GEOTECHNICAL DATA AND DESIGN REPORT

STANLEY BOULEVARD
SAFETY AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BETWEEN THE CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON AND LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
29 JUNE 2010
Prepared for:
Alameda County Public Works Agency
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, California 94544
Prepared by:
Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
119 Filbert Street
Oakland, California 94607
14 May 2010 Page i
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
2.0  SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................................2 
3.0  SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................3 
4.0  GEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................................4 
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ................................................................................................4
4.2 SITE GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................4
4.3  SURFICIAL SOILS ........................................................................................................4 
4.4  SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................5 
4.5  TECTONIC SETTING ....................................................................................................5 
4.6  SEISMICITY ...................................................................................................................5 
5.0  EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAM ....................................................................7 
5.1  UTILITY POTHOLING .................................................................................................7 
5.2  EXPLORATORY BORINGS .........................................................................................7 
5.3  LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................8 
5.4  PERCOLATION TESTING ............................................................................................8 
5.5  SOIL TREATMENT AND FERTILITY ANALYSIS ...................................................8 
6.0  GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................10 
6.1  GENERAL ....................................................................................................................10 
6.2  SEISMIC HAZARDS ...................................................................................................11 
7.0  ENGINEERING ANALYSES..............................................................................................14 
7.1  STABILITY ANALYSES ............................................................................................14 
8.0  DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................17 
8.1  DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................17 
8.2  CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................22 
9.0  LIMITATIONS .....................................................................................................................25 
10.0  REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................26 

TABLE 1. ACTIVE FAULTS .........................................................................................................6
TABLE 2. BACK CALCULATED SOIL COHESION RESULTING IN VARIOUS
FACTORS OF SAFETY ......................................................................................................15
TABLE 3. MSE RETAINING WALL DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS .....................................18
TABLE 4. PILE AND PILE CAP DESIGN PARAMETERS ......................................................19
TABLE 5. CIDH PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS .......................................................................20
TABLE 6. CONCRETE AND MASONRY RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS ...21

FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION
FIGURE 2. TYPICAL SECTION
FIGURE 3. SITE GEOLOGY
14 May 2010 Page ii
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
FIGURE 4. SURFICIAL SOILS
FIGURE 5. SEISMIC HAZARDS
FIGURE 6. SITE PLAN AND BORING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 7. LOADING DIAGRAMS

APPENDIX A. BORING LOGS
APPENDIX B. PERCOLATION TEST DATA
APPENDIX C. SOIL TREATMENT AND FERTILITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES RESULTS
14 May 2010 Page 1
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Alameda County Public Works Agency is proposing to improve the safety and visual aesthetics
of Stanley Boulevard between the city limits of Pleasanton and Livermore in an unincorporated
area of Alameda County. Project elements include undergrounding the existing aerial utilities,
constructing a multi-use pathway along the south side of the roadway, constructing Class II bike
lanes, streetscaping, reconstructing the existing median to incorporate landscaping (trees &
ground cover), modifying existing highway lighting and traffic signal systems, improving the
drainage system, and pavement reconstruction and slurry seal in appropriate areas to
accommodate these improvements. In the vicinity of Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area,
the project will include the construction of a retaining wall to both provide a level pad for a new
pathway and to protect the path against erosion which could damage the pathway. The project
will improve pedestrian and bicyclist access as well as improve the visual aesthetics along
Stanley Boulevard.
The purposes of this Geotechnical Data and Design Report are to develop information regarding
the surface and subsurface soil conditions near the proposed improvements and to provide
geotechnical engineering recommendations for the planned project.
14 May 2010 Page 2
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
The services completed in developing this Geotechnical Data and Design Report included the
following:
 Coordinating with County staff and project consultants;
 Reviewing published soil and geologic maps of the area;
 Reviewing previous geotechnical reports prepared for the site;
 Drilling and sampling of three exploratory borings;
 Evaluating the materials encountered in the borings;
 Conducting laboratory and field testing of selected samples recovered from the borings;
 Completing eight on-site percolation tests and obtaining samples for soil chemistry and
fertility testing;
 Subcontracted soil chemistry and fertility analysis;
 Performing engineering analyses; and
 Developing geotechnical design parameters for the project.
This report presents the results of the review of available data, field exploration, laboratory
testing program, and engineering analysis, and geotechnical design considerations and
recommendations pertaining to the design and construction of the proposed project. Evaluation
or identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials at the site was not requested and
was beyond the authorized scope of this project. Our investigation has been specifically limited
to developing information regarding the geotechnical conditions within the vicinity of the areas
of the proposed improvements.

