8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
1/81
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
2/81
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
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
3/81
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 .................................................................................................................23.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................34.0 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................................4
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ................................................................................................4
4.2 SITE GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................4
4.3 SURFICIAL SOILS ........................................................................................................44.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................54.5 TECTONIC SETTING ....................................................................................................54.6 SEISMICITY ...................................................................................................................5
5.0
EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAM ....................................................................7
5.1 UTILITY POTHOLING .................................................................................................75.2 EXPLORATORY BORINGS .........................................................................................75.3 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................85.4 PERCOLATION TESTING ............................................................................................85.5 SOIL TREATMENT AND FERTILITY ANALYSIS ...................................................8
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................106.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................106.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS ...................................................................................................11
7.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES..............................................................................................147.1 STABILITY ANALYSES ............................................................................................14
8.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................178.1 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................178.2 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................22
9.0 LIMITATIONS .....................................................................................................................2510.0 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................26TABLE 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
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
4/81
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
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
5/81
14 May 2010 Page 1
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
1.0 INTRODUCTIONAlameda County Public Works Agency is proposing to improve the safety and visual aestheticsof 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
6/81
14 May 2010 Page 2
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORKThe 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
7/81
14 May 2010 Page 3
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAlameda 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 aV shaped earth ditch through though which
water will percolate and then enter a subdrain system which will then discharge into the storm
drain facility.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
8/81
14 May 2010 Page 4
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
4.0 GEOLOGY AND SOILS4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGYThe project site is located within Californias 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 GEOLOGYThe 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 SOILSThe 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 35percent. 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
9/81
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
10/81
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 northeastHayward 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 LandslidesIn 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 forpermanent 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
11/81
14 May 2010 Page 7
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
5.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAM5.1 UTILITY POTHOLINGPotholes 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 BORINGSThe 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 werelocated 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 boringsgenerally 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
12/81
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 & Geologys Oakland
office for storage and potential laboratory testing.
5.3 LABORATORY TESTINGLaboratory 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 TESTINGEight 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 ANALYSISThe 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
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
13/81
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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
14/81
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
15/81
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 ErosionThe 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 contractors operations are needed.
6.1.4 GroundwaterGroundwater 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 HAZARDS6.2.1 Fault RuptureThe 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 ShakingDue 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
16/81
14 May 2010 Page 12
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
6.2.3 LiquefactionOur 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 SpreadingLateral 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 moderateand do not recommend remedial measures.
6.2.5 Seismically-Induced SubsidenceSeismically-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-inducedsubsidence 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 LurchingGround 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
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
17/81
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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
18/81
14 May 2010 Page 14
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
7.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES7.1 STABILITY ANALYSES7.1.1 Analysis MethodsStatic 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 cohesionvalue 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 aleveling pad. The stability model used a 250 psf live load surcharge for Stanley Boulevardand 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 aleveling 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 Bishops Modified Method of analysis and search routines
were used to evaluate a large number of failure surfaces and identify the most critical surface fora given slope. Only circular potential failure surfaces were considered.
7.1.2 Material Properties Assumed for Stability AnalysisIn 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
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
19/81
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
MaterialUnit Weight
(lb/ft3)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Cohesion
Factor of Safety
1.0 1.1 1.2
Silty Sand (SM)
with Gravel128 32 80 psf 103 psf 125 psf
Clayey Sand (SC)
with Gravel130 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 AnalysisGroundwater conditions assumed for within the embankments were based on the subsurface
investigation which did not encounter an elevated ground water condition and supported theground 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
20/81
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 AnalysisThe 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
21/81
14 May 2010 Page 17
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
8.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS8.1 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONSIn 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 UnitsSegmental retaining wall units should be masonry units manufactured in accordance with ASTMC90 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 SoilsSegmental 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 acorrelation 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
22/81
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/ft3)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Cohesion*
(lb/ft2)
Reinforced Zone 130 32 0Retained 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 ReinforcementThe 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 FoundationThe 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 alignmentwhere 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
23/81
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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
24/81
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 psfMinimum Spacing Three (3) pile diameters
Minimum Depth 15 feet below bottom of pile cap
8.1.1.5 Wall DrainageTo 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 coarsegravel, 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 beprovided 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).
