2006-142 G City Of NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
January 18, 2007 Traffic Engineering
Attn: U S Bank
1074 N. El Camino Real
Encinitas, California 92024
RE: Park Place Homeowners Association
946 and 950 Woodgrove Drive
APN 260-221-27
Grading Permit 142-GI
Final release of security
Permit 142-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control,
all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading
and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited.
The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial
Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor.
Account#3-534-0510-5159 in the amount of$ 20,786.00.
The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please
contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering
Department.
Sincerely, ,
Debra Geishart
Engineering Technician ay Lembach
Subdivision Engineering Finance Manager
Financial Services
CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
Client
Debra Geishart
File
FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700
recycled paper
P A F L
T
7-A
PLAcH ,.i R
7 E P
7
V
T IR A 1-7"IT 11)F
-P T
11, F FF
7
:P'F D T
E�E
ERMIT --Bs'F7=r,
E z M A
P I r7
C"1 F D A F I
PEER T4 A T C H 17
L
%
9
17 6-7
J&
iNSIPECTION,
77
I lj T
; TIAL
COMPAC-lTr�N REF�)Z-
G-7 N E F R C F F T E T
441-4-
-H GFADING,
F-'T 10 1-
N A L T P lE-
HFREK 7
!NFC;RMATION IS C,RIRECT 7"T
7 A`17�
LAWS RCC 'YLT",T N,--
!�T-TNG
ANY PFRMIT T;ZSUFD PURSUANT
T T T T
S
C7
T",
Nr?%'ME
R C F CD 14 E
N
I
W_ `E Sampo Engineering, Inc.
Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying, Mapping
1
S
January 31, 2007
page 1 of 1
Todd Baumbach, Engineering Inspector
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: Grading Plan No. 142-G, Park Place Homeowners Association, Encinitas, CA
Dear Todd,
The grading under permit no. 142-G has been performed in substantial conformance with
the approved grading plan, or as shown on the attached as-graded plan.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Vince Sampo, PE, PLS
President
cc: Joe Walsh, Park Place Homeowners Association
1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas, CA 92024 ♦ phone:760-436-0660 ♦ fax:760-436-0659
info@sampoengineering.com
OCT 2 3 2006
ENu,, EERING SFRVICES
CITY OF ENCINITaS
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
PARK PLACE SLOPE FAILURE
946 AND 950 WOODGROVE DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Park Place Homeowners Association
C/o Mr.Joe Walsh, President
1460 Big Canyon Terrace
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007
S.E.A. 205121-01
February 7, 2006
S H E P A R E) S O N
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES I NC-
10035 Prospect Avenue, Suite 101 ■ Santee, CA 92071
SHEPARDS0N
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC. —
Groteclancal Lousultmrt.�: —
1=r(�hrcrrs 10035 Pro:pt,cI A��c'.,Suik'101
tiant°c.CA 9'0�1-4398
149-V21
._ rruarl�<<-�hclmnisrnr. orrr
February 7, 2006
S.E.A. 205121-01
Park Place Homeowners Association
c/o Mr. Joe Walsh, President
1460 Big Canyon Terrace
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007
ATTENTION: Mr. Joe Walsh
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Recommendations
Park Place Slope Failure
_ 946 and 950 Woodgrove Drive
Encinitas, California
Dear Mr. Walsh:
We have recently completed an investigation of the slope failure that occurred within the Park Place project
® and behind the subject residences. This study was conducted in accordance with the work scope presented
in our proposal,dated February 28,2005. Our findings,conclusions,and recommendations to assist in the
repair of the slope are provided in the attached report.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust that this slope restoration will proceed to a
successful conclusion.
- If there are any questions regarding the findings of this report, please contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
SHEPARDSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
�pROFESS/
�.1AM
William E. Ellis, RCE/GE F C �
ti
Senior Geotechnical Engineer/Vice President cc NO. 293 N z
# �EXp. 9-3p 07 a
4ndall L. Sherrod, CEG �9�FO CH
Vice President FCALIFOR
cc: (4)Addressee
Enclosures
Shepardson Engineering Associates, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . , ,
2.1 Conditions Prior to failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Description of Failure 1
2.3 Subsurface and Geologic Conditions Encountered .
2.4 Soil Strength Characteristics " " " " " " 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0 STABILITY CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
_ Figure No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.0 LIMI'T'ATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Plate No.
Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . Al
Cross-Section A-A' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2
Recommended Repair Section " " " " " " " " " A3
Slope Drain Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A4
APPENDIX B -Exploration Logs
Explanation of Logs . . . . . . . . . . .
Logs of Test Pits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B1
APPENDIX C 132-134
Laboratory Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cl-C4
APPENDIX D
Recommended Guide for Placement of Engineered Fill
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
PARK PLACE SLOPE FAILURE
946 AND 950 WOODGROVE DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
February 7,2006
S.E.A. 205121-01
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the findings of the geotechnical investigation of a slope failure which occurred last
winter at the rear of the residences at 946 and 950 Wood Grove Drive,Encinitas, California. These homes
are within the Park Place project. The site location is illustrated on attached Vicinity Map, Plate A 1. The
purpose of the investigation was to explore the soil and geologic conditions at the site, assess the slope
stability issues,and provide recommendations for repairs to be used by the project civil engineer in preparing
the remediation plans and specifications. The scope of the investigation is briefly outlined and included the
following primary tasks:
1) Excavation of three exploratory test pits.
2) Retention of representative soil samples for laboratory testing.
3) Laboratory testing of selected specimens to assess their engineering properties.
4) Engineering calculations of slope stability.
5) Preparation of this report containing the findings,conclusions and geotechnical recommendations
for repair.
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS
- 2.1 Conditions Prior to Failure
The site of the failure is a small portion of a very extensive slope at the rear of the houses, along the north
-- side of Woodgrove Drive.A Site Plan(Plate A2)shows a plan view of the slope failure area. In the area of
the failure it appears that this slope was constructed by placement of fill to a height of approximately 25 ft.
The placement of this fill was done in order to create level building pads above the slope during the original
grading for the subdivision. Based on the existing slope immediately adjacent to the failed area, it appears
that the slope ratio of the original slope was approximately 1.5: 1,horizontal to vertical. It appears that the
toe of the slope intersects the original natural ground that existed in this area prior to development. The slope
was landscaped with a brushy type ground cover, vegetation, and several well established trees. The slope
profile prior to failure is illustrated on the cross-section shown on Plate A3.
Shepardson Engineering Associates, Inc.
February 7, 2006
-2 S.E.A. 20512 1-0 1
We have been told that the drainage at the rear of the lots at 946 and 950 Woodgrove Drive was poor,
resulting in standing water in the rear yards, and possibly even reverse flow over the slope during times of
heavy rain. We have not verified this condition, however the elevations indicated on the topographic map
prepared by Santo Engineering suggests that the rear yards were essentially flat at the time the topographic
map was prepared.
2.2 Description of Failure
It is our understanding that the slope failure occurred during the heavy rains of the winter of 2004 - 2005.
The slope failure measures approximately 60 ft. at its widest point and extends from the top of the slope to
the toe of the slope for a total height of approximately 25 ft. The failure is relatively common shallow
rotational failure which occurs when the near surface soils of a relatively steep slope, usually a fill slope
becomes saturated to the point where the hydra-static and gravity forces overcome the strength of the soil
and result in a downslope slumping of the soils.
Our test pits indicate that the failure is relatively shallow with the depth from the surface of the existing slide
debris to the base of the failure to be on the order of a maximum of approximately 3 1/z feet. The soils
involved in the failure were clayey and exhibited very low strength.
2.3 Subsurface and Geolo is Conditions Encountered
As previously described, it appears that the area of the failure is comprised of a slope created by placement
of man-made fill. Based on a projection of the slope of the natural ground below the toe of the existing fill,
it appears that the maximum depth of fill at the top of the slope would be on the order of 20 feet. Our test
Pits in the slide debris encountered generally very clayey sand materials with occasional sandy clay type
soils. We suspect that these materials are representative of the types of fill soils used to construct the fill
pads and adjacent rear slope for the lots in this area. The soils encountered in our test pits were very wet to
saturated.
Our interpretation of the failure is that it is generally near parallel to the slope face and did not occur along
any defined pre-existing planar surface within the fill soils. The geometry of the failure suggests that the soil
strengths simply were not adequate to support the pre-existing 1.5:1 fill slope under the saturated conditions
which occurred as the result of the heavy winter rain.
_. Shepardson Engineering Associates, Inc.