14 May 2010 Page 3
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Alameda County Public Works Agency is planning to improve the safety and visual aesthetics of
Stanley Boulevard between the City Limits of Pleasanton and Livermore in an unincorporated
area of Alameda County as shown in Figure 1. Stanley Boulevard is a four lane arterial that
trends east-west and provides access between downtown Livermore and Interstate 580 to the east
and downtown Pleasanton and Interstate 680 to the west.
As part of the project, Stanley Boulevard will be widened and a multi-use pathway will be
constructed on the south side of the road. One segment of the project is to be located at the crest
of a cut slope, which was excavated on the south side of the road during quarrying activities
which took place prior to the 1970s. The cut slope has inclinations between 2H:1V (horizontal:
vertical) to 0.8H:1V. The quarry pit was eventually filled with water, deeded over to the East
Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), and became Shadow Cliffs Lake and the Shadow Cliffs
Regional Recreation Area. Based on our discussions with East Bay Regional Park District
personnel and County personnel, it is our understanding that the quarry pit was over 115 feet
deep prior to being filled to within 50 feet of the top of the cut. The lake was reportedly filled
circa 1972.
A retaining wall is to be constructed at the top of the slope in order to create a level area to
accommodate the road widening and pathway. The bottom of the wall will be located on the cut
slope and will have either a leveling pad or a pile and pile cap foundation. The retaining wall
will be approximately 1,900 feet long and will vary in height from 4 feet to up to 12 feet tall.
Typical cross sections of the roadway and retaining wall configurations are shown in Figure 2.
Several bioswales are also planned along the side of the road to mitigate storm water runoff from
the roadway. The bioswales will consist of a “V” shaped earth ditch through though which
water will percolate and then enter a subdrain system which will then discharge into the storm
drain facility.
14 May 2010 Page 4
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
4.0 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The project site is located within California’s Coast Ranges province. The province includes
many separate ranges, coalescing mountain masses, and several major structural valleys shaped
primarily by tectonic forces. The Coast Ranges are long series of north-west trending ranges
separated by parallel river valleys. Some of the prominent ranges within the province include the
Mendocino Range to the north, Diablo Range to the east of San Francisco, and the Santa Cruz
Mountains. The geology of this province can be defined by two distinct basement rock core
complexes adjacent to one another and separated by large magnitude faults. The first core
complex is defined by a Jurassic-Cretaceous eugeosyclinal assemblage consisting of the
Franciscan rock. The second complex is defined by Early Cretaceous granitic intrusives and
older metamorphic rocks of the Salinian block. Large portions of the province are covered in
late Cretaceous and Cenozoic sedimentary bedrock, while recent Quaternary tectonic movement
has shaped the terrain that characterize the topography today. Deposits of late Pliocene and
Pleistocene age are mainly slightly consolidated gravels, sands, and silts with some interbedded
clays. Most of the sedimentary strata are continental in origin accept those adjacent to the
present coast.
4.2 SITE GEOLOGY
The site geology in the project area has been mapped by Dibblee (1980), Nilsen (1975), and
Crane (1995). Dibblee, Nilsen, and Crane all map the site as alluvial deposits as shown in Figure
3.
4.3 SURFICIAL SOILS
The surficial soils in Alameda County have been mapped by the USDA NRCS (2009). The
NRCS map, shown in Figure 4, indicates that the project site is underlain by two soil types; Yolo
Loam and Gravel Pits.
Yolo Loam is found on 0 to 3 percent slopes and consists of alluvium comprised of clay (CL)
and silt (ML) derived from sandstone and shale. The Liquid Limit ranges between 25 and 35
percent. The Plasticity Index ranges between 5 to 15 percent. The shrink-swell potential is low.
The erosion hazard is slight in cultivated areas.
The gravel pits consist of gravely sand (SG).
This mapping is consistent with the materials observed at the site and those encountered by
previous exploratory borings and our recently completed exploration.
14 May 2010 Page 5
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
4.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Cal Engineering & Geology prepared a geotechnical report for a cut slope failure at the northeast
corner of Shadow Cliffs Lake in 1998. The affected portion of the cut slope failed in early
February 1998 during a record rainstorm. Geotechnical borings and field observations of the
failed slope revealed that the slope was comprised of 10 to 16 feet of stiff to very stiff sandy silt
underlain by very dense gravel and sand to the bottom of the borings (approximately 46 feet
below grade).
4.5 TECTONIC SETTING
The project site is located within the greater San Francisco Bay Area which is recognized as one
of the more seismically active regions of California. The seismic activity of the greater Bay
Area results from the complex movements along the transform boundary between the Pacific
Plate and the North American Plate. Studies have shown that the Pacific Plate is slowly moving
to the northwest relative to the more stable North American Plate at an average rate of about 40
mm/yr (USGS, 2003). The differential movements between the two crustal plates caused the
formation of a series of active fault systems within the transform boundary. The transform
boundary between the two plates extends across a broad zone of the North American Plate within
which right lateral strike slip faulting predominates. In this broad zone, the San Andreas Fault
accommodates less than half of the average total relative plate motion. Much of the remainder in
the greater San Francisco Bay Area is distributed across the Calaveras, Hayward, Greenville,
Concord Green Valley, and Rodgers Creek fault zones.
4.6 SEISMICITY
4.6.1 Active Faulting
The site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone for active faults as designated by the
State Geologist (CDMG, 1982). The nearest active fault, the Calaveras fault system, is mapped
about 7 kilometers west-southwest of the project area (CDMG, 1998). The Greenville fault
system is mapped about 13 kilometers northwest. Some of the other active faults systems which
could induce strong ground shaking at the site include the Hayward, San Andreas, Concord-
Green Valley, San Gregorio, Rodgers Creek, Napa, and Ortigalita fault systems. The distances
to the fault systems are presented in the Table below (CDMG, 1998).
14 May 2010 Page 6
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
Table 1. Active Faults
Fault Name Fault Type Distance From Site
Calaveras Type B 7 km west-southwest
Greenville Type B 13 km northeast
Hayward Type A 17 km southwest
Concord-Green Valley Type B 27 km west-northwest
San Andreas Type A 47 km southwest
A large magnitude earthquake on any of these fault systems has the potential to cause significant
ground shaking at the site. The intensity of ground shaking that is likely to occur at the property
will generally depend on the magnitude of the earthquake and the distance to the epicenter. In
general, the greater the distance to the epicenter, the lesser the intensity of the ground shaking
that is anticipated to occur at the site.
4.6.2 Liquefaction and/or Earthquake Induced Landslides
In 2008, the California Geologic Survey released a seismic hazard map of the Livermore 7.5-
Minute Quadrangle in conformance with Public Resources Code Section 2693c. The map
indicated areas where the historical occurrence of liquefaction and/or earthquake induced
landslides indicate a potential for permanent displacements. The Seismic Hazard Zone map
indicates that the road embankment above Shadow Cliffs Lake has a low potential for
liquefaction, as shown in Figure 5. However, the map does indicate that soil underlying the lake
and along the banks of the lake has the potential to liquefy during a seismic event. Additionally,
the map indicates that the east edge of the Stanley Boulevard embankment has the potential for
permanent ground displacements due to earthquake-induced landslides. This mapping is likely
due to both the steepness of the embankment (a previous quarry excavation) and the potential
liquefaction of material near the lake and its impact on global stability of the embankment.
14 May 2010 Page 7
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
5.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAM
5.1 UTILITY POTHOLING
Potholes were excavated by Subtronic to determine utility types, alignments, and elevations of
existing utilities. The results of the potholing work are summarized on plans prepared by the
Alameda County Public Works Agency. The utilities identified in the vicinity of the project
include underground gas lines, fiber optic cables, electrical lines, and storm drains.
5.2 EXPLORATORY BORINGS
The site was explored by drilling and sampling three exploratory borings on 6 May 2009. The
borings were excavated by Moore Twining Associates, Inc. using a truck-mounted drilling rig
equipped with 6-inch diameter hollow stem augers to a depth of 60 feet. All of the borings were
located on the south side of Stanley Boulevard at the edge of the pavement. The approximate
locations of the exploratory borings are shown in Figure 6.
An engineer from our office maintained logs of the borings, visually identified and classified
soils encountered in general accordance with ASTM Standard Practice D 2488, and obtained
representative samples of the subsurface materials.
During the drilling operations, soil samples were obtained using one of the following sampling
methods:
 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Split Spoon Sampler; 2.0 inch O.D., 1.4 inch I.D.
 California Modified (CM) Split Spoon Sampler; 3.0 inch outer diameter (O.D.), 2.5 inch
inner diameter (I.D.)
The split spoon samplers were driven 18 inches (unless otherwise noted) into undisturbed soil
using a 30-inch drop of a 140 pound hammer. The number of blows required to drive the SPT
and CM sampler 6 inches were recorded for each sample and are included on the boring logs in
Appendix A.
The soil conditions were fairly similar in each of the borings along the alignment. The borings
generally encountered alluvium consisting of silty sand (SM) with gravel and clayey sand (SC)
with gravel to the depths explored. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 50 feet which
appeared to correspond to the same elevation as the water surface on Shadow Cliffs Lake. More
detailed descriptions of the materials encountered in the borings are included on the boring logs
in Appendix A.
14 May 2010 Page 8
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
Soil samples obtained from the borings were packaged and sealed in the field to reduce the
potential for moisture loss and disturbance and brought to Cal Engineering & Geology’s Oakland
office for storage and potential laboratory testing.
5.3 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed at the Cal Engineering & Geology soils testing laboratory in
Oakland, California to obtain information concerning the qualitative and quantitative physical
and mechanical properties of the samples recovered during the subsurface exploration program.
Tests were performed in the in general conformance with applicable ASTM standards.
Moisture and density tests (ASTM D2937) were performed on select samples from all three
borings. Based upon the tests, the materials encountered had dry densities between 118 and 133
pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and moisture contents between 4 and 10 percent. The results are
presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.
5.4 PERCOLATION TESTING
Eight percolation test locations were chosen by a consultant to the County for design of the
bioswale backfill soil. The percolation tests were performed by a geologist from our office at the
chosen test locations in accordance with the analysis guidelines, “Bay-Friendly Landscape Site
Analysis,” published by StopWaste.org. Tests at six of the locations resulted in calculated
percolation rates between 0.41 and 1.5 inches per hour. One of the locations had an average
percolation rate of 22 inches per hour and another location drained immediately due to the
presence of animal burrows in the vicinity. Bulk samples of the soil were retained for potential
soil chemistry tests and fertility analysis. The results of the percolation tests are attached as
Appendix B.
5.5 SOIL TREATMENT AND FERTILITY ANALYSIS
The bulk samples, which were retained during the percolation tests, were analyzed by Soil &
Plant Laboratory, Inc. of San Jose. The following analyses were performed:
 pH
 electrical conductivity
 nitrate
 ammonium
 phosphorus
 potassium
 calcium
 saturation percentage
 sodium chloride
 sodium adsorption ratio
 boron
 percent sand-silt-clay
 lime
 percentage of organics
14 May 2010 Page 9
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
The analytical results and recommendations are included in a report prepared by Soil & Plant
Laboratory, which is attached as Appendix C.
14 May 2010 Page 10
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 GENERAL
Based on our understanding of the project, geologic research, laboratory test data, and
engineering evaluations, we conclude that the proposed construction is feasible provided that the
geotechnical recommendations in this report are adhered to in the design and construction of the
project.
The subsurface exploration and laboratory testing indicate that the soils encountered in the
borings drilled in the vicinity of the proposed Stanley Boulevard improvements consist of silty
and clayey sand with gravel. These materials are consistent with the published geologic and soil
mapping of the area.
The primary geotechnical considerations for the subsurface conditions at the locations of the
improvements are:
 soil strength
 slope stability
 erosion
 groundwater
 dynamic response (addressed in Section 6.2)
Each of these considerations is discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.
6.1.1 Soil Strength
Evaluation of the soil strength was made through a comparison of the blow counts from the
borings and published correlations between effective friction angle and corrected blow count.
The strengths arrived at based upon the correlations are consistent with published values for the
soil encountered. The soil strength is sufficient for the proposed improvements.
6.1.2 Slope Stability
A portion of the proposed improvements along the south side of Stanley Boulevard is located
above a steep slope created from pit mining of gravels. As a result of the mining activities, side
slopes of Shadow Cliffs Lake (the former gravel pit) have inclinations that are as steep as
0.8H:1V. Due to the steepness of the existing cut slope below the proposed widening, the design
of the retaining walls will need to include location specific global slope stability analyses which
consider and account for the existing steep slopes. A pile supported foundation system will be
14 May 2010 Page 11
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
required for the retaining wall to increase global stability of the slope/wall configuration. Slope
stability analyses for the planned widening are included in Section 7.
6.1.3 Erosion
The slope below the proposed retaining wall has evidence of some minor sliding and surficial
erosion, however based on the long term performance of the embankment, no specific measures
other than hydro-seeding the areas disturbed by the contractor’s operations are needed.
6.1.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 50 feet after drilling in the three
borings. This depth appears to be at or near the lake water surface elevation. This depth may not
necessarily reflect the groundwater surface at the time of construction.
Although the groundwater encountered is likely below the limits of construction, seasonal
variation in the water level and perched groundwater conditions can occur. The contractor
should be prepared to address the presence of groundwater regardless of when construction
occurs. It should be noted that the presence of groundwater may affect drilling and placing of
cast-in-place concrete piles. As a result the project technical specifications should include
provisions which require that the contractor anticipate and be prepared for such conditions and
that drill hole casing may be required.
6.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS
6.2.1 Fault Rupture
The site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone for active faults as defined by the State
Geologist and the nearest mapped active fault (Calaveras) is located approximately 7 kilometers
west-southwest of the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to primary faulting at
the site is considered to be low and no specific design or construction measures are required to
address fault rupture.
6.2.2 Seismically-Induced Ground Shaking
Due to the proximity of the site to numerous active fault systems which traverse the greater San
Francisco Bay Area, it is likely that the property will be subjected to the effects of a major
earthquake during the design life of the proposed improvements. The effects are likely to consist
of significant ground accelerations. These ground movements may cause damage to the
proposed improvements. This potential hazard should be taken into consideration when
designing any structural systems for the project. The retaining wall/embankment configuration
will need to be evaluated with respect to pseudostatic (seismic) slope stability. The results of the
analyses performed are presented in the Section 7.0 Engineering Analyses.
14 May 2010 Page 12
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
6.2.3 Liquefaction
Our exploratory drilling revealed that the project site is primarily underlain by medium dense to
dense silty sand with gravel and clayey sand with gravel to the depths explored. In general, these
materials increased in density with depth. Groundwater was observed at a depth of about 50 feet
and generally corresponded to the water surface elevation in Shadow Cliffs Lake. Although the
borings encountered dense materials at depth, less dense zones could be present, especially along
the perimeter of the lake. As a result, we judge the potential for widespread liquefaction directly
below Stanley Boulevard and the proposed improvement to be low, but there is potential for
some liquefaction to occur at below lake level. We judge that the probability of liquefaction
induced damages occurring to the planned improvements to be low to moderate. If liquefaction
of material along the edge of the lake does occur, the resulting damages are likely to be limited
to isolated portions of the improvements. As a result, we do not recommend remedial measures
be implemented to alleviate the liquefaction potential.
6.2.4 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a type of ground instability that results in ground displacements that occur
when liquefaction of a soil layer causes insufficient strength for lateral stability. This
phenomenon occurs when either the ground surface or the soil layer subject to liquefaction is
sloped, or when there is an open slope face or stream channel adjacent to a potentially liquefiable
soil layer. The material encountered at and below the depth of groundwater encountered was
generally dense and not prone to liquefaction. Since the potential for deeper, less dense zones
does exist, we judge the potential for lateral spreading to occur at the site to be low to moderate
and do not recommend remedial measures.
6.2.5 Seismically-Induced Subsidence
Seismically-induced ground shaking can cause vertical subsidence of specific types of soils.
Seismically related settlement generally results from the densification of loose sands and sandy
silts due to vibrations or liquefaction. The borings encountered clayey sand with gravel and silty
sand with gravel which was generally medium dense in the upper 10 to 15 feet and dense below
that depth. At boring B-3, some loose silty sand was encountered. Based upon the materials
encountered in our exploratory borings, the potential for significant seismically-induced
subsidence is low to moderate. As a result of the type of improvements proposed (multi-use
pathway, etc.), no remedial measures are recommended.
6.2.6 Ground Lurching
Ground lurching is a phenomenon whereby strong seismic shaking causes cracking and
deformation of the ground surface in areas underlain by soft weak soils. The cracking and
deformation are the result of the disruption of the passing earthquake waves. Based on the
14 May 2010 Page 13
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
known site soil conditions and our analysis, there is a low potential for ground lurching at the site
and no remedial measures are recommended.
14 May 2010 Page 14
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
7.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES
7.1 STABILITY ANALYSES
7.1.1 Analysis Methods
Static and pseudostatic stability of representative cross sections of the retaining
wall/embankment were evaluated using limit equilibrium slope stability methods. Pseudostatic
stability analyses were performed using a pseudostatic coefficient determined according to the
methods described in 2008 California Geologic Survey document SP117A titled, “Guidelines
for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.” The mean moment magnitude
used in the pseudostatic stability analyses was determined from a probabilistic seismic hazard
deaggregation analysis tool on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website. All
analyses were performed using the computer program GSLOPE (v. 5.03). The following
wall/embankment configurations were analyzed:
 Sta 117+00: this existing steep section was used to back-calculate a reasonable cohesion
value for other analyses (see Section 7.1.2.);
 Sta 115+50: this section consists of a 12 ft tall segmental retaining wall supported by a cast-
in-drilled hole pile foundation. The stability model used a 250 psf live load surcharge for
Stanley Boulevard and a 125 psf surcharge for the pathway. This section requires piles due
to the steepness of the slope below the retaining walls.
 Sta 104+00: this section consists of a 12 ft tall segmental retaining wall founded on a
leveling pad. The stability model used a 250 psf live load surcharge for Stanley Boulevard
and a 125 psf surcharge for the pathway. This section is flatter and does not require a pile
foundation.
 Sta 101+50: this section consists of a 12 ft tall segmental retaining wall founded on a
leveling pad. The stability model used a 250 psf live load surcharge for Stanley Boulevard
and a 125 psf surcharge for the pathway. This section is similar to Sta 104 +00, but with a
slightly different geometry.
The analyses were completed using Bishop’s Modified Method of analysis and search routines
were used to evaluate a large number of failure surfaces and identify the most critical surface for
a given slope. Only circular potential failure surfaces were considered.
7.1.2 Material Properties Assumed for Stability Analysis
In situ unit weight was evaluated based on the test data summarized on the boring logs. Based
on these data, an average unit weight of 128 pcf was judged to be representative of the upper
portion of the embankment and the compacted retaining wall backfill materials consisting of silty
14 May 2010 Page 15
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
sand (SM) with gravel, which will be generated from the project excavations. For the existing
materials below the proposed improvements, consisting of clayey sand (SC) with gravel, an
average unit weight of 130 pcf was assumed.
Shear strength properties were initially determined for the embankments materials based on the
blow counts recorded during the subsurface investigation and published correlations. However,
stability analyses of the existing conditions at the site indicate that these are too low, as use of
the friction angles from the correlations would indicate that the existing embankment would have
already failed while long term performance of the cut shows otherwise. We addressed this by
performing a parametric back-calculation of the cohesion values necessary to arrive at factors of
safety of 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 for the steepest area of the existing slope (Sta 117+00). The resulting
calculated cohesion values needed to attain these factors of safety are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Back Calculated Soil Cohesion for Various Factors of Safety
Material
Unit Weight
(lb/ft3)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Cohesion
Factor of Safety
1.0 1.1 1.2
Silty Sand (SM)
with Gravel
128 32 80 psf 103 psf 125 psf
Clayey Sand (SC)
with Gravel
130 36 150 psf 195 psf 245 psf
For the analyses of sections with proposed improvements, we used the lowest back-calculated
cohesion value (Station 117+00, Factor of Safety =1.0). In our opinion, this value is
conservative since the finished quarry excavation was likely intended to have a minimum factor
of safety on the order of 1.2 to 1.3. The long-term performance of the cut also suggests that the
factor of safety is well above unity. If the factor of safety was much lower than 1.2, we would
generally expect to see poor long-term performance exhibited as tension cracks, settlement,
general deformation, localized failures, etc.
7.1.3 Groundwater Conditions Assumed for Stability Analysis
Groundwater conditions assumed for within the embankments were based on the subsurface
investigation which did not encounter an elevated ground water condition and supported the
ground water being at the elevation of the Shadow Cliffs Lake. Since the depth to groundwater
was on the order of 50 feet, it was not modeled in the stability analyses performed for the
proposed improvements.
14 May 2010 Page 16
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
7.1.4 Results of Stability Analysis
The results of analysis indicate static factors of safety for the planned configurations are in
excess of 1.5 and pseudostatic (seismic) factors of safety are in excess of 1.0 as required by the
SP117A screening procedure. As a result of passing the seismic screening procedure, seismic
displacement analyses were not performed. The GSLOPE computer output is included in
Appendix D.
14 May 2010 Page 17
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
8.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to provide a level subgrade on which to construct the proposed roadway widening and
multi-use pathway, a retaining wall will need to be constructed along the portion of the project
that runs along the crest of the cut slope on the north side of Shadow Cliffs Lake. Evaluation of
the relative costs, constructability, and aesthetics of different potential retaining wall systems
was completed and discussed with County personnel. Conventional and pile supported
segmental retaining walls were determined to be the preferred retaining wall system for the
majority of the site. For areas where the geogrid reinforced zone cannot be accommodated, a
conventional reinforced concrete retaining wall should be used. Recommendations for each of
these two types of retaining wall systems are provided below.
8.1.1 Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW)
Segmental retaining walls should be designed in conformance with the provisions of the
“Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 11 - Design and Construction of Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes,” published by the United States Department
of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, publication number FHWA-NHI-10-024.
8.1.1.1 Wall Units
Segmental retaining wall units should be masonry units manufactured in accordance with ASTM
C90 and ASTM C140. SRW unit concrete should have a minimum 28 day compressive strength
of 3,000 psi and should have a maximum moisture absorption of 6 percent to 8 percent. The
nominal dimensions of the retaining wall units should be 8 inches high, 18 inches wide, and 20
inches deep.
8.1.1.2 Soils
Segmental retaining wall design relies upon the unit weight, internal friction angle, and cohesion
parameters of the backfill soil, the soil to be retained, and the foundation soil underlying the
wall. Based on the normalized standard penetration test (SPT) blow count values and a
correlation published by Terzaghi, Peck, and Mesri (Terzaghi, 1996), the recommended
parameters to design mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls are shown below in
Table 3. The values shown for retained zone and foundation zone soils represent the in situ
conditions judged to exist at the site and are the same (sans cohesion) as those used in the global
stability analyses discussed in Section 7. The values shown for the reinforced zone are
representative of the expected strength of the compacted on site soils and the minimum strength
required of any potential import materials.
14 May 2010 Page 18
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
Table 3. MSE Retaining Wall Design Soil Parameters
Portion of
Retaining Wall
Unit Weight
(lb/ft
3
)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Cohesion*
(lb/ft
2
)
Reinforced Zone 130 32 0
Retained Zone 128 32 0
Foundation Zone 130 36 0
* For SRW wall analyses cohesion is ignored in accordance with “Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 11 - Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes”
Backfill soil for use in the reinforced zone (between the geogrid layers) should have a plasticity
index of less than 12 percent, a liquid limit less than 40 percent, and an effective angle of internal
friction of no less than 32 degrees. Backfill soil should not contain organic material (top soil)
and should not be placed in loose lifts exceeding 8 inches. These requirements apply to both on
site materials and potential import materials to be used in the reinforced zone.
8.1.1.3 Geogrid Reinforcement
The minimum geogrid length should be at least 8 feet or 70 percent of the design height of the
wall, whichever is greater. The long-term design strength (LTDS), vertical spacing, and lengths
should be determined based on design analyses in accordance with Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 11. Geogrid strengths, spacing, and lengths may also need to be modified based on
global stability analyses.
8.1.1.4 Foundation
The SRW should be supported on a foundation consisting of either a conventional SRW leveling
pad or cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete pile foundation. The need for a leveling pad or a
pile supported foundation should be determined based on the results of site specific geometry
and the global stability analyses discussed in Section 7.
Conventional SRW Leveling Pad
A conventional SRW leveling pad foundation should be used along the retaining wall alignment
where there is a minimum of 10 feet to daylight (soil between the face of the lower most wall
unit and a 2H:1V plane buried completely below the existing embankment). For walls that have
design heights less than 10 feet tall, the daylight value may be reduced to the design height or 4
feet, whichever is less.
14 May 2010 Page 19
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
The top of the leveling pad should be embedded below the finish ground in front of the wall a
minimum of 15 percent of the wall height. The wall height is taken as the distance from the top
of the uppermost wall unit to the bottom of the lowermost wall unit.
The leveling pad should be 30 inches wide and consist of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (Caltrans Test 216). The units
should be centered on the leveling pad. The leveling pad elevation should be determined based
on the embedment criteria above.
Pile Supported Foundation
A CIDH concrete pile and pile cap foundation should generally be used where the slopes in front
of the wall are too steep and the daylight requirement above cannot be met. The extent of the
pile supported foundation should be determined based on global stability analyses.
The cast-in-drilled-hole pile foundations should be designed to resist all vertical and lateral
loads. Allowable active pressures and passive resistances that can be used to design the piles are
presented in Table 4. The loading is also shown on Figure 7.
Table 4. Pile and Pile Cap Design Parameters
Condition in
Front of Wall
Active pressure
(Level Backfill at Top of Wall)
Passive
Resistance
Level Slope* 45 psf/ft 400 psf/ft
2H:1V Slope 45 psf/ft 160 psf/ft
*or 10 feet below top of grade beam for passive resistance.
The active pressure should be applied to the projected area of the grade beam and CIDH piles to
a depth of 4 feet below the top of the grade beam.
The passive pressure should be neglected to a depth of 4 feet below the top of the grade beam.
Additional geotechnical design parameters that should be used in design of the CIDH piles are
presented in Table 5.
14 May 2010 Page 20
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
Table 5. CIDH Pile Design Parameters
Parameter Value
Minimum Diameter 24 inches
Allowable Skin Friction 250 psf
Minimum Spacing Three (3) pile diameters
Minimum Depth 15 feet below bottom of pile cap
8.1.1.5 Wall Drainage
To reduce the potential for the build-up of hydrostatic pressures, the retaining wall should
include a permanent drainage system. The SRW drainage system should consist of crushed
aggregate zone that is 12 inches wide and extends from the top of the leveling pad to a depth of 2
feet below the top of wall elevation and a perforated subdrain pipe. The crushed aggregate
should be either Caltrans Class 2 permeable material or free draining crushed rock or coarse
gravel, 3/8 inch to 3/4 inch, with no more than 5 percent passing the no. 200 sieve. The crushed
rock or coarse gravel should be encapsulated by filter fabric. The retaining wall unit voids, if
any, should also be infilled with the crushed aggregate (unit/drain fill). All crushed rock
drainage materials should be compacted by vibratory compaction to either 90 percent relative
compaction in accordance with Caltrans California Test 216 (for Class 2 permeable material) or
until the drain rock is in a dense tight condition (free draining crushed rock).
Perforated subdrain pipes should be installed with the holes down located. The flow line of the
perforated pipe should be located approximately 2 inches above the bottom of the drain rock
material. Cleanouts consisting of non-perforated tightline pipe located in utility boxes should be
provided at the high end(s), and every 100 feet. The perforated subdrain pipe should be
connected to a tightline discharge pipe that outlets at the slope face and is protected by a
corrugated metal pipe sleeve. Discharge pipes should be provided every 50 feet along the length
of all drains.
Rock slope protection consisting of Caltrans Facing Class rock slope protection should be
provided at the discharge pipe outlet location to reduce the potential of soil erosion during
normal wall drainage and when flushing the system during periodic maintenance. The cleanout
system should be tested prior to backfilling over the drain material.
Filter fabric shall be Caltrans Underdrain Filter Fabric with a minimum weight of 6 ounces per
square yard.
Drain pipes should be SDR 35 polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
14 May 2010 Page 21
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
8.1.2 Concrete and Masonry Retaining Walls
Concrete and masonry retaining walls may be utilized for the project and can be founded on
either a spread footing or piles based upon the site conditions. For concrete and masonry walls,
the embedment and drainage recommendations presented above apply.
Concrete retaining walls should be designed to be supported on either a spread footing and/or a
CIDH pile foundation based on the criteria presented above for the segmental retaining wall.
Concrete retaining walls should be utilized to support the overlook structure and an electrical
utility vault located near the overlook structure. Concrete walls could potentially also be used at
any of the locations where retaining walls are proposed and could be up to about 12 feet tall.
8.1.2.1 Design Loads
Active pressures and passive resistances for design of the retaining walls were developed using
Coulomb lateral earth pressure theory based on a soil having an internal friction angle of 32
degrees. A loading diagram for the walls is shown on Figure 7 and is summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. Concrete and Masonry Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Parameter Value
Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure 45 psf/ft
Minimum Embedment 2 feet*
Minimum Width 3 feet
Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,500 psf
Coefficient of Friction 0.35
Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure
for footing design
0 psf/ft
Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure
for CIDH Pile design
160 psf/ft
* the 2 feet embedment depth is only applicable if greater depth is not required to comply with
the 10 feet to daylight recommendation.
When combining friction and passive pressure in the footing design, one of the two should be
reduced by 50 percent.
The bearing value indicated above is for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads and
may be increased by one third for short duration loading, which includes the effects of wind or
seismic forces. For the purpose of bearing calculations, the weight of the concrete in the footing
may be neglected.
14 May 2010 Page 22
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
The actual dimensions and reinforcement for the footing should be determined by structural
design calculations. The vertical load capacity of the CIDH piles and the minimum requirement
of the piles are contained in Table 5.
8.2 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
8.2.1 Piles
Pile construction should conform to the provisions of Section 49, “Piling,” of the State of
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Specifications, May 2006 edition,
except as modified herein. The bottoms of the drilled holes should be dry and free of loose
cuttings and debris prior to the installation of reinforcing steel and concrete. This should be done
to the satisfaction of an engineer or geologist from CE&G. “Dobie” blocks or similar devices
should be used to centralize the reinforcing steel in the hole. The reinforcing steel should also be
supported at the ground surface such that it hangs a minimum of 4 inches above the bottom of
the hole. The concrete should be placed neatly in the holes. Sono tubes or similar forming
materials should used, if necessary.
Although water was not encountered above a depth of 50 feet and likely be below the depth of
the proposed improvements, it is possible that adverse groundwater conditions may be
encountered during construction. The contractor should be prepared to drill and place the steel
and concrete for the foundation piers on the same day should adverse groundwater condition be
encountered during construction. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to remain in
a drilled pier hole overnight. Should this occur, it may be necessary for the contractor to enlarge
the hole to a wider diameter and/or a greater depth as deemed necessary by an engineer or
geologist from our office.
It should also be noted that although caving was not encountered in the borings, the potential to
encounter running sands/silts that would necessitate casing of portions of the drilled holes may
exist. The contractor should be prepared for this potential situation.
8.2.2 Structure Excavations
Excavation for construction of improvements will include but not be limited to excavations for
retaining walls, pipes, grade beam, spread footing, and possibly for temporary access. All
excavations should be cleaned of all loose material, moistened, and free of shrinkage cracks prior
to placing concrete and concrete pipe. This should be done to the satisfaction of an engineer or
geologist from Cal Engineering & Geology.
14 May 2010 Page 23
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
8.2.3 Earthwork
It is anticipated that embankment fills will be required to arrive at the final grades and for the
backfilling of excavations which include but are not limited to retaining walls, utility
excavations, pipes, and footings. All fill placed at the site should be engineered and compacted
to the following specifications.
8.2.3.1 Fill placement
Prior to commencement of earthwork operations, the area to receive fill should be cleared and
grubbed of existing vegetation. All existing structures and debris should be removed from the
site, including but not limited to: pavement, concrete, buried pipes, etc. Prior to placement of
engineered fill, all loose soil and vegetation should be removed from the areas to receive fill. All
depressions created by the tree removal and demolition of existing structures should be
excavated to firm soil prior to placement of fill.
Backfill within the reinforced zone of the SRW should be placed from the wall rearward into the
embankment to create tautness in the geogrid. Backfill should be placed, spread, and compacted
in such a manner that minimizes the development of slack or loss of pre-tension of the geogrid. .
Only hand-operated compaction equipment should be allowed within 3 feet of the back surface
of the retaining wall units or the construction surface slope crest. Tracked construction
equipment shall not be operated directly on the geogrid. A minimum uncompacted backfill
thickness of 6 inches is required prior to operation of tracked vehicles over the geogrid. Turning
of tracked vehicles should be kept to a minimum to reduce the potential for tracks displacing the
fill and damaging the geogrid. Rubber-tired equipment may pass over the geogrid reinforcement
at slow speeds, less than 10 mph. Sudden braking and sharp turning should be prevented.
All fill should be placed as engineered fill and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent (or greater) as determined by the Caltrans California Test 216 procedure at a moisture
content of 1 to 3 percent above optimum. Fill materials should be spread evenly and compacted
in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Fill materials which do not
meet the specified relative compaction should be ripped, moisture conditioned, and re-compacted
until the required relative compaction and moisture content are attained.
All imported fill must be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to
importation to the site. A minimum of three to four days will be required to evaluate and test the
suitability of all proposed imported materials. All imported materials should conform to the
provisions of Section 19-4, “Structure Backfill,” of the Caltrans Standard Specifications, and
the Section 8.1.1.2.
14 May 2010 Page 24
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
8.2.3.2 Corrosion potential
The corrosion potential of the fill and/or native soils at finished grade should be tested to
determine if special design considerations, such as sulphate resistant concrete, are required for
the foundation systems and flatwork.
Evaluation and testing of the corrosion potential of the site soil materials is beyond the scope of
this project. Testing of this nature is generally performed after the final site grading for the
project has been completed and the desired grades have been established. The testing of the
corrosion potential of the soils at the site is used as the basis for developing concrete design
parameters for the foundation systems. Alternatively, Type V concrete may be used.
8.2.4 SRW Wall Construction
Construction of the SRW retaining wall should be completed in conformance with the guidelines
in Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 11.
14 May 2010 Page 25
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
9.0 LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the information
provided regarding the proposed construction, and the results of the subsurface exploration and
testing, combined with interpolation of the subsurface conditions between boring locations. This
information notwithstanding, the nature and extent of subsurface variations between borings may
not become evident until construction. If variations are encountered during construction, Cal
Engineering & Geology, Inc. should be notified promptly so that conditions can be reviewed and
recommendations reconsidered, as appropriate.
This report was prepared based on preliminary design information which is subject to change
during the design process. If the project changes, Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc. should
review both the changes and the design assumptions made in this report and prepare addenda or
memoranda as appropriate. Any modifications included in these addenda or memoranda should
be carefully reviewed by the project designers to make sure that any conclusions or
recommendations that are modified are accounted for in the final design of the project.
This report presents the results of a geotechnical and geologic investigation only and should not
be construed as an environmental audit or study. The conclusions and recommendations
contained in this report are valid only for the project described in this report. We have employed
accepted geotechnical engineering procedures, and our professional opinions and conclusions are
made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices.
This standard is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.
14 May 2010 Page 26
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
10.0 REFERENCES
Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Alameda County Source Reduction and
Recycling Board, 2010, Bay-Friendly Landscape Site Analysis,
http://stopwaste.org/docs/bay-friendly_site_analysis.doc
Baily, Edgar H., 1966, Geology of Northern California, Bulletin 190, California Divisions of
Mines and Geology, Chapter 6
Cal Engineering & Geology, 1998, “Design Recommendations, Stanley Boulevard Storm
Damage Repairs,” project number 985440.
California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1982, State of California
Special Studies Zones map of the Livermore Quadrangle.
California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known
Active Faults Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada,
International Conference of Building Officials, Map Scale 1.2 inches = 5 km.
Crane, R. C., 1995, Preliminary geologic map of the Livermore Quadrangle Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, unpublished geologic map, map scale 1:24:000.
Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey, 2008, Seismic Hazard Zones Report
for the Livermore 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Alameda County, California (Seismic Hazard
Zone Report 114)
Dibblee, T. W. Jr., 1980, Preliminary geologic map of the Livermore Quadrangle, Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 80-533B map scale
1:24,000.
Harden, Geborah R., 1997, California Geology, Chapter 12
Helley, E.J., and Graymer, R.W., 1997, Quaternary geology of Alameda County, and parts of
Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin
Counties, California: A digital database: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-97.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2009, Web Soil Survey URL:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs. usda.gov, Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83.
Nilsen, T. H., 1975, Preliminary photointerpretation map of landslide and other surficial deposits
of the Livermore 7.5' Quadrangle Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California: U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Map 75-277-26, map scale 1:24,000.
14 May 2010 Page 27
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., and Mesri, G., 1996, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,” John
Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
United States Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Services, Soil Survey
for Alameda County – western part website accessed July 2009 at
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.
United States Department of Transportation, 2009, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 11 -
Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil
Slopes, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-NHI-10-24.
United States Geologic Survey, 2003, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region:
2002 to 2030-A Survey of Findings, Open-File Report 03-214.

