Fo factor = 1.077) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 14 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 x-surf (ft) 161.44 170.20 179.25 188.29 197.34 206.38 215.43 275.56 279.83 284.09 288.36 292.62 296.89 299.34 y-surf (ft) 115.92 111.79 107.52 103.26 98.99 94.72 90.46 149.58 158.62 167.67 176.71 185.76 194.80 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.430 ** (Fo factor = 1.088) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 12 coordinate points m m Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) P 1 164.77 116.40 * 2 165,26 116.16 — 3 174,30 111.90 ™ 4 183.34 107.63 * 5 192.39 103.37 6 201.43 99.10 ffj 7 210.48 94.84 M 8 219.52 90.57 9 302.10 177.14 M 10 306.37 186.19 11 310.63 195.23 Si 12 312.94 200.13 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.431 ** (Fo factor = 1.086) *» til Failure surface No.10 specified by 16 coordinate points * Point x-surf y-surf «• No. (ft) (ft) £ 1 152.54 114.82 2 153.85 114.20 ™ 3 162.90 109.94 * 4 171.94 105.67 5 180.99 101.41 f 6 190.03 97.14 § 7 199.08 92.87 8 208.12 88.61 p, 9 277.87 143.29 C 10 282.13 152.34 11 286.40 161.38 12 290.66 170.43 * 13 294.93 179.47 "» 14 299.20 188.52 15 303.46 197.56 1 16 304.61 200.00 m ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.432 ** (Fo factor = 1.086) * m The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Park Drive (Dynamic) •* Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available H JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength m (ft) (ft) (Ib) 1. 1.386 1.082 178.58 302.51 4.031E+05 L 2. 1.394 1.078 166.53 301.67 4.064E+05 3. 1.396 1.083 170.34 304.25 4.724E+05 4. 1.400 1.085 169.78 300.78 4.447E+05 ™H E I I I I I I I I i i I 1 I I I i i 5. 1.409 6. 1.417 7. 1.423 8. 1.430 9. 1.431 10. 1.432 1.084 1.081 1.077 1.088 1.086 1.086 171.68 167.92 174.76 161.44 164.77 152.54 307.39 326.05 323.42 299.34 312.94 304.61 5.035E+05 5.661E+05 5.494E+05 4.772E+05 5.277E+05 5.289E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * 4659DC 12-30-97 13:00 500 _ 400 J 0) 300 J CD X < 200 J 100 J 0 0 Park Drive (Dynamic) 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1.322 100 200 -W 1 300 400 500 X-AXIS (feet) 600 700 800 • i r • ii * m i i i i ii i Kit i * i » * I ii • t i tt ii ii XSTABL File: 4659DC 12-30-97 13:00 ****************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * 96 a 1437 * * XSTABL * Slope Stability Analysis * using the Method of Slices Copyright (C) 1992 a 96 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved * Ver. 5.200 m Problem Description : Park Drive (Dynamic) MM *- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ISOTROPIC x-left (ft) .0 100.0 155.0 190.0 195.0 210.0 245.0 262.0 272.0 290.0 310.0 420.0 y-left (ft) 111.0 111.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 129.0 175.0 185.0 190.0 200.0 200.0 205.0 x-right (ft) 100.0 155.0 190.0 195.0 210.0 245.0 262.0 272.0 290.0 310.0 420.0 500.0 y-right (ft) 111.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 129.0 175.0 185.0 190.0 200.0 200.0 205.0 209.0 Soil Parameters Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 120.0 135.0 500.0 39.50 .000 .0 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water =< 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. l specified by 5 coordinate points **************** ******* *********** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-water (ft) .00 100.00 155.00 190.00 500.00 y-water (ft) 107.00 107.00 115.00 120.00 165.00 m m m iA horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .150 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. * m 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. ^ m 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced malong the ground surface between x = 75.0 ft and x = 155.0 ft ** Each surface terminates between x = 290.0 ft <* and x = 360.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft ' M 10.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.wi ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees e ,„, Factors of safety have been calculated by the : M * * * * * SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD ***** The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined m are displayed below - the most critical first if Failure surface No. 1 specified by 21 coordinate points ( Point x-surf y-surf H No. (ft) (ft) *" 1 155.00 115.00 to 2 164.66 112.42 3 174.51 110.66 *. 