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
25/81
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 WallsConcrete 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 LoadsActive pressures and passive resistances for design of the retaining walls were developed usingCoulomb 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
26/81
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 RECOMMENDATIONS8.2.1 PilesPile 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 besupported 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 enlargethe 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 ExcavationsExcavation 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
27/81
14 May 2010 Page 23
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
8.2.3 EarthworkIt 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 placementPrior 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
28/81
14 May 2010 Page 24
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
8.2.3.2 Corrosion potentialThe 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 ConstructionConstruction of the SRW retaining wall should be completed in conformance with the guidelinesin Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 11.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
29/81
14 May 2010 Page 25
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
9.0 LIMITATIONSThe 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
30/81
14 May 2010 Page 26
Geotechnical Data and Design Report Stanley Boulevard Improvements
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
10.0 REFERENCESAlameda 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 HazardZone 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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
31/81
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.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
32/81
ACPWA - STANLEY BOULEVARDSAFETY & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BETWEEN CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON & LIVERMORE, CA
SITE LOCATION
JOB NO. 090250 JUNE 2010 FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION
NO SCALE FROM THOMAS BROTHER
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
33/81
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
34/81
ACPWA - STANLEY BOULEVARDSAFETY & 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
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
35/81
ACPWA - STANLEY BOULEVARDSAFETY & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BETWEEN CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON & LIVERMORE, CA
SURFICIAL SOILS
JOB NO. 090250 JUNE 2010 FIGURE 4
ArroyodelValle
StanleyBlvd
BadgerDr LibertyDr
StanleyBlvd
Gp
W
Gp
Gp
YmA
W
YmA
WYmA
601600
601600
601800
601800
602000
602000
602200
602200
602400
602400
602600
602600
602800
602800
603000
603000
603200
603200
0 1,000 2,000 3,000500Feet
0 200 400 600100Meters
Map Scale: 1:9,200 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.
ITE CATIN
M NC EB I E (2008
$ODPHGD$UHD&DOLIRUQLD&$
0DS8QLW6\PERO 0DS8QLW1DPH $FUHVLQ$2, 3HUFHQWRI$2,
*S *UDYHOSLW
: :DWHU
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
36/81
ACPWA - STANLEY BOULEVARDSAFETY & STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BETWEEN CITY LIMITS OF PLEASANTON & LIVERMORE, CA
SEISMIC HAZARDS
JOB NO. 090250 JUNE 2010 FIGURE 5
SITE LOCATION
FROM CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP (2008
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
37/81
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
38/81
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
39/81
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
40/81
Coarse-GrainedSoils
Morethan50%
ofmaterialis
retainedontheNo.
200sie
ve.
CLASSIFICATIONOFGRAVELS&S
ANDSWITH
5%TO12%FINESREQUIRESDUA
LSYMBOLS
GW/GMorGP/GM:
Gravel/SiltyGravel
GW/GCorGP/GC:
Gravel/ClayeyGravel
SW/SMorSP/SM:
Sand/Silt
ySand
SW/SCorSP/SC:
Sand/Cla
yeySand
Fine-GrainedSoils
Morethan50%
ofmaterial
passestheNo.
200sieve.