ACPWA - STANLEY BOULEVARD
SAFETY & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BETWEEN CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON & LIVERMORE, CA
SITE LOCATION
JOB NO. 090250 JUNE 2010 FIGURE 1
715
SITE LOCATION
NO SCALE
FROM THOMAS BROTHERS
ACPWA - STANLEY BOULEVARD
SAFETY & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BETWEEN CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON & LIVERMORE, CA
SITE GEOLOGY
JOB NO. 090250 JUNE 2010 FIGURE 3
SITE LOCATION
NO SCALE
FROM DIBLEE (1980)
ACPWA - STANLEY BOULEVARD
SAFETY & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BETWEEN CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON & LIVERMORE, CA
SURFICIAL SOILS
JOB NO. 090250 JUNE 2010 FIGURE 4
A
r
ro
y
o
d
e
l V
a
lle
Stanley Blvd
B
adge
r D
r Liberty Dr
Stanley Blvd
Gp
W
Gp
Gp
YmA
W
YmA
W
YmA
601600
601600
601800
601800
602000
602000
602200
602200
602400
602400
602600
602600
602800
602800
603000
603000
603200
603200
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 500
Feet
0 200 400 600 100
Meters
Map Scale: 1:9,200 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.
SITE LOCATION
FROM NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY (2008)
AIameda Area, CaIifornia (CA609)
Map Unit SymboI Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
*S *UDYHOSLW
: :DWHU
<P$ <RORORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHV
TotaIs for Area of Interest 331.3 100.0%
ACPWA - STANLEY BOULEVARD
SAFETY & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BETWEEN CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON & LIVERMORE, CA
SEISMIC HAZARDS
JOB NO. 090250 JUNE 2010 FIGURE 5
SITE LOCATION
FROM CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP (2008)
J
U
N
E

090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
C
o
a
r
s
e
-
G
r
a
i
n
e
d

S
o
i
l
s
M
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

5
0
%

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

i
s
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

N
o
.

2
0
0

s
i
e
v
e
.
C
L
A
S
S
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

G
R
A
V
E
L
S

&

S
A
N
D
S

W
I
T
H
5
%

T
O

1
2
%

F
I
N
E
S

R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
S

D
U
A
L

S
Y
M
B
O
L
S

G
W
/
G
M

o
r

G
P
/
G
M
:
G
r
a
v
e
l
/
S
i
l
t
y

G
r
a
v
e
l

G
W
/
G
C

o
r

G
P
/
G
C
:
G
r
a
v
e
l
/
C
l
a
y
e
y

G
r
a
v
e
l

S
W
/
S
M

o
r

S
P
/
S
M
:
S
a
n
d
/
S
i
l
t
y

S
a
n
d

S
W
/
S
C

o
r

S
P
/
S
C
:
S
a
n
d
/
C
l
a
y
e
y

S
a
n
d
F
i
n
e
-
G
r
a
i
n
e
d

S
o
i
l
s
M
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

5
0
%

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
p
a
s
s
e
s

t
h
e

N
o
.

2
0
0

s
i
e
v
e
.
60
50
CH or OH
40
30
CL or OL
20
MH or OH
10
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y

I
N
D
E
X

(
P
I
)


UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
AND KEY TO BORING LOG
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487)
Field Identification
Group
Symbols Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria
Gravels
More than 50%
coarse fraction
retained on the
No. 4 sieve
Clean
Gravels
< 5% Fines
GW
Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand
mixtures, little or no fines
C
U
= D
60
÷ D
10
$ 4 and
C
C
= (D
30
)
2
÷ (D
10
× D
60
) $ 1 & # 3
GP
Poorly graded gravels, gravel-
sand mixtures, little or no fines
C
U
= D
60
÷ D
10
< 4 and/or
C
C
= (D
30
)
2
÷ (D
10
× D
60
) < 1 & > 3
Gravels
with
Fines
>12% Fines
GM
Silty gravels, poorly graded
gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Fines classify as
ML or MH
If fines classify as
CL-ML, use dual
symbol GC/GM
GC
Clayey gravels, poorly graded
gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Fines classify as
CL or CH
Sands
More than 50%
coarse fraction
passes the
No. 4 sieve
Clean
Sands
< 5% Fines
SW
Well-graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
C
U
= D
60
÷ D
10
$ 6 and
C
C
= (D
30
)
2
÷ (D
10
× D
60
) $ 1 & # 3
SP
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
C
U
= D
60
÷ D
10
< 6 and/or
C
C
= (D
30
)
2
÷ (D
10
× D
60
) < 1 & > 3
Sands
with
Fines
>12% Fines
SM
Silty sands, poorly graded
sand-silt mixtures
Fines classify as
ML or MH
If fines classify as
CL-ML, use dual
symbol SC/SM
SC
Clayey sands, poorly graded
sand-clay mixtures
Fines classify as
CL or CH
Identification Procedures on Percentage Passing the No. 40 Sieve
PLASTICITY CHART
For Classification of Fine-Grained Soils and
Fine-Grained Fraction of Coarse-Grained Soils
Equation of "A"-Line: PI = 4 @ LL = 4 to 25.5, then PI = 0.73 × (LL ! 20)
Equation of "U"-Line: LL = 16 @ PI = 0 to 7, then PI = 0.9 × (LL ! 8)
Silts & Clays
Liquid Limit less
than 50%
ML
Inorganic silts, very fine sands,
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
sands with slight plasticity
CL
Inorganic clays of low to med-
ium plasticity, gravelly, sandy,
and/or silty clays, lean clays
OL
Organic silts, organic silty
clays of low plasticity
Silts & Clays
Liquid Limit greater
than 50%
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sandy/-
silty soil, elastic silts
CH
Inorganic clays of high
plasticity, fat clays
OH
Organic clays of medium to
high plasticity
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
Peat and other highly
organic soils
KEY TO SAMPLER TYPES AND OTHER LOG SYMBOLS
CS California Standard Sampler Depth at which Groundwater was Encountered During Drilling
CM California Modified Sampler Depth at which Groundwater was Measured After Drilling
SPT Standard Penetration Test Sampler PP Pocket Penetrometer Test
SHL Shelby Tube Sampler PTV Pocket Torvane Test
BU Bulk Sample !#200 % of Material Passing the No. 200 Sieve Test (ASTM D-1140)
LL Liquid Limit of Sample (ASTM D-4318) PSA Particle-Size Analysis (ASTM D-422 & D-1140)
PI Plasticity Index of Sample (ASTM D-4318) C Consolidation Test (ASTM D-2435)
Q
U
Unconfined Compression Test (ASTM D-2166) TXUU Unconsolidated Undrained Compression Test (ASTM D-2850)
KEY TO SAMPLE INTERVALS
Length of Sampler Interval with a CS Sampler Bulk Sample Recovered for Interval Shown (i.e., cuttings)
Length of Sampler Interval with a CM Sampler Length of Coring Run with Core Barrel Type Sampler
Length of Sampler Interval with a SPT Sampler No Sample Recovered for Interval Shown
Length of Sampler Interval with a SHL Sampler
FIGURE A-1
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, medium dense, with gravel
subrounded to 1/4"
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, medium dense, with gravel
subrounded to 1"
5
7
10
7
9
11 3.7 120.6
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-1
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-2
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, dense, with gravel subrounded
to 1"
4
17
32
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-1
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-3
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, dense, with gravel sub-rounded
SILTY SAND (SM), to CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, moist, dense,
with gravel subrounded to 1"
5
32
20 5.2 124.7
14
15
21
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-1
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-4
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
Groundwater encountered at 49.5 feet.
SILTY SAND (SM) to CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown to light brown,
wet, very dense with gravel to 1"
9
21
50-2"
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-1
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-5
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
Auger clogged with 5 feet of material. Sample not possible.
Boring terminated at a depth of 60 feet. Boring backfilled with
Portland cement grout.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-1
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-6
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
Failed sample - In bag
SILTY SAND (SM), gray to dark brown, moist, medium dense,
with gravel subrounded to 1/2"
SILTY SAND (SM), light gray, moist, medium dense, with gravel
subrounded to 1"
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, medium dense, with gravel
subrounded to 1"
Failed recovery
12
15
66
12
11
11
8
12
13 4.6 118.5
7
6
7
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-2
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-7
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGUR:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, dense, with gravel subrounded
7
19
20
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-2
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-8
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
SILTY SAND (SM), brown to light brown, dense, with gravel to
1/2"
SILTY SAND (SM) to CLAYEY SAND (SC), light brown to gray,
moist, very dense, with gravel subrounded to 1"
50-6"
20
27
27
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-2
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-9
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
Groundwater encountered at 49.5 feet.
SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, wet, very dense, with gravel
subrounded to 1"
19
25
27
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-2
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-10
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
SILTY SAND (SM) to CLAYEY SAND (SC), wet, very dense, with
gravel subrounded to 1"
Boring terminated at a depth of 61.5 feet. Boring backfilled with
Portland cement grout.
15
23
27
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-2
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-11
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
SILTY SAND (SM), moist, loose, with gravel subrounded to 1/2"
No recovery
SPT follow up. No blow counts, same depth
SILTY SAND (SM), brown to gray, moist, with gravel subrounded
to 1/2"
3
5
8
6
5
8
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-3
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-12
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SILTY SAND (SM) to CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, moist, dense,
with gravel subrounded to 1"
8
17
15
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-3
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-13
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
SILTY SAND (SM), grayish brown, moist, dense, with gravel
subrounded to 1"
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, dense, with gravel subrounded
to 3/4"
14
22
24
23
23
16
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-3
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-14
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC), wet, dense, with gravel subrounded
to 1/2" with 1" cobble
Groundwater encountered at 50 feet.
26
25
22
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-3
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-15
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
SILTY SAND (SM) TO CLAYEY SAND (SC), light brown, wet,
dense, with gravel subrounded to 1/2"
Boring terminated at a depth of 61.5 feet. Boring backfilled with
Portland cement grout.
12
32 10.5 132.7
33
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPE
STANLEY BLVD., PLEASANTON, CA
090250 B-3
LOGGED BY: T. KEEFER
A-15
DRILL RIG: CME 75
BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A
HAMMER WT./DROP: 140#/30" DATE DRILLED: 5/6/09
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
S
A
M
P
L
E
R
(FEET)
P
E
N
E
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
(
B
L
O
W
S
/
6
"
)
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T

(
%
)
D
R
Y

D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
P
C
F
)
A
T
T
E
R
B
E
R
G
L
I
M
I
T
S
T
E
S
T
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70

090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
APPENDIX B
PERCOLATION TEST DATA
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
 
S
t
a
n
l
e
y
 
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
 
S
t
r
e
e
t
 
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
E
&
G
 
J
N
:
 
 
0
9
0
2
5
0
T
e
s
t
 
#
S
T
A
C
o
l
o
r
/
T
e
x
t
u
r
e
/
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
i
m
e
 
(
h
r
:
m
i
n
)
D
e
p
t
h
 
(
i
n
)
E
l
a
p
s
e
d
 
T
i
m
e
 
f
r
o
m
 
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
 
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
 
(
h
r
:
m
i
n
)
C
h
a
n
g
e
 
i
n
 
D
e
p
t
h
 
f
r
o
m
 
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
 
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(
i
n
)
2
,
 
6
 
&
 
1
2
"
:
 
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
s
i
l
t
y
 
c
l
a
y
 
w
/
 
g
r
a
v
e
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
 
a
l
o
n
g
 
s
o
u
t
h
 
s
i
d
e
 
o
f
 
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
 
f
o
o
t
p
a
t
h
2
,
 
6
 
&
 
1
2
"
:
 
 
d
a
r
k
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
s
i
l
t
y
 
s
a
n
d
 
w
/
 
g
r
a
v
e
l
 
&
 
b
r
i
c
k
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
:
4
2
1
0
.
0
0
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
 
 
1
0
'
 
n
o
r
t
h
 
o
f
 
E
.
O
.
P
.
 
(
l
i
n
e
d
 
c
u
l
v
e
r
t
 
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
)
4
:
1
3
8
.
0
0
1
:
3
1

2
.
0
0
7
:
5
5
4
.
7
5
5
:
1
3

5
.
2
5
2
"
:
 
d
a
r
k
 
g
r
a
y
i
s
h
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
s
a
n
d
y
 
s
i
l
t
 
w
/
 
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
s
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3
:
1
4
9
.
5
0
6
 
&
 
1
2
"
:
 
d
a
r
k
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
s
i
l
t
y
 
s
a
n
d
 
w
/
 
g
r
a
v
e
l
 
 
 
7
:
3
4
3
.
0
0
4
:
2
0

6
.
5
0
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
 
 
1
1
'
 
f
r
o
m
 
c
u
r
b
 
(
p
a
v
e
d
 
b
i
k
e
p
a
t
h
 
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
)
2
 

 
6
"
:
 
l
i
g
h
t
 
o
l
i
v
e
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
g
r
a
v
e
l
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
:
3
7
9
.
0
0
1
2
"
:
 
l
i
g
h
t
 
o
l
i
v
e
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
c
l
a
y
e
y
 
s
i
l
t
 
2
:
2
6
7
.
0
0
1
:
4
9

2
.
0
0
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
 
5
'
 
n
o
r
t
h
 
o
f
 
E
.
O
.
P
.
4
:
0
9
7
.
0
0
3
:
3
2

2
.
0
0
7
:
5
2
6
.
0
0
7
:
1
5

3
.
0
0
2
"
:
l
i
g
h
t
b
r
o
w
n
s
i
l
t
y
c
l
a
y
0
0
0
1
5
5
0
1
8
0
+
0
0
 
E
B
3
:
4
5
N
/
A
w
a
t
e
r
 
d
r
a
i
n
e
d
 
o
u
t
 
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
 
d
u
e
 
t
o
 
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
 
g
o
p
h
e
r
 
h
o
l
e
s
 
i
n
 
a
r
e
a
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
 
f
i
l
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
 
f
i
l
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
 
f
i
l
l
i
i
t
i
l
f
i
l
l
I
n

S
i
t
u
 
P
e
r
c
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
 
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
 
&
 
S
o
i
l
 
S
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
D
a
t
e
 
o
f
 
F
i
e
l
d
 
W
o
r
k
:
 
 
1
1
 
M
a
r
c
h
 
2
0
1
0
4
1
4
0
+
0
0
 
W
B
5
1
4
0
+
0
0
E
B
2
1
0
0
+
0
0
 
W
B
3
1
1
0
+
0
0
 
E
B
2
"
:
 
l
i
g
h
t
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
s
i
l
t
y
 
c
l
a
y
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0
:
0
0
1
5
.
5
0
6

1
2
"
:
 
y
e
l
l
o
w
i
s
h

b
r
o
w
n
 
c
l
a
y
e
y
 
s
i
l
t
 
 
0
:
5
3
1
4
.
5
0
0
:
5
3

1
.
0
0
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
 
 
3
'
 
s
o
u
t
h
 
o
f
 
E
.
O
.
P
.
3
:
5
4
1
1
.
5
0
3
:
5
4

4
.
0
0
7
:
3
9
8
.
0
0
7
:
3
9

7
.
5
0
2
"
:
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
s
a
n
d
y
 
c
l
a
y
e
y
 
s
i
l
t
 
w
/
 
g
r
a
v
e
l
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
:
1
7
1
0
.
5
0
6

1
2
"
:
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
s
a
n
d
y
 
c
l
a
y
e
y
 
s
i
l
t
 
 
3
:
5
9
8
.
5
0
2
:
4
2

2
.
0
0
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
 
 
3
'
 
s
o
u
t
h
 
o
f
 
E
.
O
.
P
.
7
:
4
2
7
.
0
0
6
:
2
5

3
.
5
0
2
"
:
 
v
e
r
y
 
d
a
r
k
 
g
r
a
y
i
s
h
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
s
a
n
d
y
 
s
i
l
t
 
w
/
 
g
r
a
v
e
l
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
:
1
7
1
0
.
0
0
6

1
2
"
:
 
v
e
r
y
 
d
a
r
k
 
g
r
a
y
i
s
h
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
s
a
n
d
y
 
s
i
l
t
 
 
 
 
4
:
0
6
9
.
0
0
1
:
4
9

1
.
0
0
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
 
 
6
'
 
n
o
r
t
h
 
o
f
 
E
.
O
.
P
.
7
:
4
9
6
.
0
0
5
:
3
2

4
.
0
0
2
"
:
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
c
l
a
y
e
y
 
s
a
n
d
 
w
/
 
g
r
a
v
e
l
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
:
3
6
8
.
7
5
6

1
2
"
:
 
d
a
r
k
 
b
r
o
w
n
 
s
a
n
d
y
 
c
l
a
y
 
w
/
 
g
r
a
v
e
l
 
 
1
:
3
9
7
.
2
5
0
:
0
3

1
.
5
0
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
 
 
2
.
5
'
 
s
o
u
t
h
 
o
f
 
E
.
O
.
P
.
1
:
4
1
6
.
0
0
0
:
0
5

2
.
7
5
1
:
4
4
5
.
7
5
0
:
0
8

3
.
0
0
1
:
5
0
4
.
2
5
0
:
1
4

4
.
5
0
4
:
0
1
0
.
0
0
2
:
2
5

8
.
7
5
N
o
t
e
:
 
 
D
u
e
 
t
o
 
t
i
m
e
 
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
 
a
n
d
 
s
a
t
u
r
a
t
e
d
 
s
o
i
l
 
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
 
t
h
e
 
5

g
a
l
l
o
n
 
t
e
s
t
 
h
o
l
e
s
 
w
e
r
e
 
n
o
t
 
p
r
e

s
o
a
k
e
d
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
 
f
i
l
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
 
f
i
l
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
 
f
i
l
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
 
f
i
l
l
2
0
0
+
0
0
 
E
B
8 6
1
7
0
+
0
0
 
E
B
7
1
8
0
+
0
0
 
W
B
5
1
4
0
+
0
0
 
E
B

090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
APPENDIX C
SOIL TREATMENT AND FERTILITY ANALYSIS



www.LmpCorp.com
Locat ions:



1101 S. Winchest er Blvd.
Suit e G-173
San Jose, CA 95128
(408) 727-0330




4741 E. Hunt er Ave.
Unit A
Anaheim, CA 92807
(714) 282-8777




SAN JOSE OFFI CE
March 26, 2010
Report 10-070-0044

CAL ENGI NEERI NG & GEOLOGY, I NC.
119 Filbert St reet
Oakland, CA 94607

At t n: Dave Buscheck

RE: ALAMEDA COUNTY - STANLEY BLVD. I MPROVEMENT, JN: 090250

BACKGROUND

The eight samples received 3/ 11 represent sit e soils from areas t hat will be amended for
new landscaping. Recommendat ion regarding soil t reat ment and fert ilit y maint enance
were t o rely on an “ organic” approach.