February 7, 2006
-3_ S.E.A. 20512 1-0 1
2.4 Soil Strength Characteri stics
A sample of the onsite fill/slide debris soil was remolded to 85%relative compaction and subjected to direct
shear testing. This sample was taken from Test Pit#2 at a depth of 2 feet,and represented a clayey silt. The
remolded density was an attempt to model the in-situ conditions. The soils were very wet at the time of
sampling. The Direct Shear test results from the specimen is shown on Plate C 1. The internal friction angle
is 12°with a cohesion intercept of 650 psf.The resulting value is representative of a relatively low strength
material. A swell compression test was also conducted on a remolded specimen,that was initially compacted
near optimum moisture content (See Plate C2). Upon wetting the sample swelled 7.32%. This test result
is indicative of a soil with relatively high expansion characteristics. Two Compaction Curve Tests(ASTM
D1557) were performed as shown on Plates C3 and C4.
3.0 STABILITY CALCULATIONS
The slope stability analysis of the failure condition was conducted using an electronic computer program
GSTBL7,developed by Larry H. Gregory. The calculations used the failure surface identified in the field,
as denoted on Plate A2. The original ground surface profile is also shown, as extrapolated from the civil
engineer's topographic map. A back-calculated factor of safety of near 1.0, indicating a failure state, was
attained when using soil strength value of internal friction angle 4 = 12°, and an apparent cohesion of 83
lbs./sq. ft. A graphical analysis of this back calculation is shown on Figure No. 1.
-- Shepardson Engineering Associates, Inc.
February 7, 2006 _
� S.E.A. 205121-01
FIGURE NO. 1
--- - Co
i
i
0
M
N ° ._
!" O
--
O o° _ w O
N Q
Q, w
N _ CCC1
� W �
C
II Co O
c to d
O
cc
p
LL op .Q
E
— II
U o C fn
C0 fn I-
C N p U.
G1 0 N m
)
•� w J t4
LL a�i - _ Q 2
' i0
_ 4) LC) V
ao N � p y
O 3 y Czo - - - _ - , M
N ° to w
ea
M
Q�04' O
aE
_ Y rn N aai�,n V 8D 2
L. 2�. o (D fl.o N
ii U .-
a
CD_
C6 3:UO
C6 C QO
U)D
o ao
ln�Z�
) W
0
N N M N O O O Cu
!V N N N -Z
Shepardson Engineering Associates,Inc.
February 7, 2006 _5_
S.E.A. 205121-01
A different calculation was then conducted to analyze the surficial slope stability using the Skimpton
Method. This calculation revealed a factor of safety _ 1.0 when the friction an is 12°and the cohesion
is 141 psf.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The slope failure was caused by a combination of low soil strength,a relatively steep slope(1.48:1),and high
ground saturation following heavy rainfall. The recommended repair solution includes reconstruction that
improves all of the above conditions. We recommend reconstructing the slope at a flatter inclination no
steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, the use of imported soil with increased strength,the installation of a
subsurface drain in the upper part of the reconstructed slope, and the improvement of all of the surface
drainage around the buildings and yards at the top of the slope.
The cross-sections show the configuration of the proposed reconstructed slope,as provided on Plate A4. The
new construction will involve the removal of all of the slide debris and disturbed ground and benching into
the firm existing ground prior to placement of the imported soil. As shown in the cross-section, a toe key
10 ft.wide and 2 ft.deep should be constructed at the toe of the slope. Due to the low strength and saturated
conditions of the slope debris material,we do not recommend reuse of this material in the reconstruction of
the slope. We recommend that imported soil with a specified minimum shear strength be obtained and used
for construction of the new slope. The imported soil should have a friction angle of at least 30° and a
cohesion of at least 100 lbs./per sq. ft. Samples of any soils proposed for use in the reconstructed slope
should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for review and testing. The fill should be brought to near-
Optimum moisture content and then compacted in thin lifts to at least 90% of the maximum dry density,as
referenced to ASTM Test Method D1557.
We further recommend the construction of a slope drain in the upper part of the slope. This drain is intended
to intercept and collect seepage that might tend to infiltrate down from the upper part of the slope, and
otherwise saturate the lower near surface slope soils. The slope drain details are presented on Plate A5. The
perforated pipe, which is part of the drain system, should be connected to tightlines (non-perforated pipe),
which will discharge downslope, beyond the toe of the repair.
We suggest that a landscape expert be retained to select the proper type of landscaping to be used on the
surface of the reconstructed slope. The plants should provide a relatively strong root zone, and preferably
be relatively drought tolerant. The landscape irrigation system should be designed and maintained to prevent
Shepardson Engineering Associates, Inc.
February 7, 2006
-6_ S.E.A. 205121-01
excessive irrigation and saturation of the slope. Temporary slope protection measures, such as hydro_
seeding, may be necessary to provide protection to the slope until the permanent plantings are propagated
sufficiently to provide protection.
It is important that drainage of the building sites above the slope be corrected to provide for positive drainage
away from the slope and eliminate any ponding.
5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
This report completes our currently authorized scope of services for this project. Continued coordination
between the design engineer,client and our office is recommended in order to facilitate communication and
accurate incorporation of the geotechnical recommendations into the project design. It is recommended that
the final plans and specifications be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer as a means for documenting that
the design is compatible with the geotechnical conditions defined by this investigation. During the
construction phase,a program of geotechnical testing,monitoring,and observation should be undertaken by
the Geotechnical Engineer's representatives. These services are intended to permit the Geotechnical Engineer
to express the opinion that the geotechnically related work is in conformance with the project specifications
and plans,and to document changes encountered or made during construction. Site preparation,placement
of fill and backfill, and footing excavations should be subjected to the testing and observation of the
Geotechnical Engineer's representative.The above services are not included as part of our current authorized
x contract. An additional contract covering these services can be provided by our firm upon request.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
The services provided under this contract,as described in this report,include the professional opinions and
judgements based on the data collected. These services have been performed in accordance with current
local and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. The recommendations contained herein are
based upon information obtained from the test borings and/or trenches,observations of our personnel,results
of laboratory tests,and our experience in the area. The test explorations do not provide a warranty as to the
conditions which may exist between the points of exploration. The nature and extent of subsurface variations
may not become evident until earthwork construction occurs. If conditions are encountered in the field which
differ from those described in this report,our firm must be contacted immediately to review these conditions
and provide any necessary revisions to the recommendations contained in this report.
Shepardson Engineering Associates, Inc.
February 7, 2006
-7-
The findings of this report are valid as of this present date. Changes in the geotechnical S.E.A. 20512 1-0 1
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural process or he work of of the
this or adjacent properties. This report should not be used after a period of three ears f man on
review and written update by this office. In addition, this report is invalid for any use beyond the hrruts of
the project or for any construction not described herein.
This report is intended for the sole use of the client and/or their design consultant(s). It is the client's
to inform the architect/engineer of the contents of this report and ensure that the recommendations herein
are incorporated into the project plans. The client and architect/engineer should also ensure that the
contractor and subcontractors implement such recommendations during construction.
Shepardson Engineering Associates,Inc.
APPENDIX A
_
CY
CD
70 M
GARDENA CT
MELSA PC
FE OR
SUMMIT PL MACKINNON CT
SUMMIT COVE LIl
CATHY LN
OCEAN CREST RD
KINGS CROSS DR
AVENUE DE MONACO 'QNGS CRUSS
MAY CT f
NOLBEY ST
L5 v
vo
STAFFORD AVE
C3 df
SEA
Data Zoom 14-0
SHEPARDSON Date: February, 2006 Project No: 205121.01 Plate
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC.
Geotechnical Consultants: Vicinity Map Al
Engineers-Geologist Slope Remediation
Park Place
Encinitas, California
-
Q
X
220 2190-- - ------ N
*— ` a
// X 2209
2 21 9
OIREE SR/A/P _
- Jo
REF S71/,WP N O
2s � ..
s 1RfF N _ 2J2.8,r 2JJ8 2, ,T� z° Q Lt
Cl X _
CL LL 0v
t
a W Q� O)
_ 2.�66X r \ p 4 .4)
255.4 ANN
/ 2J9.5
---240
_._.
y TGW a�X ?� - N
245.5 S/k N 82172.7_'E _
245, �� 245. 244 - 245.7 �246. 2�
3r' ..�. 4 ?45.8 TOP AF. 4(iOb' SL6WE-- :_—. 8
245.7 DIRT 245.,T ..._ —Y -` •— �-- - ;.
?45.2 BU,Ay BU,Ay
4�
2449 I ?462X ai
2�
24 •-
x D£ 5.7 �
aR ��SIRUG' py
LINK, J ----__x
STEP
245
�A 259
D!¢AB %AW1 , X?455 �11 Z u
?456 9 z.