4 184.46 109.73 L 5 194.46 109.63 m 6 204.43 110.37 7 214.31 111.94 r 8 224.02 114.33 *« 9 233.50 117.53 10 242.67 121.50 C 11 251.48 126.23 JM 12 259.87 131.68 13 267.77 137.81 *• 14 275.13 144.57 ta 15 281.90 151.93 16 288.03 159.83 p, 17 293.48 168.22 , 18 298.21 177.03 ** 19 302.19 186.21 20 305.38 195.68 f 21 306.45 200.00 N ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.322 ** (Fo factor = 1.075) IB Failure surface No. 2 specified by 21 coordinate points IP»Point x-surf y-surf *• No. (ft) (ft) w 1 146.11 114.35 to 2 155.87 112.17 3 165.77 110.75 *» 4 175.75 110.10 , 5 185.75 110.24 6 195.71 111.14 ^ 7 205.56 112.82 8 215.26 115.26 9 224.74 118.44 10 233.95 122.35 11 242.82 126.96 12 251.31 132.25 13 259.36 138.18 14 266.93 144.71 15 273.96 151.82 16 280.43 159.45 17 286.28 167.56 18 291.49 176.10 19 296.01 185.01 20 299.83 194.25 21 301.70 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.327 ** (Fo factor =1.072) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 19 coordinate points Point No. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 x-surf (ft) 155.00 164.92 174.91 184.90 194.83 204.64 214.26 223.63 232.67 241.35 249.59 257.35 264.57 271.21 277.22 282.56 287.20 291.10 293.40 y-surf (ft) 115.00 113.72 113.25 113.59 114.74 116.69 119.43 122.94 127.19 132.17 137.83 144.14 151.06 158.54 166.53 174.99 183.85 193.05 200.00 m m ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.333 ** (Fo factor = 1.069) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 19 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) i 155.00 115.00 2 164.96 114.07 3 174.96 113.91 4 184.94 114.53 5 194.84 115.93 6 204.60 118.08 7 214.17 120.99 8 223.49 124.62 9 232.49 128.97 10 241.13 134.01 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. 19* 249.36 257.12 264.36 271.05 277.15 282.61 287.41 291.51 293.48 139.69 146.00 152.89 160.33 168.25 176.63 185.40 194.52 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.346 ** (Fo factor = 1.067) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 24 coordinate points in hi * I* tt Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 x-surf (ft) 137.22 146.39 155.86 165.57 175.44 185.41 195.41 205.37 215.22 224.90 234.32 243.44 252.19 260.50 268.32 275.60 282.28 288.31 293.67 298.30 302.18 305.27 307.57 307.71 y-surf (ft) 113.71 109.72 106.51 104.10 102.51 101.74 101.80 102.70 104.42 106.96 110.29 114.39 119.24 124.80 131.03 137.89 145.34 153.31 161.75 170.62 179.84 189.34 199.08 200.00fIH ** corrected JANBU FOS = 1.346 ** (Fo factor = 1.081) P« III Failure surface No. 6 specified by 23 coordinate points pi Point x-surf y-surf ^ No. (ft) (ft) 1 137.22 113.71 f" 2 146.22 109.33 ll 3 155.56 105.78 4 165.19 103.06 •i 5 175.01 101.22 m 6 184.97 100.25 7 194.97 100.17 pr 8 204.93 100.97 L 9 214.79 102.66 10 224.46 105.22 11 233.86 108.62 12 242.92 112.85 13 251.58 117.86 14 259.75 123.63 15 267.38 130.09 16 274.40 137.21 17 280.77 144.92 18 286.42 153.17 19 291.32 161.89 20 295.43 171.00 21 298.71 180.45 22 301.14 190.15 23 302.70 200.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.351 ** (Fo factor - 1.083) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 24 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 x-surf (ft) 119.44 128.63 138.10 147.79 157.66 167.62 177.62 187.59 197.47 207.19 216.69 225.92 234.80 243.28 251.31 258.83 265.80 272.18 277.91 282.96 287.31 290.91 293.76 295.04 y-surf (ft) 112.41 108.45 105.24 102.80 101.15 100.29 100.24 100.99 102.55 104.89 108.00 111.87 116.47 121.76 127.72 134.31 141.48 149.19 157.38 166.01 175.02 184.34 193.93 200.00 4*. ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.381 ** (Fo factor = 1.080) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 27 coordinate points Point No. - 1 2 3 4 x-surf (ft) 128.33 137.50 146.92 156.55 y-surf(ft) 113.06 109.07 105.71 102.99 II H "• 5 166.33 100.94 6 176.23 99.55 *" . 7 186.21 98.83 M 8 196.21 98.79 9 206.19 99.43 *•» 10 216.10 100.74 m 11 225.90 102.73 12 235.55 105.37 m 13 244.99 108.65 14 254.19 112.57 * 15 263.11 117.11 16 271.69 122.23 ** 17 279.91 127.93 M 18 287.72 134.17 19 295.10 140.92 pi 20 302.00 148.16 L 21 308.39 155.85 22 314.25 163.96 —k 23 319.55 172.44 £ 24 324.25 181.26 • 25 328.36 190.38 26 331.83 199.76 I* 27 332.20 201.01 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.409 ** (Fo factor = 1.077) PI Failure surface No. 9 specified by 24 coordinate points H I* tri fen p»Ii Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 x-surf (ft) 155.00 164.28 173.83 183.58 193.48 203.45 213.45 223.41 233.27 242.96 252.43 261.62 270.47 278.93 286.94 294.45 301.43 307.82 313.58 318.69 323.11 326.80 329.76 330.34 y-surf (ft) 115.00 111.28 108.31 106.09 104.65 103.98 104.11 105.02 106.71 . 