60
50
CH or OH40
30
CL or OL20
MH or OH
10
CL-ML ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
PLASTICITYINDEX(PI)
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMAND KEY TO BORING LOG
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487)
Field IdentificationGroup
Symbols Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria
Gravels
More than 50%
coarse fraction
retained on the
No. 4 sieve
CleanGravels
< 5% Fines
GWWell-graded gravels, gravel-sand
mixtures, little or no finesCU = D60 D10$ 4 and
CC = (D30)2 (D10 D60) $ 1 & # 3
GPPoorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
CU = D60 D10 < 4 and/orCC = (D30)
2 (D10 D60) < 1 & > 3
Gravelswith
Fines
>12% Fines
GM Silty gravels, poorly gradedgravel-sand-silt mixturesFines classify as
ML orMHIf fines classify as
CL-ML, use dual
symbol GC/GMGCClayey gravels, poorly graded
gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Fines classify as
CL orCH
Sands
More than 50%
coarse fraction
passes the
No. 4 sieve
CleanSands
< 5% Fines
SWWell-graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no finesCU = D60 D10$ 6 and
CC = (D30)2 (D10 D60) $ 1 & # 3
SPPoorly graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no finesCU = D60 D10 < 6 and/or
CC = (D30)2 (D10 D60) < 1 & > 3
Sandswith
Fines
>12% Fines
SMSilty sands, poorly graded
sand-silt mixtures
Fines classify as
ML orMHIf fines classify as
CL-ML, use dual
symbol SC/SMSCClayey sands, poorly graded
sand-clay mixtures
Fines classify as
CL orCH
Identification Procedures on Percentage Passing the No. 40 Sieve PLASTICITY CHARTFor Classification of Fine-Grained Soils and
Fine-Grained Fraction of Coarse-Grained SoilsEquation 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 finesands with slight plasticity
CLInorganic clays of low to med-ium plasticity, gravelly, sandy,and/or silty clays, lean clays
OLOrganic silts, organic silty
clays of low plasticity
Silts & Clays
Liquid Limit greater
than 50%
MHInorganic silts, micaceous ordiatomaceous fine sandy/-
silty soil, elastic silts
CHInorganic clays of high
plasticity, fat clays
OHOrganic clays of medium to
high plasticity
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PTPeat and other highly
organic soils
KEY TO SAMPLER TYPES AND OTHER LOG SYMBOLSCS 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)
QU 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
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
41/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
42/81
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, dense, with gravel subrounded
to 1"4
17
32
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
43/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
44/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
45/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
46/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGUR:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
47/81
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, dense, with gravel subrounded7
19
20
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
48/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
49/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
50/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
51/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
52/81
SILTY SAND (SM) to CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, moist, dense,
with gravel subrounded to 1"
8
17
15
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ACPWA-STANLEY BLVD. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
53/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
54/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
55/81
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. STREETSCAPESTANLEY 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 REMARKSSOIL
TYPE
DEPTH
SAMPLER
(FEET)
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/6")
WATER
CONTENT(%)
DRYDENSITY
(PCF)
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
TEST
.
OTHER
TESTS
CHECKED BY: CH BORING NO.: FIGURE:
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
56/81
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
APPENDIX B
PERCOLATION TEST DATA
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
57/81
Project:Stanley
BoulevardStreetImprovemen
ts
CE&GJN:0902
50
Test#
ST
A
Color/Texture/Location
Time
(hr:min)
Depth
(in)
ElapsedTimefrom
InitialReading
(hr:min)
Change
inDepthfrom
InitialReading
(in)
2,6&12":brownsiltyclayw/gra
vel
location:alongsouthsideofadjacentfootpath
2,6&12":darkbrownsiltysandw
/gravel&brick
2:42
10.00
location:10'northofE.O.P.(lined
culvertpresent)
4:13
8.00
1:31
2.00
7:55
4.75
5:13
5.25
2":darkgrayishbrownsandysiltw
/organics
3:14
9.50
6&12":darkbrownsiltysandw/gravel
7:34
3.00
4:20
6.50
location:11'fromcurb(pavedbik
epathpresent)
2
6":lightolivebrowngravel
0:37
9.00
12":lightolivebrownclayeysilt
2:26
7.00
1:49
2.00
location:5'northofE.O.P.
4:09
7.00
3:32
2.00
7:52
6.00
7:15
3.00
"
1
80+0
0EB
3:45
N/A
waterdrainedoutimmediatelydueto
extensivegopherholesinarea
initialfill
initialfill
initialfill
InSituPercolationTesting&SoilSampling
DateofFieldWork:11
March2010
4
140+0
0WB
2
100+0
0WB
3
110+00EB
:g
rowns
ycay
0:00
15.50
612":yellowish
brownclayeysilt
0:53
14.50
0:53
1.00
location:3'southofE.O.P.
3:54
11.50
3:54
4.00
7:39
8.00
7:39
7.50
2":brownsandyclayeysiltw/grav
el
1:17
10.50
612":brownsandyclayeysilt
3:59
8.50
2:42
2.00
location:3'southofE.O.P.
7:42
7.00
6:25
3.50
2":verydarkgrayishbrownsandy
siltw/gravel
2:17
10.00
612":verydarkgrayishbrownsan
dysilt
4:06
9.00
1:49
1.00
location:6'northofE.O.P.
7:49
6.00
5:32
4.00
2":brownclayeysandw/gravel
1:36
8.75
612":darkbrownsandyclayw/gravel
1:39
7.25
0:03
1.50
location:2.5'southofE.O.P.