AP aPASS PATIO l�F, O W
2461
245.1 �-,
° 245.2 ? R£SJY�D � " y
w X !6¢ Q v U c�
Z
z w
lz
it
V) LLI
946 9
iii/`sG N
950
Afl'yf !
o
8
C
2448 24F5¢ c
X c
AP°ROX. II'
SO aPA °� w
6`
IIjRE Sy A4X. f- o
lX0 II/ n
2456 qn, ? aQ can E
. : �
Z n
X 2449 *4% a
J N
d
R_
5
CL
v
t
n
m
-
4O - o
Q0 Q
.
4QOb 0
N 8
ETA( 244 -
E
ORIWIVAY COCRET 9DEWAU( - -- _,
21 CONQUE c
0
R Z4Z98 Cdr R 24J
10 24J 48 It?439j o
,TO'
c
co
PDOV -0
910ODL.711 DRI VLE- 0
Q
LO O U-.) I
or) 04 LO I r t�tl
M
4N �l M N N
Q I N
0
N
0
O � C •C
O �
O
Z C C;
o tIL V V
a` U) ea
r M
N BYO
y �
O a cc y
U) m V
� o
c o
N
O
U' w
TS L
W
d
li M W
tm
_i /
X
W
Z
W
cn Q o
zi
C in O O
QU � Q C¢7 Um
/ C C Z
..
cv FX c
'Z O a w W e
/ U cn 2 U o 'o,
a Cn w C7 W
o (D
C� 2
aD
� N ti
d p
N
CL / m
�0' M
/ E
N
W
f
Q �
M M N O Mr)
N N N N N N r-
N N
`n CD LO
N N c 7 O
M N LO
j I Cif N N N
TI-
04 a
i
3T
U T
y
� Y
O 0 o.
N
0 U) CL
—_ U)
m O
N
10- N CD
C 0~J as
N / N L. 0
o
I
ov ° y v O
w a a a
I c co
i
I E a
I E Cl)
(n I o
N
�o I u.
U.
J
x
o
W
a I
I
0
cl
I- -
Q C
c
�o
C Z U
O w W u m
CL
I (na V) w 0W
0
2
a� I ti
O @ / 0
c — vi
� Q a m
CU Cb,
U)
i a v / J E
OL
�° co / w
I
/ r—J
I
J
0 r— O
/ J
I �
/ v
I o
/ U
i
I
Q ,
o to Ul)
IV
N N N N N N N
Uoi;Bne13
2.0
1.0 �-
Compacted Backfili
ro
Per-fabricated Drainage Parcel,
( Mira Drain 6000 or Similar )
314" max. Rock ( 6"1 Over Pipe )
io
4"0 Perforated P.V.C.
Discharge tie pipe - Wrap
:q Fabric Flap Around Pipe
.�; to Drain *1% Slope min.
Alternative A
No Scale
2.0
Finish Slope 1.0 I —
Properly Compacted Backfilt
oo•'a°'o° 3/4"Crushed Rock
o.
o.do•.o•"n° Encapsulating Filter
�!-0-i o Fabric - Supac 4 NP or
OW°.o aP Equivalent.
0,. O
OOAQ C '
460. Q4...
_ 4 Inch Diameter Perforated
P.V.C. PIPS. To Drain
'�`---� @ 1%min. Tightline Pipe for
Discharge Down Slope Every
Alternative B 100 Ft.or Less
Project No: 205121.01
SHEPARDSON Date: February, 2006 P Pate
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC.
Slope Drain Details
Geotechnica/ Consultants: Slope Remediation
Engineers-Geologist A 5
Park Place
- Encinitas, California
-- i
APPENDIX B
KEY TO LOG
• oo c •
� E a Uu. i� 3• i— V _u
Q li •h. ; O n °C N C
y O• � O O OF 7 O.
WS o` U
Level of Free Water d Date Measured
Seepage at Time of Boring
TYPI OF SAMPLE OR SAMPLER
SS -Standard Penetration Test Sample (ASTM)
Sample D 5 103 11 SC=Sand Cone Density Test
Interval H -California Sampler i3'O.D..2.375- 1.D.)
S1 -Shelby Tube (3'0.0.)
S2 - Shelby Tube (2.5'0.0.)
PS -Pitcher Barrel (3.0.0.)
• -Unable toy Retrieve Sample
8 - Bulk Sample
C -Chunk Sample
NUMBER OF BLOWS FOR LOWER 12' OF DRIVE SAMPLE
When SS Sampter Used,Blows are Taken Using
02
1401 t)Hammer-30' Drop
1
D 6 102 12 Energy Criteria on Log for Other Samplers
P -Push Under Hammer Weight
MOISTURE CONTENT Pcen Or Wei ht)
RjL_OENSITY (Pounds Per Cis c Foot)
lN) -Relative Compaction
OTHER TESTS PERFORMED
SG - Specific Gravity
DS -Direct Shear
UC -Unconfined Compression
TC - Triaxial Compression
RS -Residual Shear
CN -Consolidation
EX -Expansion
El -Expansion Index
MD -Maximum Density-Optimum Moisture
SE -Sand Equivalent
Unified Soil Classification System GS -Grain Size Determination
PM -Permeability
AL -Atterburg Limits
R -R-Value
CBR -California Bearing Ratio
CH -Chemical Tests
NOTES: These final logs represent Shepardson Engineering Associates' interpretation of the subsurface
conditions on the date of exploration based on field logs in combination with the results of laboratory
examination and tests of representative field samples. Therefore,these logs contain both factual and
interpretative information. The logs represent subsurface conditions'on the dates and at the locations
•indicated and are not necessarily representative of subsurface conditions at other times or locations.
_. The horizontal lines represent the approximate generic and/or lithologic boundary between types of
soils and/or rock material . The actual transition may be gradual.
The logs summarize only a portion of the geotechnical report. They should not be reproduced for
distribution while separated from the body of the report and the data contained on the logs should only
be used in conjunction with the report.
'Refusal' Indicates inability to extend excavation practically or economically with the exploration
- equipment used.
Date: February, 2005 Project No: 205121.01 Plate
SHEPARDSON
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES I NC. Explanation of Logs
Geotechnical Consultants: Park Place B1
Engineers-Geologists Encinitas, California
LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 1
Date(s) Excavated: 11121/05 Excavation Method: HAND
Logged B Surface Elevation:
99 y: KLS Pit Dimensions(in):
Bottom Elevation:
.....
H(ID11 U
Q.a Z.yN � Lm�� oQ 0 �� j m� MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
c�
SC FILL: clayey sand,medium dense to loose,wet,buff mottled gray and brown.
_ 1
SC-CL FILL:clayey sand-sandy clay,soft,very wet,gray brown,horizontal layer.
2 B 104 23.3 CN,M
SC —FILL: clayey sand,medium dense,wet to very wet,buff mottled gray and
brown.
3
Bottom of test pit at-3 ft.
4
5
Remarks:
Please refer to symbols and note limitations shown on"Explanation of Logs"
S H E P A R D S O N Date: December, 2005 Project No.: 205121-01
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC.
_
Geotechnical Consultants: Log of Test Pit TP- 1 Plate
Engineers-Geologists Park Place Canyon Slope BZ
1 of 1
a
LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 2
Date(s) Excavated: 11/21/05 Excavation Method:
HAND Surface Elevation:
Logged By: KLS Pit Dimensions(in):
Bottom Elevation:
w z-
w C U
o--
cc l- o 50 0 W 0-0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SC SLIDE DEBRIS: clayey sand,loose,wet, loose, reddish brown.
1
S BASE OF SLIDING: clayey sand-sany clay,very soft,very wet to saturated,
2 B MD gray brown to buff.
Layer dips out of slope approximately 30 degrees.
SC FILL: clayey sand,medium dense,wet,buff mottled gray and brown.
3
Bottom of test pit at-3 ft.
4
5
Remarks:
Please refer to symbols and note limitations shown on"Explanation of Logs"
,j1_W09WS H E P A R D S O N Date: December, 2005 Project No.: 205121-01
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC.
Log Of Test Pit TP- 2 Plate
Geotechnical Consultants:
Engineers-Geologists Park Place Canyon Slope B3
of 1 0
a
F-
LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 3
Date(s) Excavated: 11/21/05 Excavation Method: HAND
Surface Elevation:
Logged By: KLS Pit Dimensions(in): Bottom Elevation:
❑— mil— 00 �� TO MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
c�
SC SLIDE DEBRIS: clayey sand, loose,wet to very wet,buff mottled gray and
brown.
1
2
3
B SC-CL BASE OF SLIDING: clayey sand-sandy clay,vry soft,very wet to saturated,
4 __ __ __ _ gray brown.
SC FILL:clayey sand,medium dense,wet, buff mottled gray and brown.
Layer dips out of slope approximately 20 degrees.