109.17 112.38 116.33 120.98 126.32 132.30 138.90 146.07 153.76 161.93 170.53 179.50 188.79 198.34 200.92 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.417 ** (Fo factor = 1.079) p» * Failure surface No.10 specified by 24 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 x-surf (ft) 155.00 163.75 172.91 182.39 192.13 202.03 212.02 222.01 231.92 241.66 251.14 260.30 269.05 277.32 285.03 292.13 298.56 304.25 309.16 313.26 316.49 318.85 320.31 320.50 y-surf (ft) 115.00 110.16 106.14 102.98 100.70 99.32 98.86 99.32 100.70 102.97 106.14 110.16 115.00 120.62 126.99 134.03 141.69 149.91 158.62 167.75 177.21 186.93 196.82 200.48 •f ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.429 **(Fo factor = 1.085) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Park Drive (Dynamic) Modified JANBU FOS 1. 1.322 2. 1.327 3. 1.333 4. 1.346 5. 1.346 6. 1.351 7. 1.381 8. 1.409 9. 1.417 10. 1.429 Correction Factor 1.075 1.072 .069 ,067 1, 1, 1.081 1, 1. 1. 1. 083 080 077 079 1.085 Initial x-coord (ft) 155.00 146.11 155.00 155.00 137.22 137.22 119.44 128.33 155.00 155.00 Terminal x-coord (ft) Available Strength (Ib) 306.45 301.70 293.40 293.48 307.71 302.70 295.04 332.20 330.34 320.50 4.175E+05 3.645E+05 2.823E+05 2.679E+05 5.161E+05 5.121E+05 4.423E+05 6.956E+05 6.459E+05 6.701E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * ^^^ fc. 'n»irL jvi^*rTCSt THE GEOWEB® SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW f" -H P"jy y f in f» !• IP«. « | Introduction The Geowcb CetluJar Confinement System offers a broad range of surface protection treatments for slopes that are subjected to erosive forces. The inherent flexibility of the system, combined with a variety of simple, yet positive anchoring techniques, permits the application of both vegetated and hard surfacing materials to steep slopes. By ensuring the Jong-term stability and effectiveness of slope cover materials, the integrity of underlying soils can be guaranteed and appropriate aesthetic standards maintained. The Geoweb system can also provide means of fully vegetating slope surfaces that could not otherwise support plant fife. Outlined are common causes of slope surface instability, and recommended design procedures and construction details which relate to specific structures and conditions. Examples of Geoweb Slope Surface Stabilization Embankment slopes Containment dikes and levees Abutment protection Cut slopes Dam faces and spillways Earth covered structures Shoreline revetments Landfill caps Surface Instability,* Identifying Problems and Defining Causes General Surface Erosion Probbms Rainfall Impact and runoff Detachment and transportation of soil panicles downslope in suspension as run-off flows concentrate. Rids and gullies form and expand as soil loss progresses. Rainfall intensity, soil credibility, slope steepness, and vegetative cover condition control the rate and extent of such erosion. Localized Surface instability Problems Ground-water seepage Freeze-thaw conditions Wave impact and run-up Ice-action Drainage of ground-water from the slope can create high localized seepage pressures that result in soil piping as panicles are washed out from the slope cover layer. This action undermines adjacent material leading to progressive degradation of the slope surface. Cyclic freezing and thawing of stope soils can trap lenses of free water or soil slurry between frozen cover materials and subsoils producing zones of low shear resistance. This condition can result in the down-slope movement of sections of the cover material that would otherwise be stable, Hydrodynamic impingement, combined with high velocity up-aish and back-flow, imposes high stress on the slope cover materials. Cyclic hydraulic-uplift-forces further destabilize cover materials and allow displacement and loss of both armoring and underlying soils. Shoreline and dam face revetments can be subjected to severe abrasion and uplift stresses due to movement of adjacent ice fields. Wind- generated impact and the flotation of adhered ice formations during water level fluctuations can be particularly damaging. 