Loading...
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.