5
Bottom of test pit at-5 ft.
Remarks:
Please refer to symbols and note limitations shown on"Explanation of Logs"
�S H E P A R D S O N Date: December, 2005 Project No.: 205121-01
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC. Plate
Log of Test Pit TP- 3
Geotechnical Consultants: Park Place Canyon Slope B4
Engineers-Geologists 1 of I o
a
i
1
i
l
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- APPENDIX C-
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
- Park Place Canyon U 200 400 buo 800
NORMAL STRESS(PSF)
Sample Location and Depth (feet): TP-2 @ 2.0
Soil Type and Visual Description: Olive sandy Silt
Sample Type/Sampling Method*: Remolded /B
USCS Group Symbol and Name:
Test Data
MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY(pco**
Initial Test: Initial Test: 102
Final Test: 20.4
TEST CONDITIONS: (C,D,S)
NORMAL LOADS(pso: 500,1000,150o
STRAIN RATE(in/min): 0.0010
Results
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE (degrees) APPARENT COHESION (ps�
Peak: 9 Peak: 649
Ultimate: 12 Ultimate: 650
See Explanation of Logs for sampler symbol definitions. **Average of three test points.
AwdOZSHEPARDSON Date: December,2005 Project No.: 205121-01
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC.
Geotechnical Consultants: Direct Shear Test Plate
_ �
�
o
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ Park Place Canyon Slope C2
CL
Cn
CU
CL
1,000 10,000
NORMAL LOAD (pso
Sample Location and Depth (feet): - SAMPLE DATA TP- I @ 2.0
Soil Type and Visual Description: Olive Sandy Silt,
I Sampling Method/Sample Type: B Remolded
TEST RESULTS
USCS Moisture Contentt %ina Dry Densi (pc�
I 7n�E
Group Symbol mo T_ /
Elnitial Final Initial Final
1E3.5 26.6 104 97
Water Added @ (ps�: 150 Expansiion(,)/Hvdiroco-mpression(-) (%): +7.3
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC. Swel I/Com press ion Test Plate
Geotechnical Consultants:
C)_ z
U
Sample Location and Depth (feet): TP- 1 @ 2.0
So:!Type and Visual Description: Olive Sandy Silt,
140 Results
....................... ... ...
138 .....;.... .....:.......... .......... .. ..: ... D -91 Method:
ASTM 1557 1557A
..... ..... .............. ...........;......;: ...
Maximum Dry Density(p
cf :. . 116
136 ..... Optimum Moisture C on t ent
%): 13.5
In-Place Moisture Content
23.3 134 ..........:.....:.....:.....:.
:.....;...........
USCS Group Symbol:
:..................
132 ..... ....:..........:.....:. Ligw emit(%):
•d L'
.... .....;......... :. = Plastic Limit
130 .....
:..... .....:....:. ercen
..'..
Percent Finer 3/4-inch:
.....,.................:.....:.....:.
: ....:............
128 =- : Percent finer 1/4-inch:
;....:.................: . Specific Gravity:
..
...... ....... ;-
126 .....
_....:.....:....:. ..
:.....:.................
124 ..... ....:............
n .. .. ..
= 122 .....:.................
.. .. .. .. :... ......w %3 120 .....;....:.....:.
z ............
} 118 .. ..
116 . ..
:....:.....:....:.....:.....:.....:.
..... ..........:..........;......... ..........;..........:...............
;....
Zero Air Void Cu
nr
es
. ._ :...._. Gs=2.75 114 .....; ................. .......... Gs 2 70
.. : •
112 ..........
Gs=2.65
. .....................
_ 110 .......... ..... ..........:.... .....:.....'..... ...
108 . ..
106 .....:..... .....>.
_ 104 ..
..
102 ..... .......... .
100 :.....:.....:..... ...... .. ..
0 5 10 20
15 25
--- WATER CONTENT-PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
S H E P A R D S O N Date: December, 2005 Project No.: 205121-01
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC,
Compaction Curve Plate
Geotechnical Consultants: C3
Engineers-Geologists Park Place Canyon Slope
0
a
U
Sample Location and Depth (feet): TP-2 @ 2.0
Sc
il Type and Visual Description: Olive Sandy Silt,
140 Results
138 .......... .....;.... ..... .......... .. ..:. ... D 1557-91 Method:
ASTM 1557A
. ;.. ..::. ...
aximum D Dry Density(p.... .. ...
120
136 Optimum Moisture Content 11.0
11.0
In-Place Moisture Content(%):
134 ..... ....:.....>.....:.....i.
USCS Group Symbol:
.................
132 ..........:.....i d....<.....:. Liqui Limit(%):
.... .....;.......... ..........:.......... Plastic Limit
130 .....:....:..... ....:. Percent ent Finer 3/4-inch:
.......................;.....:.....:.
................
.... .....
: •....
Percent Finer 1/
4
-inch.128 _............. .: . Specific Grav it y;.... ..... ............
126 ..... .... ..... . ;...
124 ..... ....:.....:....:.
...................
a ........... .....,...........; .. .. .
= 122 .....:.....:.............
w ..
120 .....:.....:.....:....;.
Z .. . ........... . :: �. ..
} 118 .......... ................ .....:...
:.....:..... .... ..... .......... ..... ...
116 .....;..........;.... .....:.....
.............
..........:.....:...........:.....:.....:.....:....'..... .. "' Z ero Air Void Cury es
114 .......... ................. ..... .... .....'... . - .. Gs=2.75
. ... ..
.........._. Gs=2.70
........... .........
112 .......... ................ .....;....;.... .....;.....: . Gs=2.65
:... .. ..
110 .....;.... ......
,..
108 .......... .....i.......... .
.............
106 .....:.....:..... .... .
104 .....:.....:.....:....;. :.
102 .....:..... .....:. : : : .. ..
:....................
:.............................. ....:
100 : :.....:.......... .....: .. . .
0 � 5 : 1:0 : .. .. 20
15 2.5
- WATER CONTENT- PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
_ �S H E P A R D S O N Date: December, 2005 Project No.: 205121-01
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES TES INC.
Compaction Curve Plate
Geotechnical Consultants: C4
Engineers-Geologists Park Place Canyon Slope
0
a
U
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GUIDE FOR PLACEMENT
OF ENGINEERED FILL
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 Pu ose
The intent of this guide is to outline procedures for placing engineered fill soil to the lines and grades shown
on the approved plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report
prepared by Shepardson Engineering Associates, Inc. are a part of this guide and would supersede the
provisions contained in the guide in the case of conflict.
1.2 Definition of Terms
O Fill: All soil or rock material placed by man to raise the natural grade of the site or to backfill
an excavation.
0 Onsite Material: Soil and/or rock obtained from excavations within the boundaries of the
project.
O Import Material: Soil and/or rock hauled in from offsite.
o Engineered Fill: Fill which has been placed under the properly documented observation and
_. testing of a Geotechnical Engineer.
O ASTM Specifications: Specifications contained in the latest edition of the Standard
Specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials.
O Relative Compaction: The ratio,expressed as a percentage,of the in-place dry density of a soil,
to the maximum dry density of the same material based on specific test procedures referenced
in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report.
o Geotechnical Report: The soil and geologic reports (including addendums) were prepared
specifically for the development of the project. The owner should confirm that this report is
current and valid for the project as presently planned.
o Geotechnical Engineer: A registered professional Civil Engineer authorized by the State of
California to use the title Geotechnical Engineer(G.E.).
O Engineering Geologist: An Engineering Geologist certified by the State of California.
o Design Civil Engineer: A California Registered Professional Civil Engineer responsible for the
preparation of the grading plans and as-built topographical surveys.
Rev.7/02
SHEPARDSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES,INC.
- 2 -
1.3 Testing and Observations
The person responsible for the quality of the fill placement should employ a qualified Geotechnical Engineer
to provide observation and testing of the fill construction.
The Geotechnical Engineer should, when under contract, observe the grading operations during both
preparation of the site and construction of any engineered fill. He should perform a sufficient number of
field observations and tests to form an opinion regarding the conformance of the site preparation, the
suitability of the fill material, and the extent to which the results of the testing indicate that the degree of
compaction of the constructed fill meets the project specification. The Geotechnical Engineer will inform
the owner if the fill does not meet the specifications and can assist in determining the limits of fill not
meeting specified requirements. It is the responsibility of the contractor and owner to keep the Geotechnical
Engineer notified regarding work schedules and changes in the project, or plans.
It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to determine the nature of the work and the equipment/method
required to adequately perform all work in accordance with applicable codes/ordinances,the Geotechnical
Report and the contract documents.