ANALYTI CAL RESULTS

Gravel content is highly variable and quite excessive at 2, 4 and 8. These additionally show
a broad distribution of coarse sand sizes and this diversity contributes to consolidation as
the various sizes intermingle and can become cemented by the silt and clay. The degree of
concern regarding this is high at these locations and slight at 6 and 7 with no concern at
the others. Particle size classification of the smaller than 2-mm fractions are varied from
loam, sandy loam t o clay loam. Half sat uration percent age values reflect soil porosit y and
t hat is downgraded by part icle size diversit y in t hose not ed above and by high silt cont ent at
5. All are every low in organic content and it will be the incorporation of organic matter that
will help maintain more favorable structure. Based on these characteristics three categories
of infiltration rates are estimated as follows:

0.29 inch per hour at 1, 3, 5 and 6.
0.21 inch per hour at 7 (slow)
0.15 inch per hour at 2, 4 and 8 (very slow)

Soil reaction at 4 is moderately alkaline and is the only area where alkalinity is higher a little
t han most plants prefer. All ot hers fall in the generally suitable slight ly acidic t o slightly
alkaline range and all are favorably low in lime cont ent . Salinit y, boron and sodium are
safely low and t he SAR value shows soluble sodium well balanced by calcium and
magnesium. Chloride levels are list ed separat ely at t he bot t om of t he second dat a sheet .
All are very comfort ably low except t here is slight accumulat ion at 8. Since t his and it s
higher sodium cont ent deviat ed significant ly from t he ot her sales it was ret est ed and
confirmed original findings.


Page-2
CAL ENGI NEERI NG & GEOLOGY, I NC.
Report 10-070-0044



www.LmpCorp.com

Nut rit ional dat a show low nit rogen only at 1 and oddly high nit rogen at 2. I nsufficient sample
remained t o recheck t his but based on it s st ruct ure it s use is not suggest ed anyway. Phosphorus is
oddly high at 1 and well supplied in t he ot hers. Pot assium is not part icularly abundant but is only
deficient at 4, 7 and 8. Calcium and magnesium are variable but all are in suit able ranges except for
j ust fair magnesium at 4. Sulfat e levels are adequat e.

RECOMMENDATI ONS

Based primarily of t ext ure it is suggest ed t hat soils represent ed by 2, 4 and 8 not be used t o
develop t he plant s immediat e root zone. Removal and replacement or covering wit h ot her suit able
mat erial is suggest ed. I n case import is required, some guideline specificat ions are at t ached.

Aside from enhancing organic mat t er cont ent none of t hese areas require any addit ives. Deriving
t he organic from specified compost will t ake care of pot assium nut rit ion and build up reserves of t he
ot her nut rient s while also providing an abundant microbial populat ion t o assist in t he nat ural
recycling of nut rient s.

To improve drainage of t he root zone any undist urbed or compact ed areas should first be loosened
t o a 10-inch dept h. The compost should t hen be spread at a rat e of 6 cubic yards per 1000 square
feet and t horoughly incorporat ed t o 6-inches dept h. This rat e is based on an organic mat t er cont ent
of 260 pounds per cubic yard of amendment and t his may be adj ust ed depending on t he organic
cont ent of t he amendment select ed. The t heoret ical t arget value average from t his rat e is t o bring
soils t o 5.7%.

To Prepare Backfill:

• Excavat e plant ing pit s at least t wice as wide as t he diamet er of t he root ball.
• Soil immediat ely below t he root ball should be left undist urbed t o provide support but t he
bot t om around t he sides should be cult ivat ed t o improve porosit y.
• The t op of t he root ball should be at or slight ly above final grade.
• The top 12-inches of backfill around the sides of the rootball of trees and shrubs may consist of the
above amended soil or may be prepared as follows:

3 part s Pulverized Sit e Soil
1 part Organic Amendment

-Backfill below 12 inches required for 24-inch box or larger mat erial should not cont ain t he organic
amendment .

• I deally a weed and t urf free zone should be maint ained j ust beyond t he diamet er of t he plant ing
hole. A 2-inch deep layer of coarse mulch can be placed around t he t ree or shrub but should be
kept a minimum 4 inches from t he t runk.


Page-3
CAL ENGI NEERI NG & GEOLOGY, I NC.
Report 10-070-0044



www.LmpCorp.com

• I rrigat ion of new plant ings should t ake int o considerat ion t he differing t ext ure of t he root ball and
surrounding soil t o maint ain adequat e moist ure in bot h during t his crit ical period of
est ablishment .

MAI NTENANCE

Periodic replenishment wit h an organic nit rogen source should be sufficient at least unt il fall. At 3 t o
4 weeks aft er plant ing t reat ment over t he root zone should be made and a wide range of suit able
product s are available. Blood Meal ( 12-0-0) provides available nit rogen fairly rapidly while mat erials
such as Feat her Meal (12-0-0), Soybean or Cot t on Seed Meal (7-1-1) are slower t o provide available
nit rogen, but t hey ext end t he lengt h of t ime t hey make t his cont ribut ion. I n order t o provide a good
supply of nit rogen for a 3-4 mont h t ime frame a good combinat ion would be 6 pounds Blood Meal
and 15 pounds Feat her Meal per 1000 square feet . I f Soybean or Cot t on Seed Meal is used in place
of t he Feat her Meal t he rat e should be increased t o 23 pounds per 1000 square feet because of t he
lower nit rogen cont ent .

The long t erm maint enance program should consider fall and spring applicat ions of an organic
fert ilizer blend such as General Purpose 5-5-5 t hat would also supplement phosphorus and
pot assium nut rit ion t o a great er ext ent .


JI M WEST
Email 6 pages.




C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y
,

l
n
c
1
1
9

F
i
l
b
e
r
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
O
a
k
l
a
n
d
P
a
g
e

:
R
e
p
o
r
t

N
o

:
D
a
t
e

R
e
c
d

:
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

O
r
d
e
r

:
D
a
t
e

P
r
i
n
t
e
d

:
1
0
-
0
7
0
-
0
0
4
4
0
3
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
0
0
3
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
0
1

o
f

2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

:
C
E
&
G

J
N
:

0
9
0
2
5
0
A
l
a
m
e
d
a

C
o
u
n
t
y

-

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d

l
m
p
r
o
C
O
M
P
R
E
H
E
N
S
I
V
E

S
O
I
L

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
C
A
9
4
6
0
7
L
a
b

N
o
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
%

d
r
y

w
t
.
E
C
e
d
S
/
m
p
H
Q
u
a
I
L
i
m
e
T
E
C
H
a
I
f

S
a
t
%
S
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

F
a
c
t
o
r
s
S
a
m
p
I
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

-

S
a
m
p
I
e

I
D
N
O
-
N
3
N
H
4
-
N
P
O
-
P
4
K
C
a
M
g
C
u
Z
n
M
n
F
e
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m

2
3
7
3
3
0
.
4
1
3
1
3
5
N
o
n
e
7
.
0
0
.
5
8
9
0
.
7
9
.
5
1
4
4
1
1
1
0
.
9
1
.
0
1
6
5
5
6
1
4
2
.
8
#
1
,

S
t
a

8
0
+
0
0

E
.

B
.

2
3
7
3
4
0
.
4
1
1
7
0
N
o
n
e
7
.
5
0
.
5
2
2
8
1
8
0
1
8
.
7
2
.
7
3
6
7
6
1
.
0
1
.
0
1
0
1
4
8
8
0
.
7
#
2
,

S
t
a

1
0
0
+
0
0

W
.
B
.

2
3
7
3
5
0
.
5
1
4
8
5
N
o
n
e
7
.
2
0
.
2
1
7
1
9
1
.
3
1
.
7
2
8
7
7
0
.
8
1
.
2
1
4
9
1
1
1
2
0
.
7
#
3
,

S
t
a

1
1
0
+
0
0

E
.
B
.

2
3
7
3
6
0
.
4
1
2
5
5
N
o
n
e
7
.
8
0
.
6
1
7
5
3
3
.
0
1
.
7
2
4
4
1
0
.
5
1
.
1
9
3
1
5
8
0
.
5
#
4
,

S
t
a

1
4
0
+
0
0

W
.
B
.

2
3
7
3
7
0
.
5
1
5
1
2
9
N
o
n
e
7
.
5
0
.
4
1
0
3
1
7
4
.
0
1
.
4
2
5
1
7
0
1
.
3
1
.
1
1
8
8
9
3
6
5
1
.
6
#
5
,

S
t
a

1
4
0
+
0
0

E
.
B
.

2
3
7
3
8
1
.
8
1
7
1
3
9
N
o
n
e
6
.
7
1
.
5
2
8
2
5
1
.
6
2
.
3
4
5
1
7
6
1
.
2
0
.
8
1
6
0
9
7
2
2
2
.
9
#
6
,

S
t
a

1
7
0
+
0
0

E
.
B
.
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

E
x
t
r
a
c
t

V
a
I
u
e
s
C
a
m
e
q
/
L
M
g
m
e
q
/
L
N
a
m
e
q
/
L
m
e
q
/
L
K
B
p
p
m
m
e
q
/
L
S
O
4
S
A
R
C
o
a
r
s
e
5

-

1
2
F
i
n
e
2

-

5
G
r
a
v
e
I

%
V
e
r
y

C
o
a
r
s
e
1

-

2
C
o
a
r
s
e
0
.
5

-

1
M
e
d
.

t
o

V
e
r
y

F
i
n
e
0
.
0
5

-

0
.
5
S
a
n
d
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
a
m
p
I
e

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

2

m
m

S
c
r
e
e
n
S
i
I
t
.
0
0
2
-
.
0
5
C
I
a
y
0
-
.
0
0
2
U
S
D
A

S
o
i
I

C
I
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
L
a
b

N
o
.
2
.
8
2
.
3
0
.
9
0
.
2
0
.
1
5
1
.
3
0
.
5
6
.
0
6
.
8
4
.
6
7
.
4
4
2
.
5
2
2
.
8

S
a
n
d
y

C
l
a
y

L
o
a
m
2
2
.
6

2
3
7
3
3
7
.
5
2
.
3
1
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
3
1
2
.
1
0
.
6
3
0
.
4
2
7
.
4
2
3
.
2
1
8
.
0
3
3
.
7
1
4
.
1
V
e
r
y

G
r
a
v
e
l
l
y

S
a
n
d
y

L
o
a
m
1
0
.
9

2
3
7
3
4
3
.
9
1
.
2
0
.
8
0
.
3
0
.
1
9
1
.
0
0
.
5
6
.
0
8
.
0
7
.
6
1
5
.
0
4
8
.
3
1
6
.
1

S
a
n
d
y

L
o
a
m
1
2
.
9

2
3
7
3
5
3
.
9
1
.
2
1
.
9
0
.
4
0
.
3
3
1
.
7
1
.
2
2
7
.
6
1
3
.
4
1
3
.
4
2
0
.
6
3
8
.
7
1
8
.
3
V
e
r
y

G
r
a
v
e
l
l
y

S
a
n
d
y

L
o
a
m
8
.
9

2
3
7
3
6
2
.
7
1
.
5
1
.
0
0
.
4
0
.
2
5
1
.
6
0
.
7
3
.
4
1
.
2
0
.
8
1
.
2
3
2
.
8
4
4
.
2

L
o
a
m
2
0
.
9

2
3
7
3
7
8
.
0
1
0
.
5
1
.
3
0
.
5
0
.
1
7
2
.
3
0
.
4
1
3
.
6
5
.
6
2
.
6
3
.
4
3
2
.
8
3
4
.
2
G
r
a
v
e
l
l
y

L
o
a
m
2
6
.
9

2
3
7
3
8
S
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

f
a
c
t
o
r

(
1
.
0
=
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

f
o
r

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

c
r
o
p
)

b
e
l
o
w

e
a
c
h

n
u
t
r
i
e
n
t

v
a
l
u
e
.

N

f
a
c
t
o
r

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

2
0
0

p
p
m

c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

f
e
e
d
.

S
A
R

=

S
o
d
i
u
m

a
d
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
o
.

H
a
l
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

%
=
a
p
p
r
o
x

f
i
e
l
d

m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
.

N
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
(
N
)
,

P
o
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
(
K
)
,
C
a
l
c
i
u
m
(
C
a
)

a
n
d

M
a
g
n
e
s
i
u
m
(
M
g
)

b
y

s
o
d
i
u
m

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
.

P
h
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s
(
P
)

b
y

s
o
d
i
u
m

b
i
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e

e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
p
e
r
(
C
u
)
,

Z
i
n
c
(
Z
n
)
,

M
a
n
g
a
n
e
s
e
(
M
n
)

&

l
r
o
n
(
F
e
)

b
y

D
T
P
A

e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
.

S
a
t
.

e
x
t
.

m
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

s
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

(
E
C
e

a
s

d
S
/
m
)
,
B
o
r
o
n
(
B
)
,

S
u
l
f
a
t
e
(
S
O
*
L
O
W
,
S
U
F
F
l
C
l
E
N
T
,
H
l
G
H
4
)
,

S
o
d
i
u
m
(
N
a
)
.

G
r
a
v
e
l

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

a
s

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

o
v
e
n
-
d
r
i
e
d

s
a
m
p
l
e

p
a
s
s
i
n
g

a

1
2
m
m
(
1
/
2

i
n
c
h
)

s
i
e
v
e
.

P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

s
i
z
e
s

i
n

m
i
l
l
i
m
e
t
e
r
s
.

O
r
g
a
n
i
c

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

b
y

W
a
l
k
l
e
y
-
B
l
a
c
k

o
r

L
o
s
s

o
n

l
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
.
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y
,

l
n
c
1
1
9

F
i
l
b
e
r
t

S
t
r
e
e
t
O
a
k
l
a
n
d
P
a
g
e

:
R
e
p
o
r
t

N
o

:
D
a
t
e

R
e
c
d

:
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

O
r
d
e
r

:
D
a
t
e

P
r
i
n
t
e
d

:
1
0
-
0
7
0
-
0
0
4
4
0
3
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
0
0
3
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
0
2

o
f

2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

:
C
E
&
G

J
N
:

0
9
0
2
5
0
A
l
a
m
e
d
a

C
o
u
n
t
y

-

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d

l
m
p
r
o
C
O
M
P
R
E
H
E
N
S
I
V
E

S
O
I
L

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
C
A
9
4
6
0
7
L
a
b

N
o
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
%

d
r
y

w
t
.
E
C
e
d
S
/
m
p
H
Q
u
a
I
L
i
m
e
T
E
C
H
a
I
f

S
a
t
%
S
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

F
a
c
t
o
r
s
S
a
m
p
I
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

-

S
a
m
p
I
e

I
D
N
O
-
N
3
N
H
4
-
N
P
O
-
P
4
K
C
a
M
g
C
u
Z
n
M
n
F
e
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m
p
p
m

2
3
7
3
9
1
.
3
2
2
1
5
0
N
o
n
e
6
.
9
0
.
8
4
5
2
3
1
.
5
1
.
5
3
9
1
0
5
0
.
6
0
.
8
1
9
0
1
6
6
1
2
.
0
#
7
,

S
t
a

1
8
0
+
0
0

W
.
B
.

2
3
7
4
0
1
.
0
1
5
9
3
N
o
n
e
7
.
6
2
.
2
4
9
1
1
2
.
0
1
.
6
2
9
5
7
0
.
5
1
.
0
1
3
9
7
2
5
6
1
.
4
#
8
,

S
t
a

2
0
0
+
0
0

E
.
B
.
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

E
x
t
r
a
c
t

V
a
I
u
e
s
C
a
m
e
q
/
L
M
g
m
e
q
/
L
N
a
m
e
q
/
L
m
e
q
/
L
K
B
p
p
m
m
e
q
/
L
S
O
4
S
A
R
C
o
a
r
s
e
5

-

1
2
F
i
n
e
2

-

5
G
r
a
v
e
I

%
V
e
r
y

C
o
a
r
s
e
1

-

2
C
o
a
r
s
e
0
.
5

-

1
M
e
d
.

t
o

V
e
r
y

F
i
n
e
0
.
0
5

-

0
.
5
S
a
n
d
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
a
m
p
I
e

P
a
s
s
i
n
g

2

m
m

S
c
r
e
e
n
S
i
I
t
.
0
0
2
-
.
0
5
C
I
a
y
0
-
.
0
0
2
U
S
D
A

S
o
i
I

C
I
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
L
a
b

N
o
.
3
.
9
3
.
8
1
.
1
0
.
2
0
.
1
5
2
.
5
0
.
6
1
4
.
8
8
.
0
3
.
4
5
.
0
3
2
.
4
2
6
.
0
G
r
a
v
e
l
l
y

C
l
a
y

L
o
a
m
3
3
.
0

2
3
7
3
9
5
.
6
4
.
4
9
.
5
5
.
7
0
.
3
2
5
.
8
4
.
2
3
8
.
8
1
3
.
8
1
0
.
2
1
7
.
8
3
7
.
2
1
7
.
7
V
e
r
y

G
r
a
v
e
l
l
y

S
a
n
d
y

L
o
a
m
1
7
.
0

2
3
7
4
0

2
3
7
3
3
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

(
C
l
)
=
0
.
4
7
0
m
e
q
/
L

2
3
7
3
4
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

(
C
l
)
=
0
.
4
7
0
m
e
q
/
L

2
3
7
3
5
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

(
C
l
)
=
0
.
4
7
0
m
e
q
/
L

2
3
7
3
6
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

(
C
l
)
=
2
.
3
5
m
e
q
/
L

2
3
7
3
7
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

(
C
l
)
=
1
.
4
1
m
e
q
/
L

2
3
7
3
8
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

(
C
l
)
=
4
.
2
3
m
e
q
/
L

2
3
7
3
9
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

(
C
l
)
=
1
.
4
1
m
e
q
/
L

2
3
7
4
0
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

(
C
l
)
=
1
6
.
0
m
e
q
/
L
S
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

f
a
c
t
o
r

(
1
.
0
=
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

f
o
r

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

c
r
o
p
)

b
e
l
o
w

e
a
c
h

n
u
t
r
i
e
n
t

v
a
l
u
e
.

N

f
a
c
t
o
r

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

2
0
0

p
p
m

c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

f
e
e
d
.

S
A
R

=

S
o
d
i
u
m

a
d
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
o
.

H
a
l
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

%
=
a
p
p
r
o
x

f
i
e
l
d

m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
.

N
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
(
N
)
,

P
o
t
a
s
s
i
u
m
(
K
)
,
C
a
l
c
i
u
m
(
C
a
)

a
n
d

M
a
g
n
e
s
i
u
m
(
M
g
)

b
y

s
o
d
i
u
m

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
.

P
h
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s
(
P
)

b
y

s
o
d
i
u
m

b
i
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e

e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
.

C
o
p
p
e
r
(
C
u
)
,

Z
i
n
c
(
Z
n
)
,

M
a
n
g
a
n
e
s
e
(
M
n
)

&

l
r
o
n
(
F
e
)

b
y

D
T
P
A

e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
.

S
a
t
.

e
x
t
.

m
e
t
h
o
d

f
o
r

s
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

(
E
C
e

a
s

d
S
/
m
)
,
B
o
r
o
n
(
B
)
,

S
u
l
f
a
t
e
(
S
O
*
L
O
W
,
S
U
F
F
l
C
l
E
N
T
,
H
l
G
H
4
)
,

S
o
d
i
u
m
(
N
a
)
.

G
r
a
v
e
l

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

a
s

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

o
v
e
n
-
d
r
i
e
d

s
a
m
p
l
e

p
a
s
s
i
n
g

a

1
2
m
m
(
1
/
2

i
n
c
h
)

s
i
e
v
e
.

P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

s
i
z
e
s

i
n

m
i
l
l
i
m
e
t
e
r
s
.