27-SEP-97 1997 - PflESTO PRODUCTS COMPANY PAGE 1 OFU THE GEOWEB® SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW General Slope Cover Instability Problems Steep slope cover GeomemOrane protection Addition of vegetated topsoiJ or hard armoring to existing or reinforced steep slopes requires special slope cover anchorage methods. Examples include (1) slopes that are steeper than the natural angle of repose of the cover material and (2) slope inclinations mat exceed the interface friction angle of the cover material and subsoil. Geomembrane and geotextile slope covers can render a protective sot) cover unstable due to the relatively low coefficient-of-f riction of many geosynthetics. Stability can be further reduced if the cover is saturated, subjected to wave impact and uplift forces, or surcharged with additional fill or snow loads. The stability of a slope cover layer may depend on the end-bearing support at the toe of slope. Scour in the lower sections of the slope can destabilize the entire protective cover. Similarly, crest anchorage in place of toe support can cause protection of the upper part of a long submerged slope. Inadequate crest anchorage Integrated, flexible slope protection can be secured with crest anchors in place of conventional toe support This is particularly advantageous when protecting only the upper part of a long submerged slope. Inadequate crest anchorage can result in general slope cover instability. HI it Absence or loss of toe support m m Geoweb Slope Stabilization Systems - The Key Components Key components of the Geoweb System are indicated in Rgure 1. A discussion of the interdependence of these components and sub-components, where appropriate, follows: Geoweb Confinement Select Infill Tendon ATRA Clip Anchor Geotextile t m FRONT ELEVATION TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION Figure 1 Key Components of the Geoweb System PAGE Z OM 4 COPYRIGHT 1997 - PRESTO PRODUCTS COMPANY 27-SEP-97 Presf;THE GEOWEB* SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW I m m ii I" &i Geoweb cellular confinement sections Cell Size* and Depffts STANDARD CELL 244 mm x 203 mm (9.6 in x8 in) LARGE CELL 488 mm x 406 mm (19.2 in x 16 in) V CELL DEPTH mm (in) 203 (8) ^Bn 152 CELL DEPTH mm (in) 102 (4)U6J3) 102(4) Flgun) 2 Geoweb Cell Size and Depth Select infill materials Specific solutions to given problems require a range of infill materials including: • Topsoil with various selected vegetation • Aggregates including sand, gravel and rock • Concrete of various strengths and surface finishes • Combinations of the above to meet special conditions i Integral polymeric tendons A variety of standard tendons (see Table 1). covering a range of tensile strengths, is available to meet specific anchorage requirements. Spacing and quantity of individual tendons within each Geoweb section is determined through static analysts methods available from Presto. Tabtel Typical Tendons Reference Name TPC-71 TP-13 TP-20 TP-26 TP-32 TP-40 TP-66 Minimum Break Strength 7.l2kN(1600Ibf) 1.33kN(300iDf) 2.00 kN (450 Ibf) ^67 kN (600 Ibf) 3.22 *N (725 Ibf) 4.00 kN (900 Ibf) 6.67 kN (1500 Ibf) COPYRIGHT 1997 • PRESTO PRODUCTS COMPANY THE GEOWEB* SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW Ground anchor* Geoweb slope protection systems can be secured with an array of surface anchors or a crest anchorage system to suit design requirements and subgrade conditions. The most commonly used types of anchor are illustrated in Figure 3. Anchor details are determined through static analysis methods available from Presto. ATR A Clip SURFACE ANCHORAGE Geoweb W«JK Tendon> S»ioci Infill. Geotaxtite. HELICAL CREST ANCHORAGE Gcoweb Wtlk Tendon, Select Infill- DUCKBILL SURFACE ANCHORAGE Geoweb w« Tendon - Select Infills Geotextile.. DEADMAN CREST ANCHORAGE Geoweb Wall. Tendon- Select InfilU Geotextile Figure 3 Typical Qeoweb Anchorage Schemes Non-woven geotfjctiteundwiaytr Installation of a suitable geotextile betow the Geoweb confinement system is typical of slope protection work. The geotextile underlayer can perform a number of important functions that include: in-plane drainage of groundwatef seepage from the slope subgrade. Confinement and