1.4 Existing Soil Conditions
A geotechnical investigation has been performed for this site. The contractor should familiarize himself with
geotechnical conditions at the site,whether covered in the report or not,and acknowledge his understanding
of all findings,conclusions,and recommendations associated with the grading,or make a written request to
the owner for appropriate clarification.
2.0 SITE PREPARATION
2.1 Clearing
Prior to excavating or filling all brush, vegetation, rubbish, debris and topsoil should be removed or
otherwise disposed of so as to leave the areas to be filled free of vegetation and debris. Any soft and/or wet
spots should be corrected by draining and/or removal of the unsuitable material. The limits to which removal
will be extended should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Grubbing consists of the removal of
all tree stumps,roots or other projections larger than 2 inches to a depth at least 3 feet below finished grade.
Topsoil may be stockpiled for reuse subject to evaluation by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any asphaltic
pavement materials removed during clearing should be disposed of offsite. Concrete fragments, free of
reinforcing,may be incorporated into fill providing the size,distribution,and placement meets the provisions
herein.
Rev.7/02
SHEPARDSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES,INC.
-3 -
2.2 Site Preparation
The ground to receive fill or improvements should be excavated of all loose and porous soil to the depth
recommended by the Geotechnical report. The natural ground exposed at the level which is determined to
be satisfactory for the support of the fill should then be plowed or scarified to a depth of at least six inches
and until the surface is free from ruts,hummocks,or other uneven features which inhibit uniform compaction
by the equipment to be used. The scarified ground should be brought to the recommended moisture content
and compacted to the minimum relative compaction specified in the investigation report. Where undisturbed
dense bedrock is exposed at the surface,scarification and recompaction may be omitted if acceptable to the
Geotechnical Engineer.
2.3 Benching
Where fill is placed on hillsides or exposed slope areas, the existing surface soil should be removed. The
depth of removal will vary based on site-specific conditions. If existing slopes are steeper than five
horizontal to one vertical(i.e.,20%),horizontal benches should be cut into firm and competent undisturbed
soil or bedrock in accordance with illustration on the attached "Standard Grading Guidelines." The width
and frequency of the subsequent, higher benches may be vaned by the Geotechnical Engineer based on
ground conditions and steepness of slope. The new horizontal portion of each bench should be compacted
prior to receiving fill. Ground slopes flatter than 20% should be benched when recommended by the
Geotechnical Engineer. The benches should be constructed with the surface inclined at not less than 2%
gradient into the slope.
2.4 Subdrains
Canyon subdrains should be installed where recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Details for
subdrain construction are provided in the investigation report.
3.0 FILL MATERIAL AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
3.1 The fill should consist of soil material approved for use by the Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative. This material may be obtained from the onsite excavation areas and any other approved
sources,or by blending soil from one or more sources. Samples of proposed import fill should be submitted
to the Geotechnical Engineer for review and testing at least five working days prior to its importation.
Rev.7/02
SHEPA"SON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES,INC.
-4-
3.2 Fill material should consist of soil so graded that at least 40% by dry weight of the material passes a
standard No. 4 sieve. Soil with greater than low expansion potential should not be placed within the upper
four feet of the fill unless and placement is provided for in the preliminary geotechnical investigation, or
specific acceptance by the Geotechnical Engineer is obtained. A definition of the expansion potential is
presented in the investigation report. The material used should be free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances,and should not contain rocks or lumps greater than twelve inches in least dimension
except as provided for in the investigation report. Soil with objectionable characteristics should be disposed
of offsite or in nonstructural fill areas,as defined by the project Design Civil and/or Geotechnical Engineer.
The Geotechnical Investigation Report may also specify additional soil suitability parameters for the fill.
3.3 During grading operations, testing may be performed to further determine the physical characteristics
of the fill. Any special treatment recommended as a result of this testing should become an addendum to this
guide. Boulders greater than twelve inches in least dimension, or the thickness of the compacted lift,
whichever is least, should be placed in accordance with the 'Rock Disposal Detail" presented in the
investigation report. Continuous observation and testing by the Geotechnical Engineer is a necessity during
rock disposal operations.
3.4 All fill material shall be free of hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations,
Title 22,Division 4,Chapter 30,Article 9 and 10: 40CFR and any other applicable local, state,or Federal
regulations. The Geotechnical Engineer is not responsible for the identification of possible hazardous
material. The Geotechnical Engineer may however observe soil discoloration,odor or other indicators that
may prompt him to recommend that the owner terminate grading operations in the suspect area,and assess
the conditions prior to proceeding.
3.5 Unexpected soil and/or groundwater conditions differing from those identified in the Geotechnical
Report may be encountered by the contractor during grading. Such conditions shall be brought to the
immediate attention of the Geotechnical Engineer for appropriate action.
4.0 PLACING,SPREADING AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL
4.1 The engineered fill material should be placed in approximately level layers which,when compacted,do
not exceed approximately eight inches in thickness,or less if necessary to obtain uniform,minimum specified
relative compaction. Each loose layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed during the spreading
to promote both uniformity of material and moisture content.
Rev.7/02
SHEPARDSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES,INC.
-5 -
4.1.2 When the moisture content of the fill material is below that recommended by the Geotechnical
Engineer,water should be uniformly added and blended until the moisture content is satisfactory. When the
moisture content of the fill material is above that recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer, the fill
material should be aerated by blending, scarifying,or other satisfactory means until the moisture content is
satisfactory. Fill,with a moisture content outside the recommended limits,is normally considered unsuitable.
4.1.3 After each layer has been placed,mixed and spread evenly,it should be thoroughly compacted to not
less than 90%or the minimum relative compaction as referenced to ASTM D1557. Compaction equipment
should be of such design so as to compact the fill material to at least the recommended density in a
continuous and uniform manner over the entire area.
4.1.4 Fill slopes should be compacted by a means of sheepsfoot and grid rollers. Compacting of the slope
face should be accomplished by uniformly backrolling the slopes in maximum 4 feet fill height intervals of
elevation gain, or other methods producing satisfactory results to a relative compaction of at least 90%
followed by grid-rolling. Overbuilding and compacting the fill slope beyond the finished slope line with
subsequent trimming of all excess material is an acceptable alternate method.
5.0 TRENCH BACKFILL
Trench excavations for utility lines and pipes should be accomplished to the line and grade shown on the
project plans. The utility line or pipe should be properly bedded by backfilling the space under and around
the pipe with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the top of the pipe. The
sand backfill should be uniformly compacted in place before the engineered backfill is placed on the sand
bedding.
The soil material accepted by the Geotechnical Engineer for use as backfill over the pipe,should be watered
and mixed as necessary prior to placement. The backfill should be compacted to a density equivalent to at
least 90% of the maximum laboratory dry density determined by the Geotechnical Engineer.
In-place density tests and observations of the backfill procedures should be made by the Geotechnical
Engineer during backfilling. The contractor should provide test holes and exploratory pits required by the
Geotechnical Engineer during backfilling. The contractor should provide test holes and exploratory pits
required by the Geotechnical Engineer to permit sampling and testing. Shoring and/or sloping of the test
holes should be provided by the contractor when the trench depth exceeds five(5)feet.
Rev.7/02
SHEPARDSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES,INC.
- 6-
6.0 TREATMENT AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING
After grading is completed and the Geotechnical Engineer has finished his observations of the work, no
further excavation of filling should be done, except with the advanced notification of, and under the
observation of, the Geotechnical Engineer.
It is the responsibility of the contractor to prevent erosion of the freshly graded area during construction and
until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed and established.
Surface drainage should be maintained during and following construction to avoid damage to the site or
adjoining properties.
7.0 SEASONAL LIMITS
No fill material should be placed,spread or rolled while it is at an unsuitably high moisture content,or during
unfavorable weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by rain,fill operations should not be resumed
until tests by the Geotechnical Engineer indicate that the moisture content and density of fill already placed
are still within recommended limits. The contractor must control surface water to avoid damage to finished
work on the site or adjacent property.
8.0 UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS
In the event that site or soil conditions are encountered during site preparation and construction that were
not encountered during the preliminary geotechnical investigation, the Geotechnical Engineer should be
notified immediately to permit evaluation and submittal of alternative recommendations as needed. The
Geotechnical Engineer should be notified of any significant changes in the proposed site grading.
9.0 REPORTING
Upon completion of the work,Contractor should furnish Owner a certification by the Design Civil Engineer
stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within proper tolerance of elevations shown on the
grading plans and that all tops and toes of slopes are also within tolerance of the positions shown on the
grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Design Civil Engineer should survey
its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Design Civil Engineer should
verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of
- obstructions.
Rev.7/02
SHEPARDSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES,INC.