O
r
g
a
n
i
c

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

b
y

W
a
l
k
l
e
y
-
B
l
a
c
k

o
r

L
o
s
s

o
n

l
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
.



www.LmpCorp.com


I MPORT SPECI FI CATI ON GUI DELI NES


USDA classification of fraction passing 2.0-mm sieve: sandy loam, sandy clay l oam or loam and
conforming t o the following:


Class Part icle size range maximum, % minimum, %

Coarse sand 0.5 - 2.0 mm 15 0

Silt .002-.05 mm 30 10

Clay < .002 mm 25 10

Ot her classes

Gravel 2 - 13 mm 15 0

Rock 1/ 2 - 1 inch 5% by volume wit h none > 1 inch

Organic 15 0

CHEMI STRY - SUI TABI LI TY CONSI DERATI ONS

Sal i ni t y: Saturation Extract Conductivity (ECe)
Less than 3.0 dS/ m @ 25
o
C.

Sodium: Sodium Adsorpt ion Ratio (SAR)
Less than 6.0

Boron: Saturation Extract Concentration
Less than 1.0 ppm

React i on: pH of Saturated Paste: 5.5 - 7.8 without high lime content.

Soil to contain sufficient quantities of available nitrogen, phosphorus, pot assium, calcium and
magnesium to support normal plant growth. I n the event of nutrient inadequacies, provisions shall be
made to add required materials prior t o plant ing.





Form # 430-C


090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
APPENDIX D
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES RESULTS

3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
2
:
4
8
:
5
8

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
1
1
7
+
0
0
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

0
.
9
9
2

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

f
o
r
c
e
s
)
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

1

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
2
8

8
0

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

1
5
0

3
6

0
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
a
f
e
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
a

1
1
7
+
0
0

b
a
c
k

c
a
l
c
2
0
0
2
5
0
F

=

0
.
9
9
2

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
2
:
4
9
:
3
4

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
1
1
7
+
0
0
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

0
.
9
9
4

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

f
o
r
c
e
s
)
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

1

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
2
8

8
0

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

1
5
0

3
6

0
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
a
f
e
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
a

1
1
7
+
0
0

b
a
c
k

c
a
l
c
2
0
0
2
5
0
F

=

0
.
9
9
4

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

f
o
r
c
e
s
)
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
2
:
4
2
:
4
1

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
1
1
7
+
0
0
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

1
.
1
0
3

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

f
o
r
c
e
s
)
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

1

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
2
8

1
0
3

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

1
9
5

3
6

0
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
a
f
e
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
a

1
1
7
+
0
0

b
a
c
k

c
a
l
c
2
0
0
2
5
0
F

=

1
.
1
0
3

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

f
o
r
c
e
s
)
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
2
:
4
3
:
2
1

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
1
1
7
+
0
0
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

1
.
1
0
3

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

f
o
r
c
e
s
)
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

1

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
2
8

1
0
3

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

1
9
5

3
6

0
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
a
f
e
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
a

1
1
7
+
0
0

b
a
c
k

c
a
l
c
2
0
0
2
5
0
F

=

1
.
1
0
3

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
2
:
5
0
:
4
5

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
1
1
7
+
0
0
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

1
.
1
9
7

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

f
o
r
c
e
s
)
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

1

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
2
8

1
2
5

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

2
4
5

3
6

0
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
a
f
e
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
a

1
1
7
+
0
0

b
a
c
k

c
a
l
c
2
0
0
2
5
0
F

=

1
.
1
9
7

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
s
t
o
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
2
:
5
1
:
3
0

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
1
1
7
+
0
0
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

1
.
2
1
4

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

f
o
r
c
e
s
)
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

1

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
2
8

1
2
5

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

2
4
5

3
6

0
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
a
f
e
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
a

1
1
7
+
0
0

b
a
c
k

c
a
l
c
2
0
0
2
5
0
F

=

1
.
2
1
4

(
r
e
i
n
f
.

f
o
r
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

t
o

r
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

f
o
r
c
e
s
)
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
2
:
5
9
:
0
4

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
f
i
n
a
l
\
1
0
1
+
5
0
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

1
.
8
6
1
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

2
5
0

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
2
8

8
0

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

1
5
0

3
6

0
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
a
l

R
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g

W
a
l
l
3
0

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
S
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
0
1
+
5
0
,

H
e
i
g
h
t

=

1
2

f
t
(
c
o
h
e
s
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

s
t
a

1
1
7

F
S
=
1
)
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
F

=

1
.
8
6
1
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
:
0
2
:
1
1

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
f
i
n
a
l
\
1
0
4
+
0
0
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

1
.
7
4
6
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

2
5
0

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
3
0

8
0

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

1
5
0

3
6

0
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
a
f
e
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
0

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
S
t
a

1
0
4
+
0
0

(
O
v
e
r
l
o
o
k
)
(
c
o
h
e
s
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

S
t
a

1
1
7

F
S
=
1
)
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
F

=

1
.
7
4
6
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
:
0
5
:
3
8

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
f
i
n
a
l
\
1
1
5
+
5
0
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

1
.
4
4
3
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

2
5
0

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
2
8

8
0

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

1
5
0

3
6

0
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
a
f
e
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
0

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
S
t
a

1
1
5
+
5
0
(
c
o
h
e
s
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

S
t
a

1
1
7

F
S
=
1
)
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
F

=

1
.
4
4
3
5
0
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
:
0
9
:
3
6

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
f
i
n
a
l
\
1
1
5
+
5
0
-
p
i
l
e
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

1
.
5
0
0
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

2
5
0

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
2
8

8
0

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

1
5
0

3
6

0
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
a
f
e
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
0

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
S
t
a

1
1
5
+
5
0
(
c
o
h
e
s
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

S
t
a

1
1
7

F
S
=
1
)
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
F

=

1
.
5
0
0
5
0
0

l
b
s
/
f
t

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
r
o
m

p
i
l
e

f
o
r

F
S
=
1
.
5
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
:
5
6
:
3
0

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
f
i
n
a
l
\
1
0
4
+
0
0

s
e
i
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

1
.
1
9
8
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

2
5
0

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
3
0

8
0

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

1
5
0

3
6

0
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

=

0
.
2
3
5
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
a
f
e
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
0

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
S
t
a

1
0
4
+
0
0

(
O
v
e
r
l
o
o
k
)
(
c
o
h
e
s
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

S
t
a

1
1
7

F
S
=
1
)
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
F

=

1
.
1
9
8
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
:
5
8
:
3
8

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
f
i
n
a
l
\
1
0
1
+
5
0
.
s
e
i
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

1
.
2
1
0
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

2
5
0

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
2
8

8
0

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

1
5
0

3
6

0
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

=

0
.
2
3
5
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
a
l

R
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g

W
a
l
l
3
0

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
S
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
0
1
+
5
0
,

H
e
i
g
h
t

=

1
2

f
t
(
c
o
h
e
s
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

s
t
a

1
1
7

F
S
=
1
)
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
F

=

1
.
2
1
0
5
0
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

2
:
0
0
:
5
7

P
M

\
\
G
r
a
n
i
t
e
\
c
e
g

m
a
s
t
e
r

f
i
l
e
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
0
2
5
0

A
C
P
W
A

S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d
.

S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
\
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
G
s
l
o
p
e
\
f
i
n
a
l
\
1
1
5
+
5
0
-
p
i
l
e
.
s
e
i
.
g
s
l


C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A




F

=

1
.
0
4
5
G
a
m
m
a

C
P
h
i
P
i
e
z
o

p
c
f

p
s
f
d
e
g
S
u
r
f
.
s
u
r
c
h
a
r
g
e

2
5
0

0

0

0
s
o
i
l

1
2
8

8
0

3
2

0
g
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

1
3
0

1
5
0

3
6

0
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

=

0
.
2
3
5
C
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

&

G
e
o
l
o
g
y

-

W
a
l
n
u
t

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
A
0
9
0
2
5
0
S
t
a
n
l
e
y

B
l
v
d

S
a
f
e
t
y

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
3
0

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
S
t
a

1
1
5
+
5
0
(
c
o
h
e
s
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

S
t
a

1
1
7

F
S
=
1
)
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
F

=

1
.
0
4
5

GEOTECHNICAL DATA AND DESIGN REPORT STANLEY BOULEVARD SAFETY AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON AND LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 29 JUNE 2010

Prepared for: Alameda County Public Works Agency 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, California 94544

Prepared by: Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc. 119 Filbert Street Oakland, California 94607

14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 2.0  3.0  4.0 

Page i Stanley Boulevard Improvements

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................................2  SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................3  GEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................................4  4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ................................................................................................4 4.2 SITE GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................4 4.3  SURFICIAL SOILS ........................................................................................................4  4.4  SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................5  4.5  TECTONIC SETTING....................................................................................................5  4.6  SEISMICITY...................................................................................................................5  5.0  EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAM ....................................................................7  5.1  UTILITY POTHOLING .................................................................................................7  5.2  EXPLORATORY BORINGS .........................................................................................7  5.3  LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................8  5.4  PERCOLATION TESTING............................................................................................8  5.5  SOIL TREATMENT AND FERTILITY ANALYSIS ...................................................8  6.0  GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................10  6.1  GENERAL ....................................................................................................................10  6.2  SEISMIC HAZARDS ...................................................................................................11  7.0  ENGINEERING ANALYSES..............................................................................................14  7.1  STABILITY ANALYSES ............................................................................................14  8.0  DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................17  8.1  DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................17  8.2  CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................22  9.0  LIMITATIONS .....................................................................................................................25  10.0  REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................26  TABLE 1. ACTIVE FAULTS .........................................................................................................6 TABLE 2. BACK CALCULATED SOIL COHESION RESULTING IN VARIOUS FACTORS OF SAFETY ......................................................................................................15 TABLE 3. MSE RETAINING WALL DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS .....................................18 TABLE 4. PILE AND PILE CAP DESIGN PARAMETERS ......................................................19 TABLE 5. CIDH PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS .......................................................................20 TABLE 6. CONCRETE AND MASONRY RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS ...21 FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION FIGURE 2. TYPICAL SECTION FIGURE 3. SITE GEOLOGY
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.

14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report FIGURE 4. SURFICIAL SOILS FIGURE 5. SEISMIC HAZARDS FIGURE 6. SITE PLAN AND BORING LOCATIONS FIGURE 7. LOADING DIAGRAMS APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D.

Page ii Stanley Boulevard Improvements

BORING LOGS PERCOLATION TEST DATA SOIL TREATMENT AND FERTILITY ANALYSIS SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES RESULTS

090250.002

Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.

The purposes of this Geotechnical Data and Design Report are to develop information regarding the surface and subsurface soil conditions near the proposed improvements and to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the planned project. In the vicinity of Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area. constructing Class II bike lanes. modifying existing highway lighting and traffic signal systems.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. improving the drainage system. streetscaping. . Inc.0 INTRODUCTION Alameda County Public Works Agency is proposing to improve the safety and visual aesthetics of Stanley Boulevard between the city limits of Pleasanton and Livermore in an unincorporated area of Alameda County. reconstructing the existing median to incorporate landscaping (trees & ground cover). Project elements include undergrounding the existing aerial utilities.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Page 1 Stanley Boulevard Improvements 1. 090250. The project will improve pedestrian and bicyclist access as well as improve the visual aesthetics along Stanley Boulevard. constructing a multi-use pathway along the south side of the roadway. and pavement reconstruction and slurry seal in appropriate areas to accommodate these improvements. the project will include the construction of a retaining wall to both provide a level pad for a new pathway and to protect the path against erosion which could damage the pathway.

and geotechnical design considerations and recommendations pertaining to the design and construction of the proposed project. and Developing geotechnical design parameters for the project. and engineering analysis. Subcontracted soil chemistry and fertility analysis.0 SCOPE OF WORK Page 2 Stanley Boulevard Improvements The services completed in developing this Geotechnical Data and Design Report included the following:           Coordinating with County staff and project consultants. This report presents the results of the review of available data. Reviewing previous geotechnical reports prepared for the site.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 2. field exploration. Inc. Our investigation has been specifically limited to developing information regarding the geotechnical conditions within the vicinity of the areas of the proposed improvements. Performing engineering analyses. laboratory testing program. Reviewing published soil and geologic maps of the area.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. Conducting laboratory and field testing of selected samples recovered from the borings. Drilling and sampling of three exploratory borings. Completing eight on-site percolation tests and obtaining samples for soil chemistry and fertility testing. Evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials at the site was not requested and was beyond the authorized scope of this project. Evaluating the materials encountered in the borings. 090250. .

090250. The lake was reportedly filled circa 1972. and became Shadow Cliffs Lake and the Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area. A retaining wall is to be constructed at the top of the slope in order to create a level area to accommodate the road widening and pathway. The quarry pit was eventually filled with water. Inc. which was excavated on the south side of the road during quarrying activities which took place prior to the 1970s. Typical cross sections of the roadway and retaining wall configurations are shown in Figure 2. The retaining wall will be approximately 1.900 feet long and will vary in height from 4 feet to up to 12 feet tall. As part of the project.0 Page 3 Stanley Boulevard Improvements SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Alameda County Public Works Agency is planning to improve the safety and visual aesthetics of Stanley Boulevard between the City Limits of Pleasanton and Livermore in an unincorporated area of Alameda County as shown in Figure 1. The cut slope has inclinations between 2H:1V (horizontal: vertical) to 0. Several bioswales are also planned along the side of the road to mitigate storm water runoff from the roadway. One segment of the project is to be located at the crest of a cut slope. Based on our discussions with East Bay Regional Park District personnel and County personnel.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 3.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. Stanley Boulevard is a four lane arterial that trends east-west and provides access between downtown Livermore and Interstate 580 to the east and downtown Pleasanton and Interstate 680 to the west. The bottom of the wall will be located on the cut slope and will have either a leveling pad or a pile and pile cap foundation. . Stanley Boulevard will be widened and a multi-use pathway will be constructed on the south side of the road. The bioswales will consist of a “V” shaped earth ditch through though which water will percolate and then enter a subdrain system which will then discharge into the storm drain facility. it is our understanding that the quarry pit was over 115 feet deep prior to being filled to within 50 feet of the top of the cut. deeded over to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD).8H:1V.

1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY Page 4 Stanley Boulevard Improvements GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project site is located within California’s Coast Ranges province. and Crane (1995). The geology of this province can be defined by two distinct basement rock core complexes adjacent to one another and separated by large magnitude faults. The Plasticity Index ranges between 5 to 15 percent. . shown in Figure 4. 4. The NRCS map. Yolo Loam and Gravel Pits. The erosion hazard is slight in cultivated areas. indicates that the project site is underlain by two soil types. The first core complex is defined by a Jurassic-Cretaceous eugeosyclinal assemblage consisting of the Franciscan rock. sands. Diablo Range to the east of San Francisco. Nilsen (1975). and silts with some interbedded clays.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. 090250. The province includes many separate ranges. This mapping is consistent with the materials observed at the site and those encountered by previous exploratory borings and our recently completed exploration. and Crane all map the site as alluvial deposits as shown in Figure 3. The second complex is defined by Early Cretaceous granitic intrusives and older metamorphic rocks of the Salinian block.3 SURFICIAL SOILS The surficial soils in Alameda County have been mapped by the USDA NRCS (2009). Dibblee. Yolo Loam is found on 0 to 3 percent slopes and consists of alluvium comprised of clay (CL) and silt (ML) derived from sandstone and shale.0 4. The Liquid Limit ranges between 25 and 35 percent. Some of the prominent ranges within the province include the Mendocino Range to the north. Most of the sedimentary strata are continental in origin accept those adjacent to the present coast. while recent Quaternary tectonic movement has shaped the terrain that characterize the topography today. Nilsen. The Coast Ranges are long series of north-west trending ranges separated by parallel river valleys.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 4. Inc. The shrink-swell potential is low. coalescing mountain masses.2 SITE GEOLOGY The site geology in the project area has been mapped by Dibblee (1980). 4. Deposits of late Pliocene and Pleistocene age are mainly slightly consolidated gravels. The gravel pits consist of gravely sand (SG). and several major structural valleys shaped primarily by tectonic forces. Large portions of the province are covered in late Cretaceous and Cenozoic sedimentary bedrock. and the Santa Cruz Mountains.

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Page 5 Stanley Boulevard Improvements Cal Engineering & Geology prepared a geotechnical report for a cut slope failure at the northeast corner of Shadow Cliffs Lake in 1998. The seismic activity of the greater Bay Area results from the complex movements along the transform boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. 1998). 2003). The distances to the fault systems are presented in the Table below (CDMG. 1982). 4. 4.1 Active Faulting The site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone for active faults as designated by the State Geologist (CDMG. Geotechnical borings and field observations of the failed slope revealed that the slope was comprised of 10 to 16 feet of stiff to very stiff sandy silt underlain by very dense gravel and sand to the bottom of the borings (approximately 46 feet below grade).002 Cal Engineering & Geology. In this broad zone. Some of the other active faults systems which could induce strong ground shaking at the site include the Hayward.6 SEISMICITY 4. Inc. Napa.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 4. Hayward. Concord Green Valley. Much of the remainder in the greater San Francisco Bay Area is distributed across the Calaveras. .5 TECTONIC SETTING The project site is located within the greater San Francisco Bay Area which is recognized as one of the more seismically active regions of California. The Greenville fault system is mapped about 13 kilometers northwest. Greenville. and Rodgers Creek fault zones. is mapped about 7 kilometers west-southwest of the project area (CDMG. The transform boundary between the two plates extends across a broad zone of the North American Plate within which right lateral strike slip faulting predominates. Rodgers Creek. the Calaveras fault system. 090250. ConcordGreen Valley. San Andreas.6. The nearest active fault. and Ortigalita fault systems. Studies have shown that the Pacific Plate is slowly moving to the northwest relative to the more stable North American Plate at an average rate of about 40 mm/yr (USGS. The affected portion of the cut slope failed in early February 1998 during a record rainstorm. The differential movements between the two crustal plates caused the formation of a series of active fault systems within the transform boundary. 1998). San Gregorio. the San Andreas Fault accommodates less than half of the average total relative plate motion.

the greater the distance to the epicenter. the map does indicate that soil underlying the lake and along the banks of the lake has the potential to liquefy during a seismic event. 090250. Additionally. Inc.2 Liquefaction and/or Earthquake Induced Landslides In 2008. However. The map indicated areas where the historical occurrence of liquefaction and/or earthquake induced landslides indicate a potential for permanent displacements. 4. In general. the lesser the intensity of the ground shaking that is anticipated to occur at the site. as shown in Figure 5.6. The intensity of ground shaking that is likely to occur at the property will generally depend on the magnitude of the earthquake and the distance to the epicenter.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Table 1.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. the map indicates that the east edge of the Stanley Boulevard embankment has the potential for permanent ground displacements due to earthquake-induced landslides.5Minute Quadrangle in conformance with Public Resources Code Section 2693c. . Active Faults Fault Name Calaveras Greenville Hayward Concord-Green Valley San Andreas Page 6 Stanley Boulevard Improvements Fault Type Type B Type B Type A Type B Type A Distance From Site 7 km west-southwest 13 km northeast 17 km southwest 27 km west-northwest 47 km southwest A large magnitude earthquake on any of these fault systems has the potential to cause significant ground shaking at the site. This mapping is likely due to both the steepness of the embankment (a previous quarry excavation) and the potential liquefaction of material near the lake and its impact on global stability of the embankment. the California Geologic Survey released a seismic hazard map of the Livermore 7. The Seismic Hazard Zone map indicates that the road embankment above Shadow Cliffs Lake has a low potential for liquefaction.

D. Inc. The utilities identified in the vicinity of the project include underground gas lines. 090250. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown in Figure 6. 3.0 inch outer diameter (O. The borings generally encountered alluvium consisting of silty sand (SM) with gravel and clayey sand (SC) with gravel to the depths explored. soil samples were obtained using one of the following sampling methods:   Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Split Spoon Sampler.5 inch inner diameter (I.. 5. and elevations of existing utilities.D. 1.0 Page 7 Stanley Boulevard Improvements EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAM 5. An engineer from our office maintained logs of the borings. 2. During the drilling operations. The number of blows required to drive the SPT and CM sampler 6 inches were recorded for each sample and are included on the boring logs in Appendix A. fiber optic cables. . and storm drains. More detailed descriptions of the materials encountered in the borings are included on the boring logs in Appendix A. alignments. 2.1 UTILITY POTHOLING Potholes were excavated by Subtronic to determine utility types. All of the borings were located on the south side of Stanley Boulevard at the edge of the pavement. The results of the potholing work are summarized on plans prepared by the Alameda County Public Works Agency. and obtained representative samples of the subsurface materials.D.4 inch I. The borings were excavated by Moore Twining Associates. using a truck-mounted drilling rig equipped with 6-inch diameter hollow stem augers to a depth of 60 feet.0 inch O.) The split spoon samplers were driven 18 inches (unless otherwise noted) into undisturbed soil using a 30-inch drop of a 140 pound hammer.). electrical lines. The soil conditions were fairly similar in each of the borings along the alignment. Inc.D. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 50 feet which appeared to correspond to the same elevation as the water surface on Shadow Cliffs Lake. California Modified (CM) Split Spoon Sampler.2 EXPLORATORY BORINGS The site was explored by drilling and sampling three exploratory borings on 6 May 2009.002 Cal Engineering & Geology.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 5. visually identified and classified soils encountered in general accordance with ASTM Standard Practice D 2488.