1:41
6.00
0:05
2.75
1:44
5.75
0:08
3.00
1:50
4.25
0:14
4.50
4:01
0.00
2:25
8.75
initialfill
initialfill
initialfill
initialfill
200+00EB
86
170+00EB
7
180+0
0WB
+
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
58/81
090250.002 Cal Engineering & Geology, Inc.
APPENDIX C
SOIL TREATMENT AND FERTILITY ANALYSIS
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
59/81
www.LmpCorp.com
Locations:
101 S. Winchester Blvd.uite G-173an Jose, CA 95128408) 727-0330
4741 E. Hunter Ave.Unit AAnaheim, CA 92807714) 282-8777
SAN JOSE OFFICEMarch 26, 2010Report 10-070-0044
CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY, INC.119 Filbert StreetOakland, CA 94607
Attn: Dave Buscheck
RE: ALAMEDA COUNTY - STANLEY BLVD. IMPROVEMENT, JN: 090250
BACKGROUND
The eight samples received 3/11 represent site soils from areas that will be amended for
new landscaping. Recommendation regarding soil treatment and fertility maintenancewere to rely on an organic approach.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Gravel content is highly variable and quite excessive at 2, 4 and 8. These additionally showa broad distribution of coarse sand sizes and this diversity contributes to consolidation asthe various sizes intermingle and can become cemented by the silt and clay. The degree ofconcern regarding this is high at these locations and slight at 6 and 7 with no concern atthe others. Particle size classification of the smaller than 2-mm fractions are varied fromloam, sandy loam to clay loam. Half saturation percentage values reflect soil porosity andthat is downgraded by particle size diversity in those noted above and by high silt content at
5. All are every low in organic content and it will be the incorporation of organic matter thatwill help maintain more favorable structure. Based on these characteristics three categoriesof 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 littlethan most plants prefer. All others fall in the generally suitable slightly acidic to slightlyalkaline range and all are favorably low in lime content. Salinity, boron and sodium are
safely low and the SAR value shows soluble sodium well balanced by calcium andmagnesium. Chloride levels are listed separately at the bottom of the second data sheet.All are very comfortably low except there is slight accumulation at 8. Since this and itshigher sodium content deviated significantly from the other sales it was retested andconfirmed original findings.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
60/81
Page-2CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY, INC.Report 10-070-0044
www.LmpCorp.com
Nutritional data show low nitrogen only at 1 and oddly high nitrogen at 2. Insufficient sampleremained to recheck this but based on its structure its use is not suggested anyway. Phosphorus isoddly high at 1 and well supplied in the others. Potassium is not particularly abundant but is only
deficient at 4, 7 and 8. Calcium and magnesium are variable but all are in suitable ranges except forjust fair magnesium at 4. Sulfate levels are adequate.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based primarily of texture it is suggested that soils represented by 2, 4 and 8 not be used todevelop the plants immediate root zone. Removal and replacement or covering with other suitable
material is suggested. In case import is required, some guideline specifications are attached.
Aside from enhancing organic matter content none of these areas require any additives. Derivingthe organic from specified compost will take care of potassium nutrition and build up reserves of theother nutrients while also providing an abundant microbial population to assist in the naturalrecycling of nutrients.
To improve drainage of the root zone any undisturbed or compacted areas should first be loosenedto a 10-inch depth. The compost should then be spread at a rate of 6 cubic yards per 1000 squarefeet and thoroughly incorporated to 6-inches depth. This rate is based on an organic matter contentof 260 pounds per cubic yard of amendment and this may be adjusted depending on the organiccontent of the amendment selected. The theoretical target value average from this rate is to bring
soils to 5.7%.
To Prepare Backfill:
Excavate planting pits at least twice as wide as the diameter of the rootball. 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 top of the rootball should be at or slightly 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 parts Pulverized Site Soil1 part Organic Amendment
-Backfill below 12 inches required for 24-inch box or larger material should not contain the organicamendment.
Ideally a weed and turf free zone should be maintained just beyond the diameter of the plantinghole. A 2-inch deep layer of coarse mulch can be placed around the tree or shrub but should bekept a minimum 4 inches from the trunk.
8/7/2019 Cal Engineering & Geology
61/81
Page-3CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY, INC.Report 10-070-0044
www.LmpCorp.com
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 ofestablishment.
MAINTENANCE
Periodic replenishment with an organic nitrogen source should be sufficient at least until fal