-7 -
The Owner;s responsible for furnishing a final as-graded geotechnical report to the appropriate governing
or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a Geotechnical Engineer and,
and if necessary by a California Certified Engineering Geologist,indicating that the geotechnical aspects of
the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the
Specifications.
Rev.7/02
SHEPA"SON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES,INC.
•
CL
ci
c E u
E 10
1 \
42 °C N
1 \ a = e ao W
1 \ E z v ra \ E a p, Z
1 e O a \ •- v o W
CL
1 \ c U W W \ \ d1
w LL
Cc 0
Q O 7 J c O 10 v
w m Z O o \ \ \, a cr O Z
O p Gj J a o > v. v m
O \ k O\ ► O O C LU
1 � \ a w — z Z �\ \ a � eh W Z K E
7% m \ o waa Q c\ \ r oC � E a.
O V \\ -� O w W \ \� ° a Z J = t V E 0
1
3 o Z o Q� w o a m' vc
o n
0 .
D c
oil
t LU N
a is
i M \\ \\ Q m CL _=_
• io c o
\
No
O O o ~
040 "In
0 O C
1� c 2
1 N Vf u • .. ; W C Z�;
O v 2
U4
=u 19
2 .°0
•- �W W
• O
O
M 01
M C O , '=' rLL
et ° ge
w ° o a c c w °
� .. a Nee o c
v o 0 o w v ; zI
a .;i
ble mo ° o � =' �
c0 — u x w
; t w ` ty a � o► a .�t •
o E t o m v ac IN cae o s
° ci.: ovc ° u i = eE °
1 0 � a c a c a c E \ U v et 3ca ; rY
1 e = s M a c a O M e r e
7 C �- •
_ o e a a
nr � v v c o w \ c o v —0113 cc C '!I
Of
° cy c ; r m06 ° Me
° N e a _\
iL ` � tl,t ° E 'a° 0 \ 0
m � � � Y z
c e o Z o o $ O
� � z
ga a_ W
E \ ` a >
° m U) v \ H m
U in '�
vs` f e Q W ` E o ° N W
Toff « E � p \ = � c a
y V!
e Q O
7 N -j
�t- _ N
J J I m °
C J
Z J J
c m U
It
Q a
o a LL NW u w z .. e N
W F
CL J d I 8 ° o O_ x
c m
o c r\ t C a `. � " ; U IM
v� `v ` � � «� a c / eo -° a
o ` \ r o a U o E « c
o E C e � .- vv
cTe �Er.
e E • c w e c a a i o a
— t ° \ o a e r ` c o e
e g S
� = a. eo Eo e � N c n• c
3'>, o c a
a o .� oue
w \ ivOoY QA « � o lac
o x CL a U a
> tn z ca z
a i
�= e
s
FINAL REPORT OF OBSERVATION
AND COMPACTION TESTING
SLOPE RECONSTRUCTION
PARK PLACE
_ 946 AND 950 WOODGROVE DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Park Place Home Owners Assoc.
1460 Big Canyon Terrace
Cardiff-by-the-Sea,Ca. 92007
S.E.A. 205121-01
December 13,2006
E - S H E PA R ID S O N
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES I NC.
10035 Prospect Avenue, Suite 101 ■ Santee,CA 92071
SHE PARDSON
ENGINEERING Assoc es INC.
December 13, 2006 S.E.A. 205121-02
Park Place Home Owners Assoc.
1460 Big Canyon Terrace
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Ca. 92007
ATTENTION: Mr. Joe Walsh
SUBJECT: Final Report of Observation and Compaction Testing
Slope Reconstruction
Park Place
946 and 950 Woodgrove Drive
Encinitas, California
Reference: Geotechnical Investigation Recommendations
Park Place Slope Failure
946 and 950 Woodgrove Drive
Encinitas, California
Feb. 7, 2006
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request,Shepardson Engineering Associates,Inc.provided observation and
relative compaction testing during the slope restoration of the subject site, from November 6, 2006
through November 29,2006. The slope repairs were conducted in accord with the recommendations
presented in the above referenced report.This current report summarizes the results and geotechnical
conclusions drawn from the performance of these services.
1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services provided by our office, included the following:
1. Observation of slide debris removal, preparation for new fill and fill placement.
2. Performance of in-place density tests in recompacted natural ground, and compacted fill;
Shepardson Engineering Associates,Inc.
December 6, 2006 -2- S.E.A. 205121-02
3. Laboratory testing of samples representative of native and import fill soils;
4. Expression of professional opinions regarding conformance of the earthwork relative to the
Geotechnical Investigation Report;
5. Preparation of this final compaction report.
2.0 GENERAL
The project consisted of reconstructing the existing failed slope to a flatter slope ratio using
compacted,select import and soil in order to reduce the risk of future failures.The general contractor
for this project was Joe Walsh. The grading contractor was Mike Warner Grading.The grading plans
for the project are titled "Grading Plans for Park Place Homeowners Association,Lot 581, map No.
7808, Lots 425 & 426, map No. 7787, prepared by Sampo Engineering, and dated July 28, 2006.
References to elevations and locations herein are based on field stakes placed by surveyor or grade
checker.
The Geotechnical Report for the project was prepared by Shepardson Engineering Associates, Inc.
and is referenced above.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located on the west side of Woodgrove Drive and with-in the Park Place project.The slope
reconstruction was located in the rear yards of addresses 946 and 950 Woodgrove Drive.
4.0 EARTHWORK
4.1 Site Preparation
At commencement of grading operations, the site conditions were generally as described in the
referenced Geotechnical Investigation Report. The area of reconstruction was initially cleared of tree
stumps and vegetation and the resulting stockpiles were exported offsite. In addition,the slide debris
consisting of clayey soils from the slope failure zone were also exported off site.
Shepardson Engineering Associates,Inc.
December 6, 2006 -3- S.E.A. 205121-02
4.2 Select Import Soils
Select fill soils with relatively low expansion potential and a shear strength equivalent to an internal
friction angle of at least 30 degrees, and a cohesion intercept of at least 100 psf when compacted to
_ 90% of the maximum dry density were specified for the reconstruction of the slope. Three sources
of import fill soils were used by the contractor for this project. Site 1 was used in minor volumes
(less than 100±yards) and was located near Del Vino and Santolina Ct., Carmel Valley Ca. Import
site 2 was located at the SW corner of Birmingham and Mackinnon streets.Import site 3 was near the
corner of 7' St. and Statford in Del Mar Ca.
The laboratory test results to assess suitability for each of the import fill materials are presented on
attached plates (C5 through C7).
4.3 Fill Placement
Prior to placing fill, a keyway was excavated at the toe of slope. The area was excavated to firm
ground, approximately two feet below existing grade. The bottom of the excavation was then
scarified to a depth of approximately six inches,moisture conditioned and recompacted. In addition,
all loose soils, including those disturbed during the slope failures, were removed.
The slope was constructed to slope ratio slightly less than the 2:1 ratio shown on the plans. The top
of slope and toe of slope were moved out 2 feet and 10 feet respectively, in order to allow room to
reconstruct the slope next to the new wood deck at 946 Woodgrove Drive.
Following site preparation fill materials were spread,moisture conditioned to near-optimum moisture
content and compacted. Fill placement and compaction was accomplished with a 939c Trac Loader
_ dozer. During grading,compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests performed
as discussed in the following section.
Shepardson Engineering Associates, Inc.
December 6, 2006 -4- S.E.A. 205121-02
4.4 Field and Laboratory Testing
In-place density test locations were selected on a random basis. The locations of the tests were
referenced by the use of hand level and visual approximations. These measurements were performed
by our field representative and were based on stakes set by Sampo Engineering. Field density tests
were performed in accordance with ASTM D1556-00 (and/or) ASTM D2922-05. Soil moisture
contents were determined for each density sample. The results and locations of the tests are provided
on the plates in the attached Appendices. Laboratory compaction tests to determine maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-02,Method
A or C on each representative soil type. The laboratory test results are also attached.
Compaction tests were taken during grading to document the degree of relative compaction being
achieved. If the compaction testing indicated less than 90%in a test,the area was reworked until tests
of 90% relative compaction, or better, were achieved.
4.5 Finished Slopes
The face of the reconstructed slopes were periodically track-walked with bulldozer equipment upon
completion. In-place density tests were performed in the near-surface,compacted fill soils along the
slope faces. Compaction of the slopes proceeded until in-place density tests results of ninety percent
relative compaction, or better, were obtained.
We recommend that final site improvements provide for the mitigation of possible slope erosion by
the planting of drought-tolerant landscape vegetation, and by the construction of surface drainage
sufficient to direct and discharge surface runoff waters away from slopes. Irrigation should be kept
to a minimum level, i.e.just sufficient to support the vegetative cover.