The results of the percolation tests are attached as Appendix B. 5. The following analyses were performed:        pH electrical conductivity nitrate ammonium phosphorus potassium calcium        saturation percentage sodium chloride sodium adsorption ratio boron percent sand-silt-clay lime percentage of organics 090250. Tests at six of the locations resulted in calculated percolation rates between 0. “Bay-Friendly Landscape Site Analysis. which were retained during the percolation tests. 5. Inc. One of the locations had an average percolation rate of 22 inches per hour and another location drained immediately due to the presence of animal burrows in the vicinity. Inc. Moisture and density tests (ASTM D2937) were performed on select samples from all three borings.5 SOIL TREATMENT AND FERTILITY ANALYSIS The bulk samples. Bulk samples of the soil were retained for potential soil chemistry tests and fertility analysis. the materials encountered had dry densities between 118 and 133 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and moisture contents between 4 and 10 percent. . of San Jose. California to obtain information concerning the qualitative and quantitative physical and mechanical properties of the samples recovered during the subsurface exploration program. were analyzed by Soil & Plant Laboratory.3 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed at the Cal Engineering & Geology soils testing laboratory in Oakland.4 PERCOLATION TESTING Eight percolation test locations were chosen by a consultant to the County for design of the bioswale backfill soil.41 and 1. Tests were performed in the in general conformance with applicable ASTM standards. 5.org. The percolation tests were performed by a geologist from our office at the chosen test locations in accordance with the analysis guidelines. Based upon the tests.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Page 8 Stanley Boulevard Improvements Soil samples obtained from the borings were packaged and sealed in the field to reduce the potential for moisture loss and disturbance and brought to Cal Engineering & Geology’s Oakland office for storage and potential laboratory testing.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. The results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.” published by StopWaste.5 inches per hour.

Inc.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. which is attached as Appendix C. 090250.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Page 9 Stanley Boulevard Improvements The analytical results and recommendations are included in a report prepared by Soil & Plant Laboratory. .

2) Each of these considerations is discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. geologic research. Due to the steepness of the existing cut slope below the proposed widening. and engineering evaluations.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 6. 6. the design of the retaining walls will need to include location specific global slope stability analyses which consider and account for the existing steep slopes.8H:1V. The subsurface exploration and laboratory testing indicate that the soils encountered in the borings drilled in the vicinity of the proposed Stanley Boulevard improvements consist of silty and clayey sand with gravel. These materials are consistent with the published geologic and soil mapping of the area.2 Slope Stability A portion of the proposed improvements along the south side of Stanley Boulevard is located above a steep slope created from pit mining of gravels.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. As a result of the mining activities. 6.1. .1 GENERAL Page 10 Stanley Boulevard Improvements GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Based on our understanding of the project. The strengths arrived at based upon the correlations are consistent with published values for the soil encountered. A pile supported foundation system will be 090250. The soil strength is sufficient for the proposed improvements. The primary geotechnical considerations for the subsurface conditions at the locations of the improvements are:      soil strength slope stability erosion groundwater dynamic response (addressed in Section 6. side slopes of Shadow Cliffs Lake (the former gravel pit) have inclinations that are as steep as 0. Inc. laboratory test data.0 6. we conclude that the proposed construction is feasible provided that the geotechnical recommendations in this report are adhered to in the design and construction of the project.1.1 Soil Strength Evaluation of the soil strength was made through a comparison of the blow counts from the borings and published correlations between effective friction angle and corrected blow count.

no specific measures other than hydro-seeding the areas disturbed by the contractor’s operations are needed. 6. 6.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS 6.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. 6.1. seasonal variation in the water level and perched groundwater conditions can occur. Therefore.2.2 Seismically-Induced Ground Shaking Due to the proximity of the site to numerous active fault systems which traverse the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Although the groundwater encountered is likely below the limits of construction.4 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 50 feet after drilling in the three borings. 6. The contractor should be prepared to address the presence of groundwater regardless of when construction occurs. It should be noted that the presence of groundwater may affect drilling and placing of cast-in-place concrete piles. This depth appears to be at or near the lake water surface elevation. As a result the project technical specifications should include provisions which require that the contractor anticipate and be prepared for such conditions and that drill hole casing may be required. This depth may not necessarily reflect the groundwater surface at the time of construction. The results of the analyses performed are presented in the Section 7. This potential hazard should be taken into consideration when designing any structural systems for the project.1 Fault Rupture The site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone for active faults as defined by the State Geologist and the nearest mapped active fault (Calaveras) is located approximately 7 kilometers west-southwest of the site. The effects are likely to consist of significant ground accelerations.1.0 Engineering Analyses.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Page 11 Stanley Boulevard Improvements required for the retaining wall to increase global stability of the slope/wall configuration.3 Erosion The slope below the proposed retaining wall has evidence of some minor sliding and surficial erosion. These ground movements may cause damage to the proposed improvements. 090250. Slope stability analyses for the planned widening are included in Section 7.2. it is likely that the property will be subjected to the effects of a major earthquake during the design life of the proposed improvements. however based on the long term performance of the embankment. Inc. The retaining wall/embankment configuration will need to be evaluated with respect to pseudostatic (seismic) slope stability. the potential for surface rupture due to primary faulting at the site is considered to be low and no specific design or construction measures are required to address fault rupture. .

2. The borings encountered clayey sand with gravel and silty sand with gravel which was generally medium dense in the upper 10 to 15 feet and dense below that depth.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 6. As a result. Although the borings encountered dense materials at depth. 6.5 Seismically-Induced Subsidence Seismically-induced ground shaking can cause vertical subsidence of specific types of soils.2. Seismically related settlement generally results from the densification of loose sands and sandy silts due to vibrations or liquefaction.4 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is a type of ground instability that results in ground displacements that occur when liquefaction of a soil layer causes insufficient strength for lateral stability. we do not recommend remedial measures be implemented to alleviate the liquefaction potential.3 Liquefaction Page 12 Stanley Boulevard Improvements Our exploratory drilling revealed that the project site is primarily underlain by medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel and clayey sand with gravel to the depths explored. Groundwater was observed at a depth of about 50 feet and generally corresponded to the water surface elevation in Shadow Cliffs Lake. we judge the potential for lateral spreading to occur at the site to be low to moderate and do not recommend remedial measures. less dense zones could be present. the resulting damages are likely to be limited to isolated portions of the improvements. The material encountered at and below the depth of groundwater encountered was generally dense and not prone to liquefaction. As a result.2. less dense zones does exist. no remedial measures are recommended. etc. these materials increased in density with depth. or when there is an open slope face or stream channel adjacent to a potentially liquefiable soil layer. 6. The cracking and deformation are the result of the disruption of the passing earthquake waves. some loose silty sand was encountered. we judge the potential for widespread liquefaction directly below Stanley Boulevard and the proposed improvement to be low.2. the potential for significant seismically-induced subsidence is low to moderate.6 Ground Lurching Ground lurching is a phenomenon whereby strong seismic shaking causes cracking and deformation of the ground surface in areas underlain by soft weak soils. Based on the 090250. but there is potential for some liquefaction to occur at below lake level. Since the potential for deeper. especially along the perimeter of the lake. If liquefaction of material along the edge of the lake does occur. Based upon the materials encountered in our exploratory borings. As a result of the type of improvements proposed (multi-use pathway. This phenomenon occurs when either the ground surface or the soil layer subject to liquefaction is sloped. 6. We judge that the probability of liquefaction induced damages occurring to the planned improvements to be low to moderate.).002 Cal Engineering & Geology. At boring B-3. . Inc. In general.

14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Page 13 Stanley Boulevard Improvements known site soil conditions and our analysis. there is a low potential for ground lurching at the site and no remedial measures are recommended. .002 Cal Engineering & Geology. Inc. 090250.

All analyses were performed using the computer program GSLOPE (v. Based on these data. 5. Pseudostatic stability analyses were performed using a pseudostatic coefficient determined according to the methods described in 2008 California Geologic Survey document SP117A titled. This section is similar to Sta 104 +00. an average unit weight of 128 pcf was judged to be representative of the upper portion of the embankment and the compacted retaining wall backfill materials consisting of silty 090250.1. Only circular potential failure surfaces were considered. The stability model used a 250 psf live load surcharge for Stanley Boulevard and a 125 psf surcharge for the pathway.” The mean moment magnitude used in the pseudostatic stability analyses was determined from a probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation analysis tool on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website. Sta 101+50: this section consists of a 12 ft tall segmental retaining wall founded on a leveling pad.).   The analyses were completed using Bishop’s Modified Method of analysis and search routines were used to evaluate a large number of failure surfaces and identify the most critical surface for a given slope.1. Sta 115+50: this section consists of a 12 ft tall segmental retaining wall supported by a castin-drilled hole pile foundation. “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. The following wall/embankment configurations were analyzed:   Sta 117+00: this existing steep section was used to back-calculate a reasonable cohesion value for other analyses (see Section 7.1 Analysis Methods Page 14 Stanley Boulevard Improvements ENGINEERING ANALYSES Static and pseudostatic stability of representative cross sections of the retaining wall/embankment were evaluated using limit equilibrium slope stability methods.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 7.002 Cal Engineering & Geology.1.2.0 7. but with a slightly different geometry. This section is flatter and does not require a pile foundation. Inc. This section requires piles due to the steepness of the slope below the retaining walls. . Sta 104+00: this section consists of a 12 ft tall segmental retaining wall founded on a leveling pad. 7.03).1 STABILITY ANALYSES 7.2 Material Properties Assumed for Stability Analysis In situ unit weight was evaluated based on the test data summarized on the boring logs. The stability model used a 250 psf live load surcharge for Stanley Boulevard and a 125 psf surcharge for the pathway. The stability model used a 250 psf live load surcharge for Stanley Boulevard and a 125 psf surcharge for the pathway.

which will be generated from the project excavations. as use of the friction angles from the correlations would indicate that the existing embankment would have already failed while long term performance of the cut shows otherwise.1. For the existing materials below the proposed improvements. 090250. Shear strength properties were initially determined for the embankments materials based on the blow counts recorded during the subsurface investigation and published correlations. If the factor of safety was much lower than 1. etc. Since the depth to groundwater was on the order of 50 feet. Factor of Safety =1. settlement. consisting of clayey sand (SC) with gravel. stability analyses of the existing conditions at the site indicate that these are too low. . The long-term performance of the cut also suggests that the factor of safety is well above unity.0).2 to 1.0. 7. Table 2. this value is conservative since the finished quarry excavation was likely intended to have a minimum factor of safety on the order of 1. The resulting calculated cohesion values needed to attain these factors of safety are shown in Table 2.1 1.2. an average unit weight of 130 pcf was assumed. 1.2 for the steepest area of the existing slope (Sta 117+00).1.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Page 15 Stanley Boulevard Improvements sand (SM) with gravel.0 1.3. Inc.2 Silty Sand (SM) 128 with Gravel Clayey Sand (SC) 130 with Gravel 32 36 80 psf 150 psf 103 psf 195 psf 125 psf 245 psf For the analyses of sections with proposed improvements. general deformation. we would generally expect to see poor long-term performance exhibited as tension cracks. we used the lowest back-calculated cohesion value (Station 117+00. and 1. Back Calculated Soil Cohesion for Various Factors of Safety Cohesion Unit Weight Friction Angle Material Factor of Safety (lb/ft3) (degrees) 1.3 Groundwater Conditions Assumed for Stability Analysis Groundwater conditions assumed for within the embankments were based on the subsurface investigation which did not encounter an elevated ground water condition and supported the ground water being at the elevation of the Shadow Cliffs Lake. it was not modeled in the stability analyses performed for the proposed improvements. However. We addressed this by performing a parametric back-calculation of the cohesion values necessary to arrive at factors of safety of 1. In our opinion. localized failures.002 Cal Engineering & Geology.

5 and pseudostatic (seismic) factors of safety are in excess of 1.0 as required by the SP117A screening procedure.002 Cal Engineering & Geology.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 7. Inc. 090250. The GSLOPE computer output is included in Appendix D. As a result of passing the seismic screening procedure. . seismic displacement analyses were not performed.4 Results of Stability Analysis Page 16 Stanley Boulevard Improvements The results of analysis indicate static factors of safety for the planned configurations are in excess of 1.1.

1. and Mesri (Terzaghi. For areas where the geogrid reinforced zone cannot be accommodated.1 Segmental Retaining Wall (SRW) Segmental retaining walls should be designed in conformance with the provisions of the “Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. a retaining wall will need to be constructed along the portion of the project that runs along the crest of the cut slope on the north side of Shadow Cliffs Lake. internal friction angle. 18 inches wide. .000 psi and should have a maximum moisture absorption of 6 percent to 8 percent. Inc.” published by the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. and cohesion parameters of the backfill soil. the soil to be retained. 11 . and aesthetics of different potential retaining wall systems was completed and discussed with County personnel.2 Soils Segmental retaining wall design relies upon the unit weight.1. publication number FHWA-NHI-10-024.1 Wall Units Segmental retaining wall units should be masonry units manufactured in accordance with ASTM C90 and ASTM C140. constructability.1. 1996).1. the recommended parameters to design mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls are shown below in Table 3. and the foundation soil underlying the wall. Recommendations for each of these two types of retaining wall systems are provided below. The values shown for retained zone and foundation zone soils represent the in situ conditions judged to exist at the site and are the same (sans cohesion) as those used in the global stability analyses discussed in Section 7. Peck. SRW unit concrete should have a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 3. The values shown for the reinforced zone are representative of the expected strength of the compacted on site soils and the minimum strength required of any potential import materials. and 20 inches deep.1 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS In order to provide a level subgrade on which to construct the proposed roadway widening and multi-use pathway. Based on the normalized standard penetration test (SPT) blow count values and a correlation published by Terzaghi. 090250. 8.Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes. a conventional reinforced concrete retaining wall should be used. 8.0 Page 17 Stanley Boulevard Improvements DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 8.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 8. Evaluation of the relative costs. The nominal dimensions of the retaining wall units should be 8 inches high.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. 8.1. Conventional and pile supported segmental retaining walls were determined to be the preferred retaining wall system for the majority of the site.

whichever is greater. the daylight value may be reduced to the design height or 4 feet. 090250. 11. whichever is less.Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes” Backfill soil for use in the reinforced zone (between the geogrid layers) should have a plasticity index of less than 12 percent.3 Geogrid Reinforcement The minimum geogrid length should be at least 8 feet or 70 percent of the design height of the wall. and lengths may also need to be modified based on global stability analyses. Conventional SRW Leveling Pad A conventional SRW leveling pad foundation should be used along the retaining wall alignment where there is a minimum of 10 feet to daylight (soil between the face of the lower most wall unit and a 2H:1V plane buried completely below the existing embankment). spacing.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Page 18 Stanley Boulevard Improvements Table 3. The long-term design strength (LTDS). 11 . Geogrid strengths. MSE Retaining Wall Design Soil Parameters Portion of Unit Weight Friction Angle Cohesion* Retaining Wall (lb/ft3) (degrees) (lb/ft2) Reinforced Zone 130 32 0 Retained Zone 128 32 0 Foundation Zone 130 36 0 * For SRW wall analyses cohesion is ignored in accordance with “Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. The need for a leveling pad or a pile supported foundation should be determined based on the results of site specific geometry and the global stability analyses discussed in Section 7.1. a liquid limit less than 40 percent. 8. These requirements apply to both on site materials and potential import materials to be used in the reinforced zone. and lengths should be determined based on design analyses in accordance with Geotechnical Engineering Circular No.4 Foundation The SRW should be supported on a foundation consisting of either a conventional SRW leveling pad or cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete pile foundation. and an effective angle of internal friction of no less than 32 degrees. Backfill soil should not contain organic material (top soil) and should not be placed in loose lifts exceeding 8 inches.1. Inc. vertical spacing.1.1. 8.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. . For walls that have design heights less than 10 feet tall.

The leveling pad should be 30 inches wide and consist of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (Caltrans Test 216). The loading is also shown on Figure 7. Pile Supported Foundation A CIDH concrete pile and pile cap foundation should generally be used where the slopes in front of the wall are too steep and the daylight requirement above cannot be met. The passive pressure should be neglected to a depth of 4 feet below the top of the grade beam. The cast-in-drilled-hole pile foundations should be designed to resist all vertical and lateral loads. Pile and Pile Cap Design Parameters Condition in Active pressure Front of Wall (Level Backfill at Top of Wall) Level Slope* 45 psf/ft 2H:1V Slope 45 psf/ft Passive Resistance 400 psf/ft 160 psf/ft *or 10 feet below top of grade beam for passive resistance. Allowable active pressures and passive resistances that can be used to design the piles are presented in Table 4. Table 4. . The units should be centered on the leveling pad. The wall height is taken as the distance from the top of the uppermost wall unit to the bottom of the lowermost wall unit. Additional geotechnical design parameters that should be used in design of the CIDH piles are presented in Table 5.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Page 19 Stanley Boulevard Improvements The top of the leveling pad should be embedded below the finish ground in front of the wall a minimum of 15 percent of the wall height. The extent of the pile supported foundation should be determined based on global stability analyses. The active pressure should be applied to the projected area of the grade beam and CIDH piles to a depth of 4 feet below the top of the grade beam. Inc. The leveling pad elevation should be determined based on the embedment criteria above. 090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology.

All crushed rock drainage materials should be compacted by vibratory compaction to either 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with Caltrans California Test 216 (for Class 2 permeable material) or until the drain rock is in a dense tight condition (free draining crushed rock). if any. The retaining wall unit voids. 3/8 inch to 3/4 inch.1. . Cleanouts consisting of non-perforated tightline pipe located in utility boxes should be provided at the high end(s). 200 sieve. and every 100 feet.1. The flow line of the perforated pipe should be located approximately 2 inches above the bottom of the drain rock material. 090250. Discharge pipes should be provided every 50 feet along the length of all drains.5 Wall Drainage To reduce the potential for the build-up of hydrostatic pressures. with no more than 5 percent passing the no. The crushed aggregate should be either Caltrans Class 2 permeable material or free draining crushed rock or coarse gravel. The cleanout system should be tested prior to backfilling over the drain material.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. Filter fabric shall be Caltrans Underdrain Filter Fabric with a minimum weight of 6 ounces per square yard. CIDH Pile Design Parameters Parameter Value Minimum Diameter 24 inches Allowable Skin Friction 250 psf Minimum Spacing Three (3) pile diameters Minimum Depth 15 feet below bottom of pile cap Page 20 Stanley Boulevard Improvements 8. The SRW drainage system should consist of crushed aggregate zone that is 12 inches wide and extends from the top of the leveling pad to a depth of 2 feet below the top of wall elevation and a perforated subdrain pipe. Drain pipes should be SDR 35 polyvinyl chloride (PVC).14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Table 5. Perforated subdrain pipes should be installed with the holes down located. Rock slope protection consisting of Caltrans Facing Class rock slope protection should be provided at the discharge pipe outlet location to reduce the potential of soil erosion during normal wall drainage and when flushing the system during periodic maintenance. The perforated subdrain pipe should be connected to a tightline discharge pipe that outlets at the slope face and is protected by a corrugated metal pipe sleeve. the retaining wall should include a permanent drainage system. The crushed rock or coarse gravel should be encapsulated by filter fabric. should also be infilled with the crushed aggregate (unit/drain fill). Inc.