filtration of subgrade soil particles. Reinforcement of root-mass with vegetated infiHs. Mechanical protection of underlying geomembranes. Tensile reinforcement of slope protection system. __^_ Surface treatments Specific solutions to given problems may also require a range of surface treatment materials including: * Spray applied polymeric and natural binders • Erosion blankets of all types » Concrete grouts PAQS4OF14 COPYRIGHT 1597 - PRESTO PRODUCTS COMPANY 27-SSP-97 THE GEOWEB* SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW m m k Geoweb Slope Stabilization Systems - Design Considerations Analysis of Slope Cover Stability The natural tendency of a protective cover layer to slide down-slope is resisted by the frictional resistance at the interface of the system and the subgrade soil. Th* sliding resistance of composite systems which incorporate geomembrane and/or geotextile underlayer, can be limited by relatively low coefficients of f ricton associated with such geosymhetic materials. SLOPE COVER ELEMENTS AND GEOMETRY Un*W*ttm«r ICmml «fi4M» fI FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE ON SLOW - JMMT WCAMC »•>• tnft tflMM •» ANCHORAGE WITH CREST EMBEDMENT SLOPE COVER STABILIZATION WITH ANCHOR AWUY Figure 4 Stability Analysis of the Geoweb Slope Protection System As slope inclination increases, the down-slope component of the cover's self-weight exceeds the available frictional resistance, thereby necessitating additional anchorage. The integral polymeric tendons of the Geoweb system provide an effective means of supplying the required restraint. Surface anchor pins within the Geoweb cell (see Figure 3} and distributed along each tendon, are the most common form of slope cover anchorage. Analysis involves determination of the maximum contributory area of slope cover that can be supported by an individual anchor pin. Crest anchorage of an entire slope cover can be incorporated when installation of surface anchors is impractical or when perforation of the underlying geosynthetic layers is unacceptable. A number of crest anchorage schemes, including deadman anchors and embedment of the tendoned Geoweb system at the crest of slope, can be employed. See Figure 3 and Figure 4. Concentrated Surface Flow . Geoweb protected slopes that are subjected to concentrated surface flows require evaluation of maximum potential flow velocities, depths of flow and hydraulic shear stresses. The limiting hydraulic shear resistance of the specified Geoweb infill materials and the total tractive force applied to the cover, as a whole, must also be determined. Additional system anchorage may be required in some situations. 17-OC7-97 COPYRIGHT T997- PRESTO PRODUCTS COMPAN*PAGEs OFu THE GEOWEB* SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW Geoweb with Vegetated Topsoil infill General Well-established vegetation is recognized as an elective and attractive form of protection for slopes that are exposed to mild or moderate surface erosion. However, the overall effectiveness of vegetated covers can be compromised if persistent or concentrated surface run-off occurs. Such flows can progressively remove soil particles from the root zone, creating rills and gutties that ultimately destroy the protection. Benefits of Cellular Confinement • The Geoweb cell walls, which contain the topsoil infill, form a series of check-dams extending throughout the protected slope. Normal rill development produced when concentrated flow cuts into the soil, is prevented since flow is continuously redirected to the surface. This mechanism also retards flow velocity and hence the erosive force of run-off. • A predetermined depth of topsoil and the developing vegetative root mass is contained and protected within the individual cells. Roots readily penetrate through the non-woven geotextife underiayer into the subsoil, thereby creating an integrated, blanket reinforcement throughout the slope surface. • In arid regions, it has been observed that Geoweb cells can enhance the development of indigenous vegetation by retaining a higher proportion of available moisture in the near-surface soil zone. Design Guidelines - Genera/ • Partial emptying of cells can be expected when infill materials naturally consolidate or become saturated prior to establishment of vegetation. • Vegetated topsoil infill is recommended in situations where surface flows are intermittent of moderate intensity, and of relatively short duration (< 24 hours). Peak velocities of 6 m/s (20 ft/s) can be sustained for short periods when the vegetated cover is well established. • Oegradable erosion blankets should be applied to protect exposed topsoil and seed and to promote rapid establishment of vegetation. Erosion blankets should be selected and installed in accordance with their manufacturer's guidelines, • For better overall performance, a lightweight 150 - 200 g/m2 (4 • 6 ozfyd2), needle-punched, non- woven geotextite underiayer is a recommended component of the vegetated system. Cell Size Selection • Slope steepness, intensity of surface run-off, and the minimum expected angle of repose of the infill material are the most important factors when selecting ceil size. The following cell size recommendations assume that full vegetative cover will be established prior to exposure to design run-off conditions. Large cell Geoweb is normally suitable with vegetated topsoil infills when slope angles are below 30* and moderate run-off intensities are anticipated. Slopes steeper than 30* (1.75H:1 V) or exposure to severe or concentrated flow conditions, requite standard cell Geoweb. See Figure 2 for standard and large cell Geoweb details. PAGE 6 OF 14 COPYRIGHT 1997 • PRESTO PRODUCTS COMPANY , 17-Ocr-97 THE GEOWEB* SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW in pr ll I* m i* In Normal cell depth for vegetated protection is 75 mm (3 in), provided the subsoil will support root development and slope angles are below 30». Slopes steeper than 30* require a cell depth of at least 100 mm (4 in). Situations that could require greater cell depths include; revegetation of rock slopes, applications with highly credible soils and support of vegetated slopes in arid regions. Hydraulic action prior to full development of vegetation within the cells can result in loss or settlement or reshaping of infill soils as shown in Figure 5. The relationship between geometrical variables can be *"•» Anflie 0« expressed as: H^r2")0'v L / on Uftgth(L) Minimum lnfUIOtptn(df) where: <j> = minimum angle of repose of the infill material, |3 = slope angle, d = depth of the ceil (mm), L * length of the cell (mm), de = minimum acceptable depth (mm) of infill material. The recommended minimum de is h d the appropriate Geoweb cell size and depth based on a d» of tt d can be determined using Rgure 6. c*n D«p>0t(d) Figures Determination of Minimum Cell Depth Surface Anchorage • Typical surface anchorage for re-vegetation of earth slopes includes 3 or 5 tendons per 2.44 m (8 ft) wide Geoweb section, running down the slope, with 460 mm (18 in) ATRA™ clip anchors spaced at 1000 mm (3 ft) intervals along each tendon. Complete anchor details are determined through static analysis methods available from Presto. » Special slope anchorage requirements should be determined in accordance with guidelines presented in the section on Special Anchorage Methods. System Installation • On steep slopes, topsoil infilling should generally proceed from top to toe of slope. Excessive over filling and placement of large clumps of soil in the cells should be avoided. Tamping of infill is recommended to remove excessive air voids from the topsoil. Ensure that ail cells are completely filled after lightly tamping the infill. Over tamping (compacting) of infill may retard establishment of vegetation. • Seeding and installation of erosion blankets should immediately follow placement of infill. P.in 17-OCT-97 COPYRIGHT 1997 - PRESTO PRODUCTS COMPANY PAGE 7 OH 4 THE GEOWEB® SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW 45.00 Slope Angle (Degme) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 203 mm (8 in) Standard Ceft 152 mm (6 In) Sivxtert Ce* — -A — 102 mm (4 in) Standard C*H — * - 203 mm (8 !n) Urge Cefl --©- 76 mm (3 In) Standard Ce« • • A - -102 mm (4 in) Largt CM • m O ' '76 mm (3 in) Lvg* C*H i t Figure 6 Geoweb Type Selection for Various Slopes and Infills PAGE 8 OP 14 COPYRIGHT 1997 - PRESTO PSODUCTS COMPANY IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT As the client of a consulting geotechnical engineer, you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more construction problems than any other factor. ASFE/The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences offers the following suggestions and observations to help you manage your risks. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS Your geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. These factors typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; other improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask your geotechnical engineer to evaluate how factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the report's recommendations. Unless your geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, do not use your geotechnical engineering report: • when the nature of the proposed structure is changed, for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one; • when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed structure is altered; • when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; • when there is a change of ownership; or • for application to an adjacent site. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors considered in their report's development have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE A geotechnical engineering report is based on condi- tions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Do not base construction decisions on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with your geotechnical consult- ant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construction starts. Note, too, that additional tests may be required when subsurface conditions are affected by construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or ground water fluctuations. Keep your geotechnical consultant apprised of any such events. MOST GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your geotechnical engineer who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your geotechnical engineer can work together to help minimize their impact. Retaining your geotechnical engineer to observe construction can be particularly beneficial in this respect. A REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS CAN ONLY BE PRELIMINARY The construction recommendations included in your geotechnical engineer's report are preliminary, because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork, you should retain your geo- technical engineer to observe actual conditions and to finalize recommendations. Only the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by appli- cable recommendations. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommenda- tions if another party is retained to observe construction. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS Consulting geotechnical engineers prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your geotechnical engineer prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. GEOENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE NOT AT ISSUE Your geotechnical engineering report is not likely to relate any findings, conclusions, or recommendations about the potential for hazardous materials existing at the site. The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental exploration differ substantially from those applied in geotechnical engineering. Contamination can create major risks. If you have no information about the potential for your site being contaminated, you are advised to speak with your geotechnical consultant for information relating to geoenvironmentai issues. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Costly problems can occur when other design profes- sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain your geotechnical engineer to work with other project design professionals who are affected by the geotechnical report. Have your geotech- nical engineer explain report implications to design professionals affected by them, and then review those design professionals' plans and specifications to see how they have incorporated geotechnica! factors. Although certain other design professionals may be fam- iliar with geotechnical concerns, none knows as much about them as a competent geotechnica! engineer. BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT Geotechnical engineers develop final boring logs based upon their interpretation of the Held logs (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Geotechnica! engineers customarily include only final boring logs in their reports. Final boring logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid preparation. When this occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs are the all-too-frequent result. To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- tion , give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. (If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared and that developing construction cost esti- mates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. In other words, while a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor would be well-advised to discuss the report with your geotechnical engineer and to perform the additional or alternative work that the contractor believes may be needed to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes.) Some clients believe that it is unwise or unnecessary to give contractors access to their geo- technical engineering reports because they hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsi- bility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems. It also helps reduce the adversarial attitudes that can aggravate problems to disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical engineers. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports, and other documents. Responsi- bility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer geotechnical engineers' liabilities to other parties. Instead, they are definitive clauses that identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your geotechnical engineering report. Read them closely. Your geotechnical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to any questions. RELY ON THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE Most ASFE-member consulting geotechnical engineer- ing firms are familiar with a variety of techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for all parties to a construction project, from design through construction. Speak with your geotechnical engineer not only about geotechnical issues, but others as well, to learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit You may also wish to obtain certain ASFE publications. Contact a member of ASFE or ASFE for a complimentary directory of ASFE publications. : PROFESSIONAL FIRMS PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 COLESVILLE ROAD/SUITE G106/S1LVER SPRING, MD 20910 TELEPHONE. 301/565-2733 FACSIMILE-. 301/589-2017 Copyright 1993 by ASFE. Inc. Unless ASFE grants specific permission to do so. duplication of this document by any means whacsoevet is expressly prohibited Re-use of the wording ir, this document, in whole or in part, also is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes of review or scholarly research IIGR0294 creating s/ope -and shoreling protection APPLICATION OVERVIEW ^.Ki -.1' rsji*- ". ^«w-;;roitf s/ope and shoreline protection GEOWEB £ slope pr otectfoft solutions |H The Alcoa Geoweb® slope and shoreline protection system effectively solves challenging slope-surface stability problems while meeting a wide range of performance and aesthetic requirements. The system provides a means of fully-vegetating slope surfaces that otherwise could not support sustainable plant life. Single or multi-layered systems offer a broad range of surface protection treatments. The system provides long-term stability and effectiveness of both vegetated and armored slope surfaces. GEOWEB9 sustem • Confines selected infill material to resist anticipated • hydraulic flows. • Inhibits erosion and controls rill and gully formation, particularly in areas of concentrated flow over • ... erosive soils. Minimizes the down-slope movement and migration of embankment materials by functioning as anchored containers in the upper soil layer. Increases vegetation stability on slopes by encapsulating and interlocking with the vegetative root zone. Mill options A variety of infill materials can be used with the Geoweb® system based upon the details of the specific project/problem. • Topsoil with various selected vegetation • Aggregates from sand and gravel to larger rock or stone PICAL APPLICATIONS: Cut or fill embankment slopes Containment dikes and levees Shoreline revetments - Geomembrane protection Landfill lining, covers, and drainage Storm water basins " Waste water p," agoons • Dam faces and spillways Concrete of various strengths and surface finishes Combinations of the above to meet special conditions Abutment protection