4.6 Slope Drainage
_ A subsurface drain was installed in the face of the reconstructed slope. The drain was constructed
per detail shown on the soils report titled "Slope Drain Details", dated February 2006, Detail A-5 ,
Alternative " ". The location of the drain is shown on the attached plot plan.
Shepardson Engineering Associates,Inc.
December 6, 2006 -5- S.E.A. 205121-02
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Grading Conformance
In our opinion,the grading at the subject site to date has been accomplished in conformance with the
intent of the recommendations presented in the original Geotechnical Report for this project.
5.2 Surface Drainage - 950 Woodgrove Ave.
We understand that it is planned to regrade the finish ground surface at the rear of 950 Woodgrove
Drive to drain to the front in order to redirect runoff away from the reconstructed slope. This should
be accomplished as soon as possible in advance of the rainy season.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and opinions stated herein apply only to the conditions presented on the date of our
final observation. Any grading after this date should be subjected to testing and observation by this
office. Our services were performed and the findings obtained,in accordance with generally accepted
engineering principles and practices. No other warranty is expressed or implied. The subsurface
conditions described herein,and represented by the attached tests,can change significantly with time
either by the act of man or nature. We accept no responsibility for subsequent changes of this site
caused by actions outside our knowledge or control.
If you have any questions after reviewing our report,please do not hesitate to contact this office. We
appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you.
Respectfully submitted,
SHEPARDSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-. oe?,OFESS/pN
-' William E. Ellis, RCE/GE � No. 293 m
Senior Geotechnical EngineerNice President * O�Exp. 9-30-07 z
Pv �
cc: (4)Addressee sTgTF0F CAL� �\P
Enclosures
Shepardson Engineering Associates, Inc.
�O
° T—
of -- ._ -�_ -- - -1�, a
Co
N �
to _ - N
N ^
`N
N
Sftp
o° '22!1 ° o a�
O cc
an) `n a O L cu
cu cu
Slow kcV 0 ._ cu
13 ° X Zg?5 \. . o o Y p
f2 O
U28,r ` - ?.118 ?.tI.3X o a � a (6
® i �
uie�p-qns�o uogedoi 'xoJddy_ `.° 2,19.5 p
sn °
TAP or
?!S WS g TGl° OF.. Op l5,
5 — ...
BUS�f I, BV,�y
2ls2X
xaYR 0�'(� UNDE;p
245,7
/' L1'S13'/Clpyi' X X
STEP ?4�g
1t jR�r ��BfQY ?!59
2!5 o
yf 5 m m
8- 245.6 1 w c 0
PAD z4, t � ° M U)0 O {a)
?l5.1 x 24(,1 ` W E J
'SOX W a
4 ?!X2 2lB J m° U �°
Nn u u
� I N N N
-r.�.. r � I r
�s) uc, -
? 8 2l, 4 z
X
X. s"So
11 X O Q GJPA �RD cn c
B w N
?456
"46'--.1464 vii 'rn
Q °
Q u U U°
Z U '
X 244.9 w W s
Z v
U •c
W
0 w
40.010' 4QOYJ'
N 8YiJ7'E ❑ sT,�
ORI N I M CRET 90EWALK
c�avaPE�
242 98 GIG T/ !.3
PDO V
WOODun
�?A148
Sample Location and Depth (feet): TP- 1 @ 2.0
Soil Type and Visual Description: Olive Sandy Silt,
140 Results
.•.......••.• = ASTM D 1557-91 Method: 1557A
138 .......... ..... .... ..... ..... .... .. .. Maximum Dry Density (pcD: 116
:.....:.....:..........:.....:.......... _.. ...
Optimum Moisture Content(%): 13.5
136 ..... :.....:.................; . ...
.•... ....• •... In-Place Moisture Content(%): 23.3.
134 .....: :.......... USCS G
roup Symbol.
:.....:.....:.....................;..........
'
Liquid Limit't(%):
132 .............................:..... ....:..... .. Plastic Limit
:........... .....:.....:..... .................... ... Percent Finer 314-inch:
130 .....:............:...........:.... .....:.................. ..: ..
-inch-
.................. ....................... P ercen t Finer 1/4 .
128 .......... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... I...: . Specific Gravity:
126 .....:.....:.................:.....:.....:........... .... ..
124 .... .....:.....:....:.....:.... .....:.....:....:. .
Q .
122 .....:.....:.....:....:.....:.... .....:...
w
120 ......................,..........:............:..........:....:.................
F- .. .. . .. .. ..........
.. ..:. .... .... . .
Z) 118 .....:.....:........... .....;..........
} :..... ..... .... ..... .... .... .. ..
.:.. .:.. ..:.. ..
116 . ............................... .. .. Z ero Curves
........................:.... .....:................... .. _ .
..�.:. ... . ... ... .. Gs 2 75
114 ..... . .....:.... . .... . ...... .. :• • •• •••••• � Gs_ .
70
:.....:..... .... .. . Gs=2.65
112 .......... .....;.... .....;.......... .....;... .. ..
110 .......... ........... .......... .. .. ..
)8 .......... ......... ..
10b ... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
164 ....:..........:..................:............:................:.....:................. ..
102 ... ....:..... ....:.....:.... ... .:.....:......... .. .. .
1000 5 10 15 20 25
w WATER CONTENT- PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
S H E P A R D S O N Date: December,2006 Project No.: 205121-02
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC. Plate
Compaction Curve
Geotechnical Con�uL ants: Park Place; anyon Slope C 1
FVineers-GeolopVstt c
Sample Location and Depth (feet): #2 Import Carmel Vally @ 1.0
Soil Type and Visual Description: Olive Yellow Brown Silty Sand,
140 Results
................ ASTM D 1557-91 Method: 1557A
138 .......... ...........:..... .....;....;.. ..:. ... Maximum Dry Density(Pcfl
121
136 ..........:.....>....;...........:.....
Optimum Moisture Content(%): 12.5
In-Place Moisture Content(%):
134 .....:.................:..........:............:.... USCS Group Symbol.
:.....:.....:.... .....:.... .....:........... Limit
Liquid L' t
132 .....:.....:.....:....:.....:....<.....:.....:...., Plastic Limit(%).
:............................. ..........:......... ... ...
P ercen t Finer 3/4-inch:
130 .....:.......................: 7..... .
.... ................. .....;.... .................. Percent Finer 4-inch.
128 ..... Specific Gravity:
126 .....:.........................:.....:.....:.................
124 .....:.....:.....:....:.....:.... .....:.....: ..
a .. .. .. ..
122 .....:......................
:....:.....:.....:...
.... .... ....
.. .. ..
120
.. .. .......... .. .
.. ..:. .. . . .
118 .......... .......................................... .. .
......................... .... .....:...........:.. ........
.....:.....:.....:.....:.. .: ..
116 .......... ..... .......... .......... Zero Air Void Curves
:.... .....: � Gs-2.
75
... ..... ........ .......
114 ...................... . ........................ .. ��..•••� ��.••• Gs_ .70
........................:.... .....:... .............:.......... .. . Gs=2.65
112 .......... ........... ..... .... .....;.. ..;....;.....: .. .. ..
110 .....;.... ..... .......... .... .....:.......... . .. ..
108 .......... ..... .....................:.....:......... .. ..
106 ..........:.....>............... .....:.....;........ .......... .. .
104 .....:...........:....<.....:.....:...................... .. .. ..
102 .......... ..... ...........:.......... ..... .... ..... ..
1000 5 10 15 20 25
WATER CONTENT-PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
S H E P A R D S O N Date: December,2006 Project No.: 205121-02
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC. Plate
Compaction Curve C2
Geotechnical Consultants: Park Place Canyon Slope
Engineers-Geologists a
U
Sample Location and Depth (feet): #3 Import Mackinnon& Birmingham St.@ 1.0
Soil Type and Visual Description: Olive Brown Silty Sand,
140 Results
........................ ASTM D 1557-91 Method: 1557A
138 .......... ................ .... ..... .. ... ... Maximum Dry Density(pcfl
117
.• .....:. ...
Optimum Moisture
Content 7.3
.....:...136 :. : ............. ..... In-Place Moisture
..........
)
(%
..........:.... ..... . ....134 ..... i USCS G ro up Symbol:
:.....:.....:....:.....:...........:.....:....:. .
Liquid Limit
132 .....:.....:..........I.....:.... .....i........... Plastic emit(%)
PI L'
:.....,...................... .......... ......... : Percent Finer 3/4-inch:
130 .......... .....
:....:.....:.....:.....:.....:....:....... .
.......... .....%........... ..... .... ..... .. Percent Finer 4-inch.
128 .......... .....:.... ......................... Specific Gravity:
126 ..........:.....:....:.....:.... .....:....._....:....
124 .....:..................: ..
a .. .. ..
F- 122 .....:............I I.....:.....:..... .......................... .....
.
w
� 120 ....................................:.....:.....:.....:.....:......
.. ..
.. ..
118 .....:............:..... .....:.... .... .. ..
: .... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .......... .......... ..... .. .: ..
116 .......... ................ .... ..... .. .. .. Zero Air Void Curves
...:.....:.....:.....:..... ....:.....:....;..... .. .. _
............. :.. ..:. .:... .:. Gs 2.75
114 .......... .....;........... ... ..... ... ,. .. .. Gs=2.70
:............... .. .... Gs-2.65
112 .......... .....:.... ..... .....;.... .....:.....;.........
110 .......... .....;.... ..... .... .....;.....•....
108 ................................. .....;.....:.........
106 .................:....:.....:.... .....;.....;................ ..
104 ..... ...............:.....:.....:.....:.....;....:...
102 .....:.....:............................:................. .. .. .
1001.....
0 5 1.0 15 20 25
WATER CONTENT-PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
S H E P A R D S O N Date: December,2006 Project No.: 205121-02
m ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC. Plate
Compaction Curve C3
Geotechnical Consultants: Park Place Canyon Slope
Engineers-Geologists a
U
Sample Location and Depth(feet): #4 Import 7th St.&Stratford St @ 1.0
Soil Type and Visual Description: Yellow Brown Silty Sand,
140 Results
.•... .......... = ••• =.• ASTM D 1557-91 Method: 1557A
138 .......... .....:.......... ..... .... .. ..:. ... Maximum Dry Density(Pcfl: 130
.....;....: : Opt imum Moisture
Content 8.8
.................:..... .... .....136 In-Place Moisture Content(%):
134 .....:.....:.....:............;.....>....;.....:..... USCS Group Symbol.
:.....:.....:...........:.....:.....:...........
: .. Liquid imi
132 .................:....:.....:.....:.....:.....;..... Plastic Limit
.................
......:........... .... ................ ... ..
..... P ercen t Finer 3/4-inch:
130 .................: : .....:
.......... .....:..... ..... .......... Percent Finer 4-inch.
128 .......... .. `................ ...:........ .:..... Specific Gravity:
126 .............................:. ...:.....:..........
.:.....:
124 .......... ................. .......... ........... . .
a .. .. .. .. .. .
F- 122 ..........:.....:....:.....:.....:..... ... .. ..
.
w
120 ..................
.......................:.....:.....:...........
F ...................... ..
118 .......... .....:.....i.....i.... .... .. .. ..
:..... ..... ....:..... .......... ................. .......... ................... .:. ...
116 ..................... ..... ..... .... ..... .. Zero Air Void Curves
.......................:.....:.....:.....:...._.....:.... .. ........... .. _
: :.. ..:. Gs 2.75
114 .......... .................. ..... .... ..... .. _ .
.... ..:. . .. .. .. .... .
:.....:.....:...._.....:.....:.....:....._..........:.....: .. .. . Gs=2.65
112 .......... .......... ..... .... ..... ......
....
110 .......... ................. ....................
108 .......... ...........:.......... .....:.....:..........
106 .....:........................:.....:.....:............... .. .. .
104 .....:............:....:...........<.....:.....;....:...
102 ..........:.....:....;..... .....:.....:..... ....:....
1000 : 5 10 1'5 20 25
WATER CONTENT-PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
S H E P A R D S O N Date: December, 2006 Project No.: 205121-02
APOENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC. Plate
Compaction Curve C4
Geotechnical Consultants: Park Place Canyon Slope o
Engineers-Geologists a
U
-
_
�
�
o
co
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
Sample Location and Depth (feet): #2 import Carmel Vally @ 1.0
Soil Type and Visual Description: Olive Yellow Brown Silty Sand
Sample Type/Sampling Method- Stock Pile /B
USCS Group Symbol and Name:
Test Data
MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY(PcD**
Initial Test: 12.6 Initial Test: 108
Final Test: 19.2
TEST CONDITIONS: (C,D,S)
NORMAL LOADS(psD: 1000,2000,3000
STRAIN RATE(in/min): 0.0010
Results
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE (degrees) APPARENT COHESION (psD
Peak: 31 Peak: 281
Ultimate: 35 Ultimate: 119
*See Explanation of Logs for sampler symbol definitions. **Average of three test points.
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC. Direct Shear Test C5
Geotechnical Consultants: Park Place Canyon Slope
—
_
-
�
�
o
-
Lu
ui
01 3,500
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
NORMAL STRESS(PSF)
Sample Location and Depth(feet): #3 Import Mackinnon& Birmingham St.@ 1.0
Soil Type and Visual Description: Olive Brown Silty Sand
Sample Type/Sampling Method*: B
USCS Group Symbol and Name:
Test Data
MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY(pc�**
Initial Test: 7.4 Initial Test: 105
Final Test: 16.5
TEST CONDITIONS: (C,D,S)
NORMAL LOADS (ps�: 1000,2000,3000
STRAIN RATE (in/min): 0.0010
Results
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE(degrees) APPARENT COHESION (ps�
Peak: 32 Peak: 333
Ultimate: 32 Ultimate: 151
*See Explanation of Logs for sampler symbol definitions. **Average of three test points.
Awl ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC. Direct Shear Test
Geotechnical Consultants: Park Place Canyon Slope
_
_
'
01 Jo_00 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
0 500 1,500
NORMAL STRESS(PSF)
Sample Location and Depth(feet): #4 import 7th St. &Stratford St @ 1.0
Soil Type and Visual Description: Yellow Brown Silty Sand
Sample Type/Sampling Method*: Bulk /B
USCS Group Symbol and Name:
Test Data
MOISTURE CONTENT(%)** DRY DENSITY(pcf)**
Initial Test: 9.0 Initial Test: 117
Final Test: 13.7
TEST CONDITIONS: (C,D,S)
NORMAL LOADS (psfl: 1000,2000,3000
STRAIN RATE(in/min): 0.0010
Results
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE(degrees) APPARENT COHESION (psf)l
Peak: 32 Peak: 384
Ultimate: 35 Ultimate: 173
see Explanation of Logs for sampler symbol definitions. Average of three test points.
Date: December,2006 Project No.: 205121-02
_ C
Geotechnical Consultants: Park Place Canyon Slope U
c
_
S.E.A. 205121-02
December 2006
COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY
PARK PLACE SLOPE REPAIR
Grading
Elevation Dry Relative
or Depth Density Compac-
of test Moisture (0/61 (lbs/ Soil tion
Test Location ft. guAl Type
No. Date
Toe key
219.0 14.4 106.1 1 92
1 11/7/06
220.0 14.6 107.9 1 93
2 11/7/06 Toe key
3 11/13/06 Slope fill 222.0 14.0 109.2 2 91
4 11/13/06 Slope fill 223.0 14.6 110.0 2 91
225.0 9.3 112.3 2 93
5 11/16/06 Slope fill
112.9 2 94
6 11/16/06 Slope fill 225.0 9.8
118.4 4 91
7 11/16/06 Slope fill 227.0 10.5
8 11/16/06 Slope fill
228.0 10.0 119.4 4 92
116.9 4 90
9 11/16/06 Slope fill 230.0 9.4
118.6 4 91
10 11/16/06 Slope fill 230.0 10.3
11 11/17/06 Slope fill 232.0 9.9
117.2 4 90
9 4 88
12 11/17/06 Slope fill 232.0 9.6 114. see retest
#13
13 11/17/06 Slope fill 232.0 10.2
119.2 4 92
14 11/20/06 Slope fill
234.0 11.6 109.3 3 94
15 11/20/06 Slope fill
236.0 8.5 113.4 3 97
16 11/20/06 Slope fill 238.0 9.5
107.6 3 92
17 11/21/06 Slope fill 240.0 9.0
124.7 4 96
18 11/21/06 Slope fill
242.0 9.7 121.1 4 93
19 11/29/06 Face of slope 232.0 10.6
119.0 4 92
20 11/29/06 Face of slope
236.0 11.4 120.0 4 92
Shepardson Engineering Associates,Inc.
S.E.A. 205121-02
December 2006
SUMMARY OF COMPACTION CURVES
PROJECT: Park Place Slope Repair
MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
ASTM: D1557-02
Maximum Optimum
Density Moisture
(Pcf)
Soil Type Description
1
Olive sandy silt 116.0 13.5
2
Olive yellow, silty sand 120.5 12.5
3
Olive brown, silty sand 116.5 7.3
4 Yellow brown, silty sand 129.8 8.8
Shepardson Engineering Associates,Inc.