Inc. Concrete retaining walls should be designed to be supported on either a spread footing and/or a CIDH pile foundation based on the criteria presented above for the segmental retaining wall. When combining friction and passive pressure in the footing design. one of the two should be reduced by 50 percent. 8. Table 6. For the purpose of bearing calculations.1 Design Loads Active pressures and passive resistances for design of the retaining walls were developed using Coulomb lateral earth pressure theory based on a soil having an internal friction angle of 32 degrees.1. which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces.1.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 8. the embedment and drainage recommendations presented above apply.2 Concrete and Masonry Retaining Walls Page 21 Stanley Boulevard Improvements Concrete and masonry retaining walls may be utilized for the project and can be founded on either a spread footing or piles based upon the site conditions. Concrete retaining walls should be utilized to support the overlook structure and an electrical utility vault located near the overlook structure.35 Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure 0 psf/ft for footing design Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure 160 psf/ft for CIDH Pile design * the 2 feet embedment depth is only applicable if greater depth is not required to comply with the 10 feet to daylight recommendation. For concrete and masonry walls. Concrete and Masonry Retaining Wall Design Parameters Parameter Value Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure 45 psf/ft Minimum Embedment 2 feet* Minimum Width 3 feet Allowable Bearing Capacity 2. Concrete walls could potentially also be used at any of the locations where retaining walls are proposed and could be up to about 12 feet tall. 090250.2. . A loading diagram for the walls is shown on Figure 7 and is summarized in Table 6. the weight of the concrete in the footing may be neglected.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. The bearing value indicated above is for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one third for short duration loading.500 psf Coefficient of Friction 0.

. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to remain in a drilled pier hole overnight. “Dobie” blocks or similar devices should be used to centralize the reinforcing steel in the hole. “Piling. and possibly for temporary access. except as modified herein. Although water was not encountered above a depth of 50 feet and likely be below the depth of the proposed improvements. grade beam. 090250.2. moistened.2. Should this occur.” of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Specifications. 8. it may be necessary for the contractor to enlarge the hole to a wider diameter and/or a greater depth as deemed necessary by an engineer or geologist from our office.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. The bottoms of the drilled holes should be dry and free of loose cuttings and debris prior to the installation of reinforcing steel and concrete. This should be done to the satisfaction of an engineer or geologist from CE&G. 8.2 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 8. and free of shrinkage cracks prior to placing concrete and concrete pipe. The vertical load capacity of the CIDH piles and the minimum requirement of the piles are contained in Table 5.2 Structure Excavations Excavation for construction of improvements will include but not be limited to excavations for retaining walls. if necessary. Sono tubes or similar forming materials should used. All excavations should be cleaned of all loose material. The reinforcing steel should also be supported at the ground surface such that it hangs a minimum of 4 inches above the bottom of the hole. It should also be noted that although caving was not encountered in the borings. May 2006 edition. it is possible that adverse groundwater conditions may be encountered during construction. pipes. the potential to encounter running sands/silts that would necessitate casing of portions of the drilled holes may exist. The concrete should be placed neatly in the holes.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Page 22 Stanley Boulevard Improvements The actual dimensions and reinforcement for the footing should be determined by structural design calculations. Inc. This should be done to the satisfaction of an engineer or geologist from Cal Engineering & Geology. spread footing. The contractor should be prepared for this potential situation. The contractor should be prepared to drill and place the steel and concrete for the foundation piers on the same day should adverse groundwater condition be encountered during construction.1 Piles Pile construction should conform to the provisions of Section 49.

buried pipes. All imported fill must be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to importation to the site.” of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. pipes. All fill should be placed as engineered fill and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (or greater) as determined by the Caltrans California Test 216 procedure at a moisture content of 1 to 3 percent above optimum. All fill placed at the site should be engineered and compacted to the following specifications. 090250. Fill materials which do not meet the specified relative compaction should be ripped. A minimum uncompacted backfill thickness of 6 inches is required prior to operation of tracked vehicles over the geogrid. concrete.3. “Structure Backfill. Backfill within the reinforced zone of the SRW should be placed from the wall rearward into the embankment to create tautness in the geogrid. utility excavations. A minimum of three to four days will be required to evaluate and test the suitability of all proposed imported materials.2. Fill materials should be spread evenly and compacted in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Inc. the area to receive fill should be cleared and grubbed of existing vegetation. Backfill should be placed.3 Earthwork Page 23 Stanley Boulevard Improvements It is anticipated that embankment fills will be required to arrive at the final grades and for the backfilling of excavations which include but are not limited to retaining walls. Only hand-operated compaction equipment should be allowed within 3 feet of the back surface of the retaining wall units or the construction surface slope crest. and compacted in such a manner that minimizes the development of slack or loss of pre-tension of the geogrid. 8. and re-compacted until the required relative compaction and moisture content are attained. moisture conditioned. Tracked construction equipment shall not be operated directly on the geogrid. Turning of tracked vehicles should be kept to a minimum to reduce the potential for tracks displacing the fill and damaging the geogrid. All imported materials should conform to the provisions of Section 19-4.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 8. and the Section 8.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. All existing structures and debris should be removed from the site.2. and footings. all loose soil and vegetation should be removed from the areas to receive fill. Rubber-tired equipment may pass over the geogrid reinforcement at slow speeds. All depressions created by the tree removal and demolition of existing structures should be excavated to firm soil prior to placement of fill. spread.1 Fill placement Prior to commencement of earthwork operations. etc. . .2. less than 10 mph. Prior to placement of engineered fill. Sudden braking and sharp turning should be prevented.1. including but not limited to: pavement.1.

11. 090250.3.2 Corrosion potential The corrosion potential of the fill and/or native soils at finished grade should be tested to determine if special design considerations. The testing of the corrosion potential of the soils at the site is used as the basis for developing concrete design parameters for the foundation systems. 8.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Page 24 Stanley Boulevard Improvements 8. Testing of this nature is generally performed after the final site grading for the project has been completed and the desired grades have been established. .2. Inc. are required for the foundation systems and flatwork. such as sulphate resistant concrete. Evaluation and testing of the corrosion potential of the site soil materials is beyond the scope of this project. Alternatively.2.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. Type V concrete may be used.4 SRW Wall Construction Construction of the SRW retaining wall should be completed in conformance with the guidelines in Geotechnical Engineering Circular No.

. as appropriate.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. the nature and extent of subsurface variations between borings may not become evident until construction. This standard is in lieu of all other warranties. Cal Engineering & Geology. should review both the changes and the design assumptions made in this report and prepare addenda or memoranda as appropriate. We have employed accepted geotechnical engineering procedures. Cal Engineering & Geology.0 LIMITATIONS Page 25 Stanley Boulevard Improvements The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed construction. Any modifications included in these addenda or memoranda should be carefully reviewed by the project designers to make sure that any conclusions or recommendations that are modified are accounted for in the final design of the project. If the project changes. Inc. This information notwithstanding. either expressed or implied. and our professional opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 9. Inc. If variations are encountered during construction. and the results of the subsurface exploration and testing. 090250. Inc. should be notified promptly so that conditions can be reviewed and recommendations reconsidered. This report was prepared based on preliminary design information which is subject to change during the design process. combined with interpolation of the subsurface conditions between boring locations. This report presents the results of a geotechnical and geologic investigation only and should not be construed as an environmental audit or study. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are valid only for the project described in this report.

California: A digital database: U... California Geology..S. 1997. Inc. California Divisions of Mines and Geology. Stanislaus.000. 2008. Department of Conservation. State of California Special Studies Zones map of the Livermore Quadrangle.gov. 1998. E. map scale 1:24. Chapter 12 Helley. Natural Resources Conservation Service.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report 10. San Mateo. Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83. 1982. “Design Recommendations. 2009. Geborah R. 1995. and Graymer. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. Geological Survey Open File Map 75-277-26.J. California: U. T. Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.S.5-Minute Quadrangle.. Geology of Northern California.000. C. R. Quaternary geology of Alameda County. Preliminary photointerpretation map of landslide and other surficial deposits of the Livermore 7..” project number 985440. unpublished geologic map.002 Cal Engineering & Geology.S. Preliminary geologic map of the Livermore Quadrangle. Jr. and San Joaquin Counties. usda. map scale 1:24:000. and parts of Contra Costa. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology.. 1975. 1997.org/docs/bay-friendly_site_analysis. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties: U.0 REFERENCES Page 26 Stanley Boulevard Improvements Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board.doc Baily. 1966. Alameda County. Harden. 1980. Preliminary geologic map of the Livermore Quadrangle Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. . International Conference of Building Officials.W. 1998.. http://stopwaste. Maps of Known Active Faults Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. Bay-Friendly Landscape Site Analysis. Map Scale 1. Bulletin 190. H. California (Seismic Hazard Zone Report 114) Dibblee. Chapter 6 Cal Engineering & Geology. Nilsen.2 inches = 5 km. R. Seismic Hazard Zones Report for the Livermore 7. Edgar H. San Francisco. Santa Clara. W. California Geologic Survey. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-97. 2010. T. 090250.nrcs. Crane.5' Quadrangle Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Stanley Boulevard Storm Damage Repairs. Geological Survey Open File Report 80-533B map scale 1:24.

11 Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes. National Resource Conservation Services.. “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. G. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-NHI-10-24... Inc. Open-File Report 03-214.gov/app/. United States Department of Agriculture.14 May 2010 Geotechnical Data and Design Report Page 27 Stanley Boulevard Improvements Terzaghi.nrcs. Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2002 to 2030-A Survey of Findings. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 2009. 090250.” John Wiley and Sons. .usda. K. Peck. United States Department of Transportation. 2003. N. United States Geologic Survey.Y. 1996. New York. B.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. Soil Survey for Alameda County – western part website accessed July 2009 at http://websoilsurvey. and Mesri. R.

715 SITE LOCATION NO SCALE FROM THOMAS BROTHERS SAFETY & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON & LIVERMORE. CA ACPWA . 090250 FIGURE 1 .STANLEY BOULEVARD SITE LOCATION JUNE 2010 JOB NO.

.

090250 FIGURE 3 .SITE LOCATION NO SCALE FROM DIBLEE (1980) SAFETY & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON & LIVERMORE. CA ACPWA .STANLEY BOULEVARD SITE GEOLOGY JUNE 2010 JOB NO.

000 $ODPHGD $UHD &DOLIRUQLD &$.000 400 Meters 600 2.000 Feet 3. 0 0 100 500 200 1.200 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.601600 601800 602000 602200 602400 602600 602800 603000 603200 SITE LOCATION YmA W YmA Gp YmA W Sta nley Blvd Sta nley Blvd W Gp Gp Arr o B ad yo d el Va l le ge r Dr Lib er ty Dr 601600 601800 602000 602200 602400 602600 602800 603000 603200 Map Scale: 1:9.

    FROM NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY (2008) SAFETY & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON & LIVERMORE.STANLEY BOULEVARD SURFICIAL SOILS JUNE 2010 JOB NO. 090250 FIGURE 4 .QWHUHVW 0DS 8QLW 1DPH *UDYHO SLW :DWHU <ROR ORDP  WR  SHUFHQW VORSHV $FUHV LQ $2. CA ACPWA . 0DS 8QLW 6\PERO *S : <P$ 7RWDOV IRU $UHD RI .     3HUFHQW RI $2.

STANLEY BOULEVARD SEISMIC HAZARDS JUNE 2010 JOB NO. 090250 FIGURE 5 . CA ACPWA .SITE LOCATION FROM CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP (2008) SAFETY & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON & LIVERMORE.

JUNE .

.

APPENDIX A BORING LOGS 090250. . Inc.002 Cal Engineering & Geology.

and/or silty clays. 200 Sieve Test (ASTM D-1140) PSA Particle-Size Analysis (ASTM D-422 & D-1140) Consolidation Test (ASTM D-2435) C TXUU Unconsolidated Undrained Compression Test (ASTM D-2850) KEY TO SAMPLE INTERVALS Length of Sampler Interval with a CS Sampler Length of Sampler Interval with a CM Sampler Length of Sampler Interval with a SPT Sampler Length of Sampler Interval with a SHL Sampler Bulk Sample Recovered for Interval Shown (i. use dual symbol GC/GM GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50% coarse fraction retained on the No. gravelly sands. elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity. gravel-sand mixtures. then PI = 0. Identification Procedures on Percentage Passing the No. gravelly sands. poorly graded sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands. 200 sieve. poorly graded sand-clay mixtures Laboratory Classification Criteria CLASSIFICATION OF GRAVELS & SANDS WITH 5% TO 12% FINES REQUIRES DUAL SYMBOLS GW/GM or GP/GM: Gravel/Silty Gravel GW/GC or GP/GC: Gravel/Clayey Gravel SW/SM or SP/SM: Sand/Silty Sand SW/SC or SP/SC: Sand/Clayey Sand CU = D60 ÷ D10 $ 4 and CC = (D30)2 ÷ (D10 × D60) $ 1 & # 3 CU = D60 ÷ D10 < 4 and/or CC = (D30)2 ÷ (D10 × D60) < 1 & > 3 Fines classify as ML or MH Fines classify as CL or CH If fines classify as CL-ML.e. fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat and other highly organic soils 60 PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) 50 40 30 20 10 CL-ML 0 0 10 20 30 ML or OL 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 CL or OL MH or OH CH or OH Silts & Clays Liquid Limit greater than 50% CH OH PT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS LIQUID LIMIT (LL) KEY TO SAMPLER TYPES AND OTHER LOG SYMBOLS CS CM SPT SHL BU LL PI QU California Standard Sampler California Modified Sampler Standard Penetration Test Sampler Shelby Tube Sampler Bulk Sample Liquid Limit of Sample (ASTM D-4318) Plasticity Index of Sample (ASTM D-4318) Unconfined Compression Test (ASTM D-2166) Depth at which Groundwater was Encountered During Drilling Depth at which Groundwater was Measured After Drilling Pocket Penetrometer Test PP PTV Pocket Torvane Test !#200 % of Material Passing the No. gravelsand mixtures. poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands. micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy/silty soil. sandy. Clean Gravels < 5% Fines Group Symbols Typical Names Well-graded gravels. little or no fines Poorly graded gravels.73 × (LL ! 20) Equation of "U"-Line: LL = 16 @ PI = 0 to 7.. 4 sieve Clean Sands < 5% Fines CU = D60 ÷ D10 $ 6 and CC = (D30)2 ÷ (D10 × D60) $ 1 & # 3 CU = D60 ÷ D10 < 6 and/or CC = (D30)2 ÷ (D10 × D60) < 1 & > 3 Fines classify as ML or MH Fines classify as CL or CH If fines classify as CL-ML. organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts. 200 sieve. poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels. little or no fines Silty gravels. lean clays Organic silts.9 × (LL ! 8) Fine-Grained Soils Silts & Clays Liquid Limit less than 50% CL OL MH Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity. cuttings) Length of Coring Run with Core Barrel Type Sampler No Sample Recovered for Interval Shown UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND KEY TO BORING LOG FIGURE A-1 . little or no fines Poorly graded sands. then PI = 0. use dual symbol SC/SM Sands with Fines >12% Fines More than 50% of material passes the No. very fine sands. gravelly. 4 sieve Gravels with Fines >12% Fines Sands More than 50% coarse fraction passes the No. rock flour.UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487) Field Identification Gravels More than 50% of material is retained on the No. silty or clayey fine ML sands with slight plasticity PLASTICITY CHART For Classification of Fine-Grained Soils and Fine-Grained Fraction of Coarse-Grained Soils Equation of "A"-Line: PI = 4 @ LL = 4 to 25. little or no fines Silty sands.5. 40 Sieve Inorganic silts.

: FIGURE: B-1 A-2 . STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. moist. PLEASANTON.. brown./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST . brown. medium dense. medium dense. CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO. moist.6 12 14 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. with gravel subrounded to 1" 11 3.7 120. with gravel subrounded to 1/4" 5 7 8 10 10 7 9 SILTY SAND (SM).DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T. DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 0 2 4 6 SILTY SAND (SM). KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT.

: FIGURE: B-1 A-3 . STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. with gravel subrounded to 1" 20 4 17 32 22 24 26 28 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD.DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T. DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 14 16 18 SILTY SAND (SM). brown./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST . CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO. moist. KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT. PLEASANTON. dense..

DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 28 SILTY SAND (SM).7 32 34 36 38 SILTY SAND (SM). CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO. KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT. brown. to CLAYEY SAND (SC). with gravel subrounded to 1" 40 14 15 21 42 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD.: FIGURE: B-1 A-4 . PLEASANTON. moist. with gravel sub-rounded 30 5 32 20 5./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST .DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T.. STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. brown. dense. dense. moist.2 124.

SILTY SAND (SM) to CLAYEY SAND (SC).5 feet. KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT. STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 42 44 46 48 Groundwater encountered at 49.DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T. very dense with gravel to 1" 50 9 21 50-2" 52 54 56 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. wet.: FIGURE: B-1 A-5 ../DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST . brown to light brown. PLEASANTON. CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO.

PLEASANTON../DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST . CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO. Sample not possible. STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT. DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 56 58 Auger clogged with 5 feet of material. Boring terminated at a depth of 60 feet.DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T. 60 62 64 66 68 70 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD.: FIGURE: B-1 A-6 . Boring backfilled with Portland cement grout.

DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T. medium dense. medium dense. medium dense. PLEASANTON. with gravel subrounded to 1/2" 12 15 66 12 SILTY SAND (SM).In bag SILTY SAND (SM). brown. light gray.. moist. gray to dark brown. STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. moist. DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 0 2 4 Failed sample . with gravel subrounded to 1" 12 13 4. CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO.: FIGUR: B-2 A-7 ./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST . KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT. moist.6 118. with gravel subrounded to 1" 6 8 11 11 10 8 SILTY SAND (SM).5 Failed recovery 12 7 6 7 14 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD.

STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. with gravel subrounded 20 7 19 20 22 24 26 28 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 14 16 18 SILTY SAND (SM). moist. KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT.DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T. dense. brown. PLEASANTON./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST ..: FIGURE: B-2 A-8 . CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO.

light brown to gray. CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO. with gravel to 1/2" 32 34 36 38 40 20 SILTY SAND (SM) to CLAYEY SAND (SC). KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT. moist.: FIGURE: B-2 A-9 . with gravel subrounded to 1" 27 27 42 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. very dense.DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST .. brown to light brown. STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. PLEASANTON. DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 28 30 50-6" SILTY SAND (SM). dense.

DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 42 44 46 48 Groundwater encountered at 49. STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD.DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T. SILTY SAND (SM). PLEASANTON. light brown. with gravel subrounded to 1" 50 19 25 27 52 54 56 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST . KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT.5 feet. very dense. wet.: FIGURE: B-2 A-10 . CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO..

62 64 66 68 70 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. with gravel subrounded to 1" 60 15 23 27 Boring terminated at a depth of 61.DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T. Boring backfilled with Portland cement grout.5 feet. DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 56 58 SILTY SAND (SM) to CLAYEY SAND (SC). STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT. wet./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST .: FIGURE: B-2 A-11 . CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO.. PLEASANTON. very dense.

. same depth 12 SILTY SAND (SM). KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT. moist. CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST . PLEASANTON. with gravel subrounded to 1/2" 3 6 5 8 8 10 6 No recovery 5 8 SPT follow up. No blow counts.: FIGURE: B-3 A-12 . brown to gray. STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. loose. moist. DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 0 2 4 SILTY SAND (SM).DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T. with gravel subrounded to 1/2" 14 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD.

with gravel subrounded to 1" 17 15 22 24 26 28 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD.DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST . DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 14 16 18 20 8 SILTY SAND (SM) to CLAYEY SAND (SC). KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT.. STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO. brown. dense. PLEASANTON.: FIGURE: B-3 A-13 . moist.

with gravel subrounded to 3/4" 40 23 23 16 42 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD.DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST . CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO. dense. PLEASANTON. dense. moist. STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. brown. KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT.: FIGURE: B-3 A-14 . DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 28 SILTY SAND (SM). grayish brown.. with gravel subrounded to 1" 30 14 22 24 32 34 36 38 SILTY SAND (SM). moist.

DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 42 44 46 48 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC). PLEASANTON.DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T. dense. STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD.: FIGURE: B-3 A-15 . KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT. with gravel subrounded to 1/2" with 1" cobble Groundwater encountered at 50 feet. wet./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST .. CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO. 50 26 25 22 52 54 56 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD.

.5 feet. 62 64 66 68 70 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. Boring backfilled with Portland cement grout. CA CHECKED BY: CH 090250 BORING NO. STREETSCAPE STANLEY BLVD. KEEFER 5/6/09 BORING TYPE: 6" HOLLOW STEM AUGER HAMMER WT. dense./DROP: 140#/30" SAMPLER DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST . light brown.: FIGURE: B-3 A-15 . with gravel subrounded to 1/2" 60 12 32 33 10. wet.DRILL RIG: CME 75 SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS/6") DRY DENSITY (PCF) WATER CONTENT (%) T. PLEASANTON. DEPTH SOIL TYPE (FEET) OTHER TESTS DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 56 58 SILTY SAND (SM) TO CLAYEY SAND (SC).5 132.7 Boring terminated at a depth of 61.

APPENDIX B PERCOLATION TEST DATA 090250. Inc. .002 Cal Engineering & Geology.

 (lined culvert present) 3:45 N/A water drained out immediately due to  extensive gopher holes in area STA 80+00 EB Color/Texture/Location 2.50 7. 6 & 12":  brown silty clay w/ gravel Time  (hr:min) Depth  (in) Elapsed Time from  Initial Reading  (hr:min) Change in Depth from  Initial Reading           (in) 2 100+00 WB 2.50 6 & 12": dark brown silty sand w/ gravel    location:  11' from curb (paved bikepath present) 0:37 2:26 4:09 7:52 0 00 0:00 0:53 3:54 7:39 1:17 3:59 7:42 2:17 4:06 7:49 1:36 1:39 1:41 1:44 1:50 4:01 6‐12": brown sandy clayey silt   location:  3' south of E.00 6.50 8.O.O.00 initial fill ‐2.50 11.O.O.P.00 10.P.00 8.25 6.50 ‐2.75 4.00 ‐5. 6 & 12":  dark brown silty sand w/ gravel & brick                      3 110+00 EB 2": dark grayish brown sandy silt w/ organics                               4 12": light olive brown clayey silt  location: 5' north of E.00 10.00 ‐4.00 1:49 3:32 7:15 i iti l fill initial fill ‐1.00 0:03 0:05 0:08 0:14 2:25 1:49 5:32 initial fill ‐1.25 0.00 0:53 3:54 7:39 initial fill ‐2.75 2:42 6:25 initial fill ‐1.00 7.P.P.O. 6.50 initial fill ‐2.50 8.75 7.00 9. 140+00 WB 2 ‐ 6": light olive brown gravel                                                           5 140+00 EB 2": light brown silty clay                                                                      140+00 EB 2": light brown silty clay 6 170+00 EB 2": brown sandy clayey silt w/ gravel                                               7 6‐12": very dark grayish brown sandy silt     location:  6' north of E.00 ‐4.00 ‐7.00 4:20 9.P. 180+00 WB 2": very dark grayish brown sandy silt w/ gravel                            8 200+00 EB 2": brown clayey sand w/ gravel                                                       6‐12": dark brown sandy clay w/ gravel   location:  2.00 5.75 ‐3.75 5:13 initial fill ‐6.50 8.00 15 50 15.In‐Situ Percolation Testing & Soil Sampling Date of Field Work:  11 March 2010 Project: Stanley Boulevard Street Improvements CE&G JN:  090250 Test # 1 location: along south side of adjacent footpath 2:42 4:13 7:55 3:14 7:34 3.00 1:31 10.00 4.50 14.00 ‐3. Note:  Due to time constraints and saturated soil conditions the 5‐gallon test holes were not pre‐soaked .00 ‐3.00 ‐2.50 7.50 ‐8.00 9.25 location:  10' north of E.O.P.5' south of E. 6‐12": yellowish‐brown clayey silt   location:  3' south of E.00 ‐4.

.APPENDIX C SOIL TREATMENT AND FERTILITY ANALYSIS 090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. Inc.

4 and 8. Half saturation percentage values reflect soil porosity and that is downgraded by particle size diversity in those noted above and by high silt content at 5. Salinity. 119 Filbert Street Oakland. 0. boron and sodium are safely low and the SAR value shows soluble sodium well balanced by calcium and magnesium. 5 and 6. CA 94607 Attn: Dave Buscheck 1101 S.15 inch per hour at 2. CA 92807 (714) 282-8777 RE: ALAMEDA COUNTY . 2010 Report 10-070-0044 CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY. Suite G-173 San Jose. JN: 090250 BACKGROUND The eight samples received 3/11 represent site soils from areas that will be amended for new landscaping. 4 and 8 (very slow) Soil reaction at 4 is moderately alkaline and is the only area where alkalinity is higher a little than most plants prefer. 3. Based on these characteristics three categories of infiltration rates are estimated as follows: 0. ANALYTICAL RESULTS Gravel content is highly variable and quite excessive at 2. These additionally show a broad distribution of coarse sand sizes and this diversity contributes to consolidation as the various sizes intermingle and can become cemented by the silt and clay.STANLEY BLVD. Recommendation regarding soil treatment and fertility maintenance were to rely on an “organic” approach. The degree of concern regarding this is high at these locations and slight at 6 and 7 with no concern at the others. Hunter Ave. IMPROVEMENT. INC. CA 95128 (408) 727-0330 4741 E. All are very comfortably low except there is slight accumulation at 8. Winchester Blvd. All are every low in organic content and it will be the incorporation of organic matter that will help maintain more favorable structure. www. All others fall in the generally suitable slightly acidic to slightly alkaline range and all are favorably low in lime content. Chloride levels are listed separately at the bottom of the second data sheet.21 inch per hour at 7 (slow) 0. Since this and its higher sodium content deviated significantly from the other sales it was retested and confirmed original findings.29 inch per hour at 1.com .LmpCorp.Locations: SAN JOSE OFFICE March 26. sandy loam to clay loam. Unit A Anaheim. Particle size classification of the smaller than 2-mm fractions are varied from loam.

Soil immediately below the root ball should be left undisturbed to provide support but the bottom around the sides should be cultivated to improve porosity. The theoretical target value average from this rate is to bring soils to 5. Sulfate levels are adequate. A 2-inch deep layer of coarse mulch can be placed around the tree or shrub but should be kept a minimum 4 inches from the trunk. RECOMMENDATIONS Based primarily of texture it is suggested that soils represented by 2. Deriving the organic from specified compost will take care of potassium nutrition and build up reserves of the other nutrients while also providing an abundant microbial population to assist in the natural recycling of nutrients.LmpCorp. Insufficient sample remained to recheck this but based on its structure its use is not suggested anyway. Potassium is not particularly abundant but is only deficient at 4. some guideline specifications are attached. Aside from enhancing organic matter content none of these areas require any additives. Phosphorus is oddly high at 1 and well supplied in the others. The compost should then be spread at a rate of 6 cubic yards per 1000 square feet and thoroughly incorporated to 6-inches depth.7%. • Ideally a weed and turf free zone should be maintained just beyond the diameter of the planting hole. To improve drainage of the root zone any undisturbed or compacted areas should first be loosened to a 10-inch depth.com . INC. www. 4 and 8 not be used to develop the plants immediate root zone. In case import is required. Removal and replacement or covering with other suitable material is suggested. 7 and 8. To Prepare Backfill: • • • • Excavate planting pits at least twice as wide as the diameter of the rootball.Page-2 CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY. Calcium and magnesium are variable but all are in suitable ranges except for just fair magnesium at 4. The top of the rootball should be at or slightly above final grade. This rate is based on an organic matter content of 260 pounds per cubic yard of amendment and this may be adjusted depending on the organic content of the amendment selected. The top 12-inches of backfill around the sides of the rootball of trees and shrubs may consist of the above amended soil or may be prepared as follows: 3 parts 1 part Pulverized Site Soil Organic Amendment -Backfill below 12 inches required for 24-inch box or larger material should not contain the organic amendment. Report 10-070-0044 Nutritional data show low nitrogen only at 1 and oddly high nitrogen at 2.

Blood Meal (12-0-0) provides available nitrogen fairly rapidly while materials such as Feather Meal (12-0-0). If Soybean or Cotton Seed Meal is used in place of the Feather Meal the rate should be increased to 23 pounds per 1000 square feet because of the lower nitrogen content. JIM WEST Email 6 pages. In order to provide a good supply of nitrogen for a 3-4 month time frame a good combination would be 6 pounds Blood Meal and 15 pounds Feather Meal per 1000 square feet. www. INC.Page-3 CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY.com . The long term maintenance program should consider fall and spring applications of an organic fertilizer blend such as General Purpose 5-5-5 that would also supplement phosphorus and potassium nutrition to a greater extent. At 3 to 4 weeks after planting treatment over the root zone should be made and a wide range of suitable products are available. Soybean or Cotton Seed Meal (7-1-1) are slower to provide available nitrogen.LmpCorp. Report 10-070-0044 • • Irrigation of new plantings should take into consideration the differing texture of the rootball and surrounding soil to maintain adequate moisture in both during this critical period of establishment. MAINTENANCE Periodic replenishment with an organic nitrogen source should be sufficient at least until fall. but they extend the length of time they make this contribution.

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

EHORZ HDFK QXWULHQW YDOXH 1 IDFWRU EDVHG RQ  SSP FRQVWDQW IHHG 6$5 6RGLXP DGVRUSWLRQ UDWLR +DOI 6DWXUDWLRQ DSSUR[ ILHOG PRLVWXUH FDSDFLW\ 1LWURJHQ 1.

 3RWDVVLXP .

 &DOFLXP &D.

DQG 0DJQHVLXP 0J.

E\ VRGLXP FKORULGH H[WUDFWLRQ 3KRVSKRUXV 3.

E\ VRGLXP ELFDUERQDWH H[WUDFWLRQ &RSSHU &X.

 =LQF =Q.

 0DQJDQHVH 0Q.

,URQ )H

E\ '73$ H[WUDFWLRQ 6DW H[W PHWKRG IRU VDOLQLW\ (&H DV G6P

%RURQ %

 6XOIDWH 62 

 6RGLXP 1D.

 *UDYHO IUDFWLRQ H[SUHVVHG DV SHUFHQW E\ ZHLJKW RI RYHQGULHG VDPSOH SDVVLQJ D PP  LQFK.

VLHYH 3DUWLFOH VL]HV LQ PLOOLPHWHUV 2UJDQLF SHUFHQWDJH GHWHUPLQHG E\ :DONOH\%ODFN RU /RVV RQ .&.(17  +.JQLWLRQ /2:  68)).*+ .

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

 &KORULGH &O.

 PHT/  &KORULGH &O.

 PHT/  &KORULGH &O.

 PHT/  &KORULGH &O.

 PHT/  &KORULGH &O.

 PHT/  &KORULGH &O.

 PHT/ &KORULGH &O.

 PHT/  PHT/ 6XIILFLHQF\ IDFWRU  VXIILFLHQW IRU DYHUDJH FURS.

EHORZ HDFK QXWULHQW YDOXH 1 IDFWRU EDVHG RQ  SSP FRQVWDQW IHHG 6$5 6RGLXP DGVRUSWLRQ UDWLR +DOI 6DWXUDWLRQ DSSUR[ ILHOG PRLVWXUH FDSDFLW\ 1LWURJHQ 1.

 3RWDVVLXP .

 &DOFLXP &D.

DQG 0DJQHVLXP 0J.

E\ VRGLXP FKORULGH H[WUDFWLRQ 3KRVSKRUXV 3.

E\ VRGLXP ELFDUERQDWH H[WUDFWLRQ &RSSHU &X.

 =LQF =Q.

 0DQJDQHVH 0Q.

URQ )H. .

E\ '73$ H[WUDFWLRQ 6DW H[W PHWKRG IRU VDOLQLW\ (&H DV G6P.

%RURQ %.

 6XOIDWH 62  .

 6RGLXP 1D.

 *UDYHO IUDFWLRQ H[SUHVVHG DV SHUFHQW E\ ZHLJKW RI RYHQGULHG VDPSOH SDVVLQJ D PP  LQFK.

&.JQLWLRQ /2:  68)).(17  +.*+ . VLHYH 3DUWLFOH VL]HV LQ PLOOLPHWHUV 2UJDQLF SHUFHQWDJH GHWHUPLQHG E\ :DONOH\%ODFN RU /RVV RQ .

002-.2.LmpCorp.0 Saturation Extract Concentration Less than 1. Sodium: Boron: Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) Less than 6.0 ppm 2 . sandy clay loam or loam and conforming to the following: Class Coarse sand Silt Clay Other classes Gravel Rock Organic CHEMISTRY . calcium and magnesium to support normal plant growth. % minimum.8 without high lime content.5 .5 . provisions shall be made to add required materials prior to planting. phosphorus. % 15 30 25 0 10 10 5% by volume with none > 1 inch 15 0 Reaction: pH of Saturated Paste: 5.7.com .0 dS/m @ 25o C. In the event of nutrient inadequacies.SUITABILITY CONSIDERATIONS Salinity: Saturation Extract Conductivity (ECe) Less than 3.0-mm sieve: sandy loam.13 mm 1/2 .002 mm maximum.05 mm <.0 mm . Soil to contain sufficient quantities of available nitrogen. Form #430-C www.1 inch 15 0 Particle size range 0. potassium.IMPORT SPECIFICATION GUIDELINES USDA classification of fraction passing 2.

.002 Cal Engineering & Geology. Inc.APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES RESULTS 090250.

.

Walnut Creek.gsl Cal Engineering & Geology .surcharge soil gravel and soil Gamma pcf 1 128 130 C psf 0 80 150 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf. forces added to restoring forces) .992 (reinf. CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Safety Improvements Sta 117+00 back calc F = 0. Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\117+00.992 (reinf. CA F = 0.Walnut Creek. 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology . forces added to r 380 380 370 370 360 360 350 350 340 340 200 250 4/30/2010 12:48:58 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd.

Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\117+00.surcharge soil gravel and soil Gamma pcf 1 128 130 C psf 0 80 150 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf.Walnut Creek.Walnut Creek. CA F = 0. 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology .gsl Cal Engineering & Geology . forces added to restoring forces) . CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Safety Improvements Sta 117+00 back calc F = 0.994 (reinf.994 (reinf. forces added to restoring forces) 380 380 370 370 360 360 350 350 340 340 200 250 4/30/2010 12:49:34 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd.

0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology .surcharge soil gravel and soil Gamma pcf 1 128 130 C psf 0 103 195 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf.Walnut Creek. CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Safety Improvements Sta 117+00 back calc F = 1. Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\117+00. forces added to restoring forces) .103 (reinf. forces added to restoring forces) 380 380 370 370 360 360 350 350 340 340 200 250 4/30/2010 12:42:41 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd.gsl Cal Engineering & Geology .103 (reinf. CA F = 1.Walnut Creek.

103 (reinf. Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\117+00. forces added to restoring forces) . forces added 380 380 370 370 360 360 350 350 340 340 200 250 4/30/2010 12:43:21 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd.Walnut Creek. CA F = 1.103 (reinf.Walnut Creek.gsl Cal Engineering & Geology . 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology .surcharge soil gravel and soil Gamma pcf 1 128 130 C psf 0 103 195 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf. CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Safety Improvements Sta 117+00 back calc F = 1.

forces added to rest 380 380 370 370 360 360 350 350 340 340 200 250 4/30/2010 12:50:45 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd.197 (reinf. forces added to restoring forces) .Walnut Creek. Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\117+00. CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Safety Improvements Sta 117+00 back calc F = 1.Walnut Creek.197 (reinf. CA F = 1.gsl Cal Engineering & Geology .surcharge soil gravel and soil Gamma pcf 1 128 130 C psf 0 125 245 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf. 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology .

gsl Cal Engineering & Geology . forces added to restoring forces) .Walnut Creek.214 (reinf. 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology . CA F = 1. CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Safety Improvements Sta 117+00 back calc F = 1.Walnut Creek. forces added to restoring forces) 380 380 370 370 360 360 350 350 340 340 200 250 4/30/2010 12:51:30 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd. Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\117+00.surcharge soil gravel and soil Gamma pcf 1 128 130 C psf 0 125 245 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf.214 (reinf.

Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\final\101+50.861 400 400 390 390 380 380 370 360 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 370 360 350 350 340 340 0 50 100 150 200 4/30/2010 12:59:04 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd.Walnut Creek. CA F = 1. Height = 12 ft (cohesion from sta 117 FS=1) F = 1.surcharge soil gravel and soil Gamma pcf 250 128 130 C psf 0 80 150 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf. 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology . CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Segmental Retaining Wall 30 April 2010 Station 101+50.gsl Cal Engineering & Geology .861 .Walnut Creek.

Walnut Creek. CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Safety Improvements 30 April 2010 Sta 104+00 (Overlook) (cohesion from Sta 117 FS=1) 400 F = 1. CA F = 1.746 .746 400 390 390 380 380 370 360 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 370 360 350 350 340 340 0 50 100 150 200 4/30/2010 1:02:11 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd. Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\final\104+00. 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology .surcharge soil gravel and soil Gamma pcf 250 130 130 C psf 0 80 150 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf.gsl Cal Engineering & Geology .Walnut Creek.

surcharge soil gravel and soil Gamma pcf 250 128 130 C psf 0 80 150 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf.gsl Cal Engineering & Geology . CA F = 1.Walnut Creek.443 . CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Safety Improvements 30 April 2010 Sta 115+50 (cohesion from Sta 117 FS=1) F = 1.443 400 400 390 390 380 370 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 380 370 360 360 350 350 340 340 0 50 100 150 200 4/30/2010 1:05:38 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd.Walnut Creek. 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology . Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\final\115+50.

5 360 350 350 340 340 0 50 100 150 200 4/30/2010 1:09:36 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd. Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\final\115+50-pile.Walnut Creek.gsl Cal Engineering & Geology .500 400 400 390 390 380 380 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 500 370 370 360 500 lbs/ft required from pile for FS=1. 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology . CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Safety Improvements 30 April 2010 Sta 115+50 (cohesion from Sta 117 FS=1) F = 1. CA F = 1.500 .surcharge soil gravel and soil Gamma pcf 250 128 130 C psf 0 80 150 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf.Walnut Creek.

.

.

surcharge soil gravel and soil Seismic coefficient = 0. 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology . Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\final\104+00 sei.198 .Walnut Creek. CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Safety Improvements 30 April 2010 Sta 104+00 (Overlook) (cohesion from Sta 117 FS=1) 400 F = 1.235 Gamma pcf 250 130 130 C psf 0 80 150 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf.Walnut Creek.198 400 390 390 380 380 370 360 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 370 360 350 350 340 340 0 50 100 150 200 4/30/2010 1:56:30 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd.gsl Cal Engineering & Geology . CA F = 1.

Walnut Creek. Height = 12 ft (cohesion from sta 117 FS=1) F = 1.surcharge soil gravel and soil Seismic coefficient = 0. 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology .210 400 400 390 390 380 380 370 360 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 370 360 350 350 340 340 0 50 100 150 200 4/30/2010 1:58:38 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd.210 .235 Gamma pcf 250 128 130 C psf 0 80 150 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf.sei.Walnut Creek. Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\final\101+50. CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Segmental Retaining Wall 30 April 2010 Station 101+50.gsl Cal Engineering & Geology . CA F = 1.

045 . 0 0 0 Cal Engineering & Geology .235 Gamma pcf 250 128 130 C psf 0 80 150 Phi deg 0 32 36 Piezo Surf.gsl Cal Engineering & Geology .045 400 400 390 390 380 380 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 500 370 370 360 360 350 350 340 340 0 50 100 150 200 4/30/2010 2:00:57 PM \\Granite\ceg master files\2009\090250 ACPWA Stanley Blvd. Streetscape Improvements\Calculations\Gslope\final\115+50-pile. CA 090250 Stanley Blvd Safety Improvements 30 April 2010 Sta 115+50 (cohesion from Sta 117 FS=1) F = 1.Walnut Creek.Walnut Creek. CA F = 1.surcharge soil gravel and soil Seismic coefficient = 0.sei.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful