Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SL10322-6 250 Tank Farm SER
SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT PARCELS 10 AND 11, 250 TANK FARM ROAD APNS: 053-251-083, -084, AND -085 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT SL10322-6 Prepared for Tank Farm Road, LLC 7036 Valley Greens Circle Carmel, California Prepared by GEOSOLUTIONS, INC. 220 HIGH STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 (805) 543-8539 © December 21, 2023 SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT Dear Tank Farm Road, LLC: This Soils Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed development of a self-storage facility to be located at Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road, APN: 053-251-083, -084, and -085, San Luis Obispo, California. Geotechnically, the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations in this report for site preparation, earthwork, foundations, slabs, retaining walls, and pavement sections are incorporated into the design. It is anticipated that graded pads will be constructed for the proposed self-storage development with all foundations excavated into engineered fill. All foundations are to be excavated into uniform material to limit the potential for distress of the foundation systems due to differential settlement. If cuts steeper than allowed by State of California Construction Safety Orders for “Excavations, Trenches, Earthwork” are proposed, a numerical slope stability analysis may be necessary for temporary construction slopes. Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service in preparing this report. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (805) 543-8539. Sincerely, GeoSolutions, Inc. Kraig R. Crozier, PE Principal, C61361 DATE: December 21, 2023 PROJECT NUMBER: SL10322-6 CLIENT: Tank Farm Road, LLC 7036 Valley Greens Circle Carmel, California, 93923 Project name: Parcels 10 and 11 250 Tank Farm Road APN: 053-251-083, -084, and -085 San Luis Obispo California Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ................................................................................ 2 4.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 4 5.0 LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 5 6.0 GENERAL SOIL-FOUNDATION DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 5 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................ 5 7.1 Preparation of Building Pads .............................................................................................. 6 7.2 Conventional Foundations .................................................................................................. 7 7.3 Slab-On-Grade Construction .............................................................................................. 8 7.4 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ................................................................................................. 9 7.5 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................................. 10 7.6 Preparation of Paved Areas .............................................................................................. 13 7.7 Pavement Design .............................................................................................................. 13 8.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ................................................................................. 14 9.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ................................................................... 15 REFERENCES APPENDIX A Field Investigation Soil Classification Chart Boring Logs CPT Logs Classification Data With Soil Behavior Types APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Soil Test Reports APPENDIX C Seismic Hazard Analysis Design Map Summary (SEAOC, 2019) APPENDIX D Preliminary Grading Specifications Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Map .......................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: Site Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3: Field Investigation .......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 4: Regional Geologic Map ................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 6: Sub-Slab Detail .............................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 7: Retaining Wall Detail ................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 8: Retaining Wall Active and Passive Wedges ................................................................................ 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Engineering Properties ................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................................................................ 5 Table 3: Minimum Footing and Grade Beam Recommendations ................................................................. 7 Table 4: Minimum Slab Recommendations .................................................................................................. 8 Table 5: Retaining Wall Design Parameters ............................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Required Special Inspections and Tests of Soils .......................................................................... 15 SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT PARCELS 10 AND 11, 250 TANK FARM ROAD APN: 053-251-083, -084, AND -085 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT SL10322-6 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation for the proposed self-storage development to be located at Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road, APN: 053-251-083, -084, and -085, San Luis Obispo County, California. See Figure 1: Site Location Map for the general location of the project area. Figure 1: Site Location Map was obtained from the computer program GIS Surfrider 1.8 (Elfelt, 2016). 1.1 Site Description 250 Tank Farm Road is located at 35.2468 degrees north latitude and - 120.6661 degrees east longitude at a general elevation of 120 feet above mean sea level. The property is approximately rectangular in shape and 3.76 acres in size. The nearest intersection is where Sueldo Street intersects Vanguard Way approximately 100 feet to the west of the property. The project property will hereafter be referred to as the “Site.” See Figure 2: Site Plan for the general layout of the Site. Figure 2: Site Plan was provided by Cubix Construction, LLC. The Site is approximately level with a slight gradient which slopes to southeast. Surface drainage follows the topography to the southeast and flows to Tank Farm Road. 1.2 Project Description The proposed self-storage development is anticipated to consist of two, one-story and three, two-story storage buildings, and a one-story managers’ office. At the time of the preparation of this report, the proposed self-storage development is to be constructed using structural steel and light-gauge metal or wood framing, with slab-on-grade lower floor systems. Dead and sustained live loads are currently unknown, but they are anticipated to be relatively light with maximum continuous footing and column loads estimated to be approximately 1.5 kips per linear foot and 15 kips, respectively. Figure 1: Site Location Map Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 2 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study was to explore and evaluate the surface and sub-surface soil conditions at the Site and to develop geotechnical information and design criteria. The scope of this study includes the following items: 1. A literature review of available published and unpublished geotechnical data pertinent to the project site including geologic maps, and available on-line or in-house aerial photographs. 2. A field study consisting of site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration including exploratory borings and CPT soundings in order to formulate a description of the sub- surface conditions at the Site. 3. Laboratory testing performed on representative soil samples that were collected during our field study. 4. Engineering analysis of the data gathered during our literature review, field study, and laboratory testing. 5. Development of recommendations for site preparation and grading as well as geotechnical design criteria for building foundations, retaining walls, pavement sections, underground utilities, and drainage facilities. 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The first field investigation was conducted on November 7, 2023 using a Mobile B-24 drill rig. Five six- inch diameter exploratory borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 3: Field Investigation. Sampling methods included the Standard Penetration Test utilizing a standard split-spoon sampler (SPT) without liners and a Modified California sampler (CA) with liners. The Mobile B-24 drill rig was equipped with a safety hammer, which has an efficiency of approximately 60 percent and was used to obtain test blow counts in the form of N- values. Data gathered during the field investigation suggest that the soil materials at the Site consist of interbedded layers of alluvial soil. The surface material at the Site generally consisted of very dark grayish brown sandy lean CLAY (CL) with gravels encountered in a dry to moist and very stiff condition to approximately 6.0 to 7.0 feet bgs. The sub-surface materials consisted of grayish brown clayey SAND (SC) with gravels encountered in slightly moist to moist and medium dense to loose condition and grayish brown sandy CLAY (CL) encountered in a slightly moist to saturated and firm to stiff condition. Figure 2: Site Plan Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 3 The CPT field investigation was conducted on November 30, 2023 using a CPT Truck provided by Middle Earth Geo Testing, Inc. Three CPT soundings were advanced to a maximum depth of 50 feet bgs at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 3: Field Investigation. Middle Earth Testing of Orange, CA, used a 25-ton CPT rig equipped with an electronic cone to push the CPT’s to depths of approximately 50 feet below ground surface (bgs). The electric cone has a 35.7-mm diameter cone-shaped tip with a 60° apex angle, a 35.7-mm diameter by 133.7-mm long cylindrical sleeve, and a pore pressure transducer. The CPT soundings provided a near- continuous soil behavior profile which was used to better characterize the subsurface conditions at the Site. See Appendix A for CPT data and profiles of interpreted soil behavior types. Regional site geology was obtained from United States Geological Survey MapView internet application (USGS, 2013) which compiles existing geologic maps. Figure 4: Regional Geologic Map presents the geologic conditions in site vicinity as mapped on the Geologic Map of the Pismo Beach 7.5’ Quadrangle (Dibblee, 1986). The majority of all underlying material at the Site was interpreted as Young alluvial valley deposits. Groundwater was encountered in all five borings and in both CPT soundings at an average depth of 12.0 feet bgs. It should be expected that groundwater elevations may vary seasonally and with irrigation practices. Figure 3: Field Investigation Figure 4: Regional Geologic Map Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 4 During the boring operations the soils encountered were continuously examined, visually classified, and sampled for general laboratory testing. A project engineer has reviewed a continuous log of the soils encountered at the time of field investigation. See Appendix A for the Boring Logs from the field investigation. Laboratory tests were performed on soil samples that were obtained from the Site during the field investigation. The results of these tests are listed below in Table 1: Engineering Properties. Laboratory data reports and detailed explanations of the laboratory tests performed during this investigation are provided in Appendix B. Table 1: Engineering Properties 4.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Estimating the design ground motions at the Site depends on many factors including the distance from the Site to known active faults; the expected magnitude and rate of recurrence of seismic events produced on such faults; the source-to-site ground motion attenuation characteristics; and the Site soil profile characteristics. According to section 1613 of the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022), all structures and portions of structures should be designed to resist the effects of seismic loadings caused by earthquake ground motions in accordance with the ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, hereafter referred to as ASCE 7-16 (ASCE, 2016). The Site soil profile classification (Site Class) can be determined by the average soil properties in the upper 100 feet of the Site profile and the criteria provided in Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. Spectral response accelerations and peak ground accelerations, provided in this report were obtained using the computer-based Seismic Design Maps tool available from the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 2019). This program utilizes the methods developed in ASCE 7-16 in conjunction with user-inputted Site location to calculate seismic design parameters and response spectra (both for period and displacement) for soil profile Site Classes A through E. Site coordinates of 35.2468 degrees north latitude and -120.6661 degrees east longitude were used in the web-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (SEAOC, 2019). Based on the results from the in-situ tests performed during the field investigation, the Site was defined as Site Class D, “Stiff Soil” profile per ASCE7-16, Chapter 20. Relevant seismic design parameters obtained from the program are summarized in Table 2: Seismic Design Parameters. Sa m p l e N a m e Sample Description US C S Sp e c i f i c a t i o n Ex p a n s i o n I n d e x Ex p a n s i on Po t e n t i a l Ma x i m u m D r y De n s i t y , γd ( p c f ) Op t i m u m M o i s t u r e (% ) An g l e o f I n t e r n a l Fr i c t i o n , φ (d e g . ) Co h e s i o n , c ( p s f ) Pl a sti c i t y I n d e x Fi n es C o n t e n t ( % ) A Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Lean CLAY CL 56 Medium 115.5 12.2 17.7 1315 34 High 65.6 B Grayish Brown Clayey SAND SC - - - - - - 8 Low 41.9 C Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY CL - - - - - - - 65.5 Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 5 Table 2: Seismic Design Parameters Site Class D “Stiff Soil” Seismic Design Category D 1-Second Period Design Spectral Response Acceleration, SD1 (See Note 1) Short-Period Design Spectral Response Acceleration, SDS 0.755g Site Specific MCE Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.526g Note 1: In accordance with ASCE 7-16, SUPPLEMENT 3, Section 11.4.8.1: A ground motion hazard analysis is not required for structures on Site Class D sites with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2, where the value of the parameter SM1 determined by Eq. (11.4-2) is increased by 50% for all applications of SM1 in this Standard. The resulting value of the parameter SD1 determined by Eq. (11.4-4) shall be used for all applications of SD1 in this Standard. (Site Class D). 5.0 LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT Liquefaction occurs when saturated cohesionless soils lose shear strength due to earthquake shaking. Ground motion from an earthquake may induce cyclic reversals of shear stresses of large amplitude. Lateral and vertical movement of the soil mass combined with the loss of bearing strength can result from this phenomenon. Liquefaction potential of soil deposits during earthquake activity depends on soil type, void ratio, groundwater conditions, the duration of shaking, and confining pressures on the potentially liquefiable soil unit. Fine, poorly graded loose sand, shallow groundwater, high intensity earthquakes, and long duration of ground shaking are the principal factors leading to liquefaction. Based on the consistency and relative density of the in-situ soils the potential for seismic liquefaction of soils at the Site is low. Assuming that the recommendations of the Soils Engineering Report are implemented, the potential for seismically induced settlement and differential settlement at the Site is considered to be low. 6.0 GENERAL SOIL-FOUNDATION DISCUSSION It is anticipated that graded pads will be constructed for the proposed self-storage development with all foundations excavated into engineered fill. All foundations are to be excavated into uniform material to limit the potential for distress of the foundation systems due to differential settlement. If cuts steeper than allowed by State of California Construction Safety Orders for “Excavations, Trenches, Earthwork” are proposed, a numerical slope stability analysis may be necessary for temporary construction slopes. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The primary geotechnical concerns at the Site are: 1. The presence of potentially expansive material. Influx of water from irrigation, leakage from the facility, or natural seepage could cause expansive soil problems. Foundations supported by expansive soils should be designed by a Structural Engineer in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code. 2. The potential for differential settlement occurring between foundations supported on two soil materials having different settlement characteristics, such as native soil and engineered fill. Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 6 Therefore, it is important that all of the foundations are founded in equally competent uniform material in accordance with this report. 7.1 Preparation of Building Pads 1. It is anticipated that graded engineered fill pads will be developed for the proposed storage buildings and managers office with footings excavated into engineered fill. 2. General site preparation in areas to receive fill, outside of the proposed building pad areas, will require removal of loose soil materials and debris. The surface soils should be over-excavated a minimum depth of 12 inches below existing grade, exposing competent soil materials. The exposed surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches; moisture conditioned to 3% over optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent (ASTM D1557-12). The over-excavated material may then be processed as engineered fill. Onsite soil and rock material is suitable as fill material provided it is processed to remove concentrations of organic material, debris, and oversize particles 3. For the development of an engineered fill pad, the native material should be over- excavated at least 48 inches below existing grade, 18 inches below the bottom of the footings, to competent material, or to two-thirds the depth of the deepest fill (measured from the bottom of the deepest footing); whichever is greatest. The limits of over- excavation should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter foundation, to property lines, or existing improvements, whichever is least. The exposed surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches; moisture conditioned to 3% over optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent (ASTM D1557-12). The over-excavated material, cleared of organic material, debris and oversize particles may then be processed as engineered fill. Refer to Figure 6: Sub-Slab Detail for under- slab drainage material and Appendix D for more details on fill placement 4. As an alternative the over-excavated material may be replaced with an approved non- expansive import material processed as engineered fill so that at a minimum, the upper 24 inches of the pad area consists of non-expansive import material, such as a Class II/III aggregate sub-base. The non-expansive material is intended to; retain soil moisture in the graded pad and reduce the potential for soil drying and shrinkage prior to concrete placement. Additionally, grade beam requirements for slab-on-grade areas may be reduced and/or removed with the placement of a minimum of 24 inches of non-expansive import material within the building pad areas. All material to be used as non-expansive import must be observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. prior to its delivery to the Site. GeoSolutions, Inc. should be notified at least 72 hours prior to delivery to the site to sample and test proposed imported fill materials. 5. There is potential that soils encountered at the required foundation excavation depth may exhibit soft, compressible conditions. If pumping soils are encountered at the bottom of the excavation, stabilization will be necessary and may require the installation of a woven geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi HP570, Tensar BX1100 or equivalent, on the prepared bottom of the excavation. If the soil within the excavation is not stable enough for proper installation of the geotextile fabric, rock stabilization of the exposed sub-grade may be required, with the placement and compaction of 3-inch to 8-inch diameter (gabion) crushed stone into the soft sub-grade, until stability is achieved, as observed, and approved by a representative of this firm. Alternative recommendations may be prepared based on the conditions encountered. 6. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5 percent Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 7 slope) for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the exterior of the structure per Section 1804.3 of the 2022 CBC. 7. The recommended soil moisture content should be maintained during construction and following construction of the proposed development. Where soil moisture content is not maintained, desiccation cracks may develop which indicate a loss of soil compaction, leading to the potential for damage to foundations, flatwork, pavements, and other improvements. Soils that have become cracked due to moisture loss should be removed sufficient depth to repair the cracked soil as observed by the soils engineer, and the removed materials should then be moisture conditioned to approximately 3 percent over optimum value, and compacted. 7.2 Conventional Foundations 1. Conventional continuous and spread footings with grade beams may be used for support of the proposed structures. Isolated pad footings are not permitted. Spread footings should be a minimum of two feet square and connected to the perimeter foundation by grade beams. 2. Minimum footing and grade beam sizes and depths in engineered fill should conform to the following table, as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. Table 3: Minimum Footing and Grade Beam Recommendations Perimeter Footings Grade Beams Minimum Width 12 inches (one or two story) 12 inches Embedment Depth 30 inches 18 inches Minimum Reinforcing* 6 #5 bars (3 top / 3 bottom) 4 #5 bars (2 top / 2 bottom) Spacing - 16 feet on-center each way * Steel should be held in place by stirrups at appropriate spacing to ensure proper positioning of the steel (see WRI Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations and ACI 318, Section 26.6.6 – Placing Reinforcement). 3. Minimum reinforcing for footings should conform to the recommendations provided in Table 3: Minimum Footing and Grade Beam Recommendations which meets the specifications of Section 1808.6 of the 2022 California Building Code for the soil conditions at the Site. Reinforcing steel should be held in place by stirrups at appropriate spacing to ensure proper positioning of the steel in accordance with WRI Design of Slab- on-Ground Foundations, and ACI 318, Section 26.6.6 – Placing Reinforcement. 4. A representative of this firm should observe and approve all foundation excavations for required embedment depth prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and/or concrete. Concrete should be placed only in excavations that are free of loose, soft soil and debris and that have been maintained in a moist condition with no desiccation cracks present. 5. An allowable dead plus live load bearing pressure of 1,800 psf may be used for the design of footings founded in engineered fill. 6. Allowable bearing capacities may be increased by one-third when transient loads such as wind or seismicity are included. 7. A total settlement of less than 1 inch and a differential settlement of less than 1 inch in 30 feet are anticipated. Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 8 8. Lateral forces on structures may be resisted by passive pressure acting against the sides of shallow footings and/or friction between the engineered fill and the bottom of the footings. For resistance to lateral loads, a friction factor of 0.35 may be utilized for sliding resistance at the base of footings extending a minimum of 30 inches into engineered fill. A passive pressure of 250-pcf equivalent fluid weight may be used against the side of shallow footings in engineered fill. If friction and passive pressures are combined to resist lateral forces acting on shallow footings, the lesser value should be reduced by 50 percent. 9. Foundation excavations should be observed and approved by a representative of this firm prior to the placement of formwork, reinforcing steel and/or concrete. 10. Foundation design should conform to the requirements of Chapter 18 of the latest edition of the CBC (CBSC, 2022). 11. The base of all grade beams and footings should be level and stepped as required to accommodate any change in grade while still maintaining the minimum required footing embedment and slope setback distance. 7.3 Slab-On-Grade Construction 1. Concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should not be placed directly on unprepared native materials. Preparation of sub-grade to receive concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should be processed as discussed in the preceding sections of this report. Concrete slabs should be placed only over sub-grade that is free of loose, soft soil and debris and that has been maintained in a moist condition with no desiccation cracks present. 2. Concrete slabs-on-grade should be in conformance with the recommendations provided in Table 4: Minimum Slab Recommendations. Reinforcing should be placed on-center both ways at or slightly above the center of the structural section. Reinforcing bars should have a minimum clear cover of 1.5 inches. Where lapping of the slab steel is required, laps in adjacent bars should be staggered a minimum of every five feet (see WRI Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations, Steel Placement). The recommended reinforcement may be used for anticipated uniform floor loads not exceeding 200 psf. If floor loads greater than 200 psf are anticipated, a Structural Engineer should evaluate the slab design. Table 4: Minimum Slab Recommendations Minimum Thickness 5 inches Reinforcing* #4 bars at 16 inches on-center each way * Where lapping of the slab steel is required, laps in adjacent bars should be staggered a minimum of every five feet (see WRI/CSRI-81 recommendations for Steel Placement, Section 2). 3. Concrete for all slabs should be placed at a maximum slump of less than 5 inches. Excessive water content is the major cause of concrete cracking. If fibers are used to aid in the control of cracking, a water-reducing admixture may be added to the concrete to increase slump while maintaining a water/cement ratio, which will limit excessive shrinkage. Control joints should be constructed as required to control cracking. 4. Where concrete slabs-on-grade are to be constructed for interior conditioned spaces, the slabs should be underlain by a minimum of four inches of clean free-draining material, such as a ¾ inch coarse aggregate mix, to serve as a cushion and a capillary break. Where moisture susceptible storage or floor coverings are anticipated, a 15-mil Stego Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 9 Wrap membrane (or equivalent installed per manufacturer’s specifications) should be placed between the free-draining material and the slab to minimize moisture condensation under the floor covering. See Figure 6: Sub-Slab Detail for the placement of under-slab drainage material. It is suggested, but not required, that a two-inch thick sand layer be placed on top of the membrane to assist in the curing of the concrete, increasing the depth of the under-slab material to a total of six inches. The sand should be lightly moistened prior to placing concrete. Figure 5: Sub-Slab Detail 5. It should be noted that for a vapor barrier installation to conform to manufacturer’s specifications, sealing of penetrations, joints and edges of the vapor barrier membrane are typically required. As required by the California Building Code, joints in the vapor barrier should be lapped a minimum of 6 inches. If the installation is not performed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, there is an increased potential for water vapor to affect the concrete slabs and floor coverings. 6. The most effective method of reducing the potential for moisture vapor transmission through concrete slabs-on-grade would be to place the concrete directly on the surface of the vapor barrier membrane. However, this method requires a concrete mix design specific to this application with low water-cement ratio in addition to special concrete finishing and curing practices, to minimize the potential for concrete cracks and surface defects. The contractor should be familiar with current techniques to finish slabs poured directly onto the vapor barrier membrane. 7. Moisture condensation under floor coverings has become critical due to the use of water- soluble adhesives. Therefore, it is suggested that moisture sensitive slabs not be constructed during inclement weather conditions. 7.4 Exterior Concrete Flatwork 1. Due to the presence of expansive surface soils within the proposed development areas, there is a potential for considerable soil movement and distress to reinforced concrete flatwork if conventional measures are used, such as the placement of 4 to 6 inches of imported sand materials placed beneath concrete flatwork. Heaving and cracking are Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 10 anticipated to occur. To reduce the potential for movement associated with expansive soils, we recommend the placement of a minimum of 24 inches of approved non- expansive import material placed as engineered fill beneath the flatwork. 2. Minimum flatwork for conventional pedestrian areas should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and consist of No. 3 (#3) rebar spaced at 24 inches on-center each-way at or slightly above the center of the structural section. 3. Flatwork should be constructed with frequent joints to allow for movement due to fluctuations in temperature and moisture content in the adjacent soils. Flatwork at doorways, driveways, curbs and other areas where restraining the elevation of the flatwork is desired, should be doweled to the perimeter foundation by a minimum of No. 3 reinforcing steel dowels, spaced at a maximum distance of 24 inches on-center. 4. As an alternative, interlocking concrete pavers may be utilized for exterior improvements in lieu of reinforced concrete flatwork. Concrete pavers, when installed in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations and industry standards (ICPI), allow for a greater degree of soil movement as they are part of a flexible system. If interlocking concrete pavers are selected for use in the driveway area, the structural section should be underlain by a woven geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi HP570 or equivalent, to function as a separation layer and to provide additional support for vehicle tire loads. 7.5 Retaining Walls 1. Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral pressures from adjacent soils and surcharge loads applied behind the walls. We recommend using the lateral pressures presented in Table 5: Retaining Wall Design Parameters and Figure 7: Retaining Wall Detail for the design of retaining walls at the Site. The Active Case may be used for the design of unrestrained retaining walls, and the At-Rest Case may be used for the design of restrained retaining walls. Table 5: Retaining Wall Design Parameters Lateral Pressure and Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure, pcf Static, Active Case, Native (γ'KA) Static, Active Case, Import Granular Backfill (γ'KA) 65 35 Static, At-Rest Case, Native (γ'KO) Static, At-Rest Case, Import Granular Backfill (γ'KO) 80 50 Static, Passive Case, Engineered Fill (γ'KP) 250 Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 11 2. The above values for equivalent fluid pressure are based on retaining walls having level retained surfaces, having an approximately vertical surface against the retained material, and retaining granular backfill material or engineered fill composed of native soil within the active wedge. See Figure 7: Retaining Wall Detail and Figure 8: Retaining Wall Active and Passive Wedges for a description of the location of the active wedge behind a retaining wall. 3. Proposed retaining walls having a retained surface that slopes upward from the top of the wall should be designed for an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 1 pcf for the active case and 1.5 pcf for the at-rest case, for every degree of slope inclination. 4. We recommend that the proposed retaining walls at the Site have an approximately vertical surface against the retained material. If the proposed retaining walls are to have sloped surfaces against the retained material, the project designers should contact the Soils Engineer to determine the appropriate lateral earth pressure values for retaining walls located at the Site. Figure 7: Retaining Wall Active and Passive Wedges 5. Retaining wall foundations should be founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade in engineered fill as observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used between engineered fill Figure 6: Retaining Wall Detail 12” minimum Mirafi 140N or equivalent Ka = Varies Ko = Varies Permeable Drain Rock 4” Dia. Perf. Drain Pipe Max Toe Pressure: 1,800 psf Kp= 350 pcf Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 12 and concrete footings. Project designers may use a maximum toe pressure of 1,800 psf for the design of retaining wall footings founded in engineered fill. 6. For earthquake conditions, retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height should be designed to resist an additional seismic lateral soil pressure of 16 pcf equivalent fluid pressure for unrestrained walls (active condition). The pressure resultant force from earthquake loading should be assumed to act a distance of 1/3H above the base of the retaining wall, where H is the height of the retaining wall. Seismic active lateral earth pressure values were determined using the simplified dynamic lateral force component (SEAOC 2010) utilizing the design peak ground acceleration, PGAM, discussed in Section 4.0 (PGAM = 0.526g). The dynamic increment in lateral earth pressure due to earthquakes should be considered during the design of retaining walls at the Site. Based on research presented by Dr. Marshall Lew (Lew et al., 2010), lateral pressures associated with seismic forces should not be applied to restrained walls (at-rest condition). 7. Seismically induced forces on retaining walls are considered to be short-term loadings. Therefore, when performing seismic analyses for the design of retaining wall footings, we recommend that the allowable bearing pressure and the passive pressure acting against the sides of retaining wall footings be increased by a factor of one-third. 8. In addition to the static lateral soil pressure values reported in Table 5: Retaining Wall Design Parameters, the retaining walls at the Site should be designed to support any design live load, such as from vehicle and construction surcharges, etc., to be supported by the wall backfill. If construction vehicles are required to operate within 10 feet of a retaining wall, supplemental pressures will be induced and should be taken into account in the design of the retaining wall. 9. The recommended lateral earth pressure values are based on the assumption that sufficient sub-surface drainage will be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure. To achieve this we recommend that a granular filter material be placed behind all proposed walls. The blanket of granular filter material should be a minimum of 12 inches thick and should extend from the bottom of the wall to 12 inches from the ground surface. The top 12 inches should consist of moisture conditioned, compacted, clayey soil. Neither spread nor wall footings should be founded in the granular filter material used as backfill. 10. A 4-inch diameter perforated or slotted drainpipe (ASTM D1785 PVC) should be installed near the bottom of the filter blanket with perforations facing down. The drainpipe should be underlain by at least 4 inches of filter type material and should daylight to discharge in suitably projected outlets with adequate gradients. The filter material should consist of a clean free-draining aggregate, such as a coarse aggregate mix. If the retaining wall is part of a structural foundation, the drainpipe must be placed below finished slab sub- grade elevation. 11. The filter material should be encapsulated in a permeable geotextile fabric. A suitable permeable geotextile fabric, such as non-woven needle-punched Mirafi 140N or equal, may be utilized to encapsulate the retaining wall drain material and should conform to Caltrans Standard Specification 88-1.03 for underdrains. 12. For hydrostatic loading conditions (i.e. no free drainage behind retaining wall), an additional loading of 45-pcf equivalent fluid weight should be added to the active and at- rest lateral earth pressures. If it is necessary to design retaining structures for submerged conditions, the allowed bearing and passive pressures should be reduced by 50 percent. In addition, soil friction beneath the base of the foundations should be neglected. Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 13 13. Precautions should be taken to ensure that heavy compaction equipment is not used adjacent to walls, so as to prevent undue pressure against, and movement of the walls. 14. The use of water-stops/impermeable barriers should be used for any basement construction, and for building walls that retain earth. Damproofing and waterproofing shall meet the minimum standards of Section 1805 of the 2022 California Building Code. 7.6 Preparation of Paved Areas 1. Pavement areas should be excavated to approximate sub-grade elevation or to competent material; whichever is deeper. The exposed surface should be scarified an additional depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent (ASTM D1557-12 test method). 2. The top 12 inches of sub-grade soil under all pavement sections should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent based on the ASTM D1557-12 test method at slightly above optimum. 3. Sub-grade soils should not be allowed to dry out or have excessive construction traffic between moisture conditioning and compaction, and placement of the pavement structural section. 4. Due to the expansive potential of the soils at the Site, the base courses beneath un- reinforced pavement sections may fail, causing cracking of the pavement surfaces, as the sub-grade materials move laterally during expansive shrink-swell cycles. 5. Therefore, in order to minimize the potential for the failure of pavement sections at the Site, GeoSolutions, Inc. recommends that a Type 2 laterally-reinforcing geotextile grid, such as Tensar BX1200, Syntec SBX12, ADS BX124GG, Mirafi BXG120 or equivalent, be installed between the prepared sub-grade and base materials at the Site. 6. GeoSolutions, Inc. should be contacted prior to the design and construction of pavement sections at the Site in order to assist in the selection of an appropriate laterally-reinforcing biaxial geogrid product and to provide recommendations regarding the procedures for the installation of geogrid products at the Site. 7.7 Pavement Design 1. All pavement construction and materials used should conform to Sections 25, 26 and 39 of the latest edition of the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (State of California, 1999). 2. As indicated previously in Section 7.6, the top 12 inches of sub-grade soil under pavement sections should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent based on the ASTM D1557-12 test method at slightly above optimum moisture content. Aggregate bases and sub-bases should also be compacted to a minimum relative density of 95 percent based on the aforementioned test method. 3. Based on an estimated R-Value test result of 5.0 for the CLAY soils, a minimum of ten inches of Class II Aggregate Base is recommended for all flexible pavement sections. All pavement sections should be crowned for good drainage. A minimum recommended pavement section for a Traffic Index (T.I.) value of 5.0 would be 3.0 inches of asphaltic concrete over 10.0 inches of Class II aggregate base. A minimum recommended pavement section for reinforced Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) paving would be 6 inches of concrete over 8.0 inches of Class II aggregate base. Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 14 4. In order to minimize the potential for cracking of the pavement surfaces at the Site due to lateral movement of the base courses during expansive shrink-swell cycles of the sub- grade materials, GeoSolutions, Inc. recommends that a Type 2 laterally-reinforcing geotextile grid, such as Tensar BX1200, Syntec SBX12, ADS BX124GG, Mirafi BXG120 or equivalent, be installed between the prepared sub-grade and base materials at the Site. 5. GeoSolutions, Inc. should be contacted prior to the design and construction of the pavement sections to provide recommendations regarding the selection of and installation of an appropriate laterally-reinforcing biaxial geogrid product. 8.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES The recommendations contained in this report are based on a limited number of borings and on the continuity of the sub-surface conditions encountered. GeoSolutions, Inc. assumes that it will be retained to provide additional services during future phases of the proposed project. These services would be provided by GeoSolutions, Inc. as required by the City of San Luis Obispo, the 2022 CBC, and/or industry standard practices. These services would be in addition to those included in this report and would include, but are not limited to, the following services: 1. Consultation during plan development. 2. Plan review of grading and foundation documents prior to construction and a report certifying that the reviewed plans are in conformance with our geotechnical recommendations. 3. Consultation during selection and placement of a laterally-reinforcing biaxial geogrid product. 4. Construction inspections and testing, as required, during all grading and excavating operations beginning with the stripping of vegetation at the Site, at which time a site meeting or pre-job meeting would be appropriate. 5. Special inspection services during construction of reinforced concrete, structural masonry, high strength bolting, epoxy embedment of threaded rods and reinforcing steel, and welding of structural steel. 6. Preparation of construction reports certifying that building pad preparation and foundation excavations are in conformance with our geotechnical recommendations. 7. Preparation of special inspection reports as required during construction. 8. In addition to the construction inspections listed above, section 1705.6 of the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022) requires the following inspections by the Soils Engineer for controlled fill thicknesses greater than 12 inches as shown in Table 6: Required Special Inspections and Tests of Soils: Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road December 21, 2023 Project SL10322-6 15 Table 6: Required Special Inspections and Tests of Soils Verification and Inspection Task Continuous During Task Listed Periodically During Task Listed 1. Verify materials below footings are adequate to achieve the design bearing capacity. - X 2. Verify excavations are extended to proper depth and have reached proper material. - X 3. Perform classification and testing of controlled fill materials. - X 4. Verify use of proper materials, densities and lift thicknesses during placement and compaction of controlled fill. X - 5. Prior to placement of controlled fill, observe sub-grade and verify that site has been prepared properly. - X 9.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed during our study. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the Site, GeoSolutions, Inc. should be notified immediately and GeoSolutions, Inc. will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project, and incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The owner or his/her representative is responsible to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. As of the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, changes in the conditions of a property can occur whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of 3 years without our review nor should it be used or is it applicable for any properties other than those studied. However many events such as floods, earthquakes, grading of the adjacent properties and building and municipal code changes could render sections of this report invalid in less than 3 years. \\192.168.1.100\s\SL10000-SL10499\SL10322-6 - Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank FarmMeissner\Engineering\SL10322-6 250 Tank Farm SER.doc REFERENCES REFERENCES American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-08), Chapter 7, Section 7.5, Placing Reinforcement, ACI Committee 318, 2008. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (7-16). 2017. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations. Title 24. Part 2. Vol. 2. California Building Standards Commission: July 2022. CivilTech. Liquefy Pro. Software version 5.8f, 2015. County of San Luis Obispo. Assessor’s Map Book: 005, Page 05. August 15, 2016. <https://assessor.slocounty.ca.gov/assessor/pisa/Search.aspx>. DeLorme. Topo USA 8.0. Vers.8.0.0 Computer software. DeLorme, 2009. Wiegers, M.O. Geologic Map of the Pismo Beach 7.5’ Quadrangle. Dibblee Geologic Center Map Number DF-216. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History: April 2011. Elfelt. GIS Surfer 1.8. Vers.1.8.0 Computer software. Elfelt, 2016. Lew, M., Sitar, N., Al Atik, L., Paourzanjani, M., and Hudson, M. “Seismic Earth pressure on Deep Building Basements,” SEAOC 2010 Convention Proceedings, 2010. State of California. Department of Industrial Relations. California Code of Regulations. 2001 Edition. Title 8. Chapter 4: Division of Industrial Safety. Subchapter 4, Construction Safety Orders. Article 6: Excavations. http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sub4.html. State of California, Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications, California Department of Transportation, 2015. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Seismic Design Maps, accessed December 15, 2023. <https://seismicmaps.org/>. United States Geological Survey. MapView – Geologic Maps of the Nation. Internet Application. USGS, accessed December 15, 2023. <http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/MapView/>. United States Geological Survey. TopoView – Geologic Maps of the Nation. Internet Application. USGS, accessed December 15, 2023. <http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/TopoView/>. Wire Reinforcement Institute, Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations, A Design, Construction $ Inspection Aid for Consulting Engineers, TF 700-R-03 Update, dated 2003. APPENDIX A Field Investigation Soil Classification Chart Boring Logs Field Investigation CPT Logs Classification Data With Soil Behavior Types FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was conducted on November 7, 2023 using a Mobile B-24 drill rig. The surface and sub-surface conditions were studied by advancing five exploratory borings. This exploration was conducted in accordance with presently accepted geotechnical engineering procedures consistent with the scope of the services authorized to GeoSolutions, Inc. The Mobile B-24 drill rig with a six-inch diameter solid-stem continuous flight auger advanced five exploratory borings near the approximate locations indicated on Figure 3: Field Investigation. The drilling and field observation were performed under the direction of the project engineer. A representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. maintained a log of the soil conditions and obtained soil samples suitable for laboratory testing. The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. See the Soil Classification Chart in this appendix. Standard Penetration Tests with a two-inch outside diameter standard split tube sampler (SPT) without liners (ASTM D1586) and a three-inch outside diameter Modified California (CA) split tube sampler with liners (ASTM D3550) were performed to obtain field indication of the in-situ density of the soil and to allow visual observation of at least a portion of the soil column. Soil samples obtained with the split spoon sampler are retained for further observation and testing. The split spoon samples are driven by a 140- pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The sampler is initially seated six inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and is then driven an additional 12 inches with the results recorded in the boring logs as N- values, which area the number of blows per foot required to advance the sample the final 12 inches. The CA sampler is a larger diameter sampler than the standard (SPT) sampler with a two-inch outside diameter and provides additional material for normal geotechnical testing such as in-situ shear and consolidation testing. Either sampler may be used in the field investigation, but the N-values obtained from using the CA sampler will be greater than that of the SPT. The N-values for samples collected using the CA can be roughly correlated to SPT N-values using a conversion factor that may vary from about 0.5 to 0.7. A commonly used conversion factor is 0.67 (2/3). More information about standardized samplers can be found in ASTM D1586 and ASTM D3550. Disturbed bulk samples are obtained from cuttings developed during boring operations. The bulk samples are selected for classification and testing purposes and may represent a mixture of soils within the noted depths. Recovered samples are placed in transport containers and returned to the laboratory for further classification and testing. Logs of the borings showing the approximate depths and descriptions of the encountered soils, applicable geologic structures, recorded N-values, and the results of laboratory tests are presented in this appendix. The logs represent the interpretation of field logs and field tests as well as the interpolation of soil conditions between samples. The results of laboratory observations and tests are also included in the boring logs. The stratification lines recorded in the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between the surface soil types. However, the actual transition between soil types may be gradual or varied. CPT FIELD INVESTIGATION The CPT field investigation was conducted on November 30,2023, using the Middle-Earth Cone Penetration Test (CPT) sounding equipment. The two CPT soundings were advanced to a maximum depth of 50.9 feet bgs. This exploration was conducted in accordance with presently accepted geotechnical engineering procedures consistent with the scope of the services authorized to GeoSolutions, Inc. A 20-ton CPT truck was used to advance an electronic cone which measures tip resistance (qC), sleeve friction (fS), and pore water pressure (u2) at approximately 5-cm intervals. This data can be process to provide a near continuous interpretation of the soil profile. All CPT soundings were performed in general accordance with ASTM D5778 standards. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 '"' E S C::> L LJ ---r-I C::> r---..J S 220 High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 805-543-8539 1021 Tama Lane, Ste 105, Santa Maria, CA 93455 Phone: 805-614-6333 201 S. Milpas St, Ste 103, Santa Barbara, CA 93103 Phone: 805-966-2200 BORING LOG BORING NO. B-1 JOB NO. SL 10322-6 PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION PROJECT: DRILLING LOCATION: DATE DRILLED: LOGGED BY: 250 Tank Farm Road See Figure 3, Field Investigation November 7, 2023 D. Wordeman Depth of Groundwater: 11.5 Feet Boring Terminated: >-(,C) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION :r: _J f-0 (/) o_ :r: LLI !:::: (/) 0 _J ::::, CL Sandy Lean CLAY with Gravel: very dark grayish brown, dry moist, very stiff SC Clayey SAND with Gravel: grayish brown, slightly moist, medium dense CL Sandy CLAY with Gravel: grayish brown, moist, firm saturated LLI o_ >-f- (/) a: LLI LLI _J _J o_ o_ ::,; ::,; <( <( (/) (/) A B .... .... SPT .... .... 8.... ........ .... SPT : .... 5 ........ .... E (/) 5 0 _J � z 24 11 6 LLI a: ::::, 0 f-<D (/) 6 0 ::,; DRILL RIG: HOLE DIAMETER: SAMPLING METHOD: APPROX. ELEVATION: 15 Feet � f-z LLI f-z 0 u � >-!:::: f-z u LLI i= (/) f-(/) LLI z z <( 0 _J U:: u o_ 65.6 34 49.1 8 65.5 z = 0 � in LLI z c;S c;S <( 0 o_ 0 c;S � � 56 a: LLI f-<( 5 � ::,; f-::::, z ::,; LLI f-i= z o_ 0 0 u Mobile B-24 6 Inches SPT/CA Not Recorded 1 of 1 � >-� a: 'G u 0 � z ::,; >-e ::::, ::,; f-(/) in x LLI z :r: <( LLI 0 ::,; 0 u LLI _J (,C) z <( z 0 i= u EE 1144 20.1 "'"'g' � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 '"' 220 High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 805-543-8539 1021 Tama Lane, Ste 105, Santa Maria, CA 93455 Phone: 805-614-6333 201 S. Milpas St, Ste 103, Santa Barbara, CA 93103 Phone: 805-966-2200 BORING LOG E S C::> L LJ ---r-I C::> r---..J S PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT: DRILLING LOCATION: DATE DRILLED: LOGGED BY: 250 Tank Farm Road See Figure 3, Field Investigation November 7, 2023 D. Wordeman Depth of Groundwater: 12 Feet Boring Terminated: >-(,C) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION :r: _J f-0 (/) o_ :r: LLI !:::: (/) 0 _J ::::, CL Sandy Lean CLAY with Gravel: very dark grayish brown, slightly moist, very stiff very stiff SC Clayey SAND with Gravel: grayish brown, slightly moist, stiff CL Sandy CLAY with Gravel: grayish brown, moist, stiff saturated LLI _J o_ ::,; <( (/) LLI o_ >-f- (/) a: LLI _J o_ ::,; <( (/) ........ SPT ........ 21 .... .... ........ .... ....SPT ........ 9 .... ........ .... SPT : .... 13 ........ .... E (/) 5 0 _J � z 28 12 13 0 <D 6 BORING NO. B-2 JOB NO. SL 10322-6 DRILLING INFORMATION DRILL RIG: HOLE DIAMETER: SAMPLING METHOD: APPROX. ELEVATION: Mobile B-24 6 Inches SPT Not Recorded 15 Feet 1 of 1 a: � LLI LLI f->-� _J <( a: 'G u (,C) � � 5 � 0 z LLI >-z �z <( !:::: = 0 ::,; ::,; a: f- f-� LLI f->-e z ::::, z z u in ::::, z ::::, 0 f-LLI LLI i= z ::,; LLI ::,; f-(/) (/) c;S c;S in i= (/) f- f-(/) <( f-x LLI z LLI z i= z z :r: u 0 z <( 0 o_ 0 <( 0 0 _J c;S o_ 0 LLI 0 ::,; u U:: u o_ � � 0 u ::,; 0 u EE 11.3 27.4 30.5 "'"'g' � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 '"' 220 High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 805-543-8539 1021 Tama Lane, Ste 105, Santa Maria, CA 93455 Phone: 805-614-6333 201 S. Milpas St, Ste 103, Santa Barbara, CA 93103 Phone: 805-966-2200 BORING LOG E S C::> L LJ ---r-I C::> r---..J S PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT: DRILLING LOCATION: DATE DRILLED: LOGGED BY: 250 Tank Farm Road See Figure 3, Field Investigation November 7, 2023 D. Wordeman Depth of Groundwater: 12 Feet Boring Terminated: >-(,C) 0 :r: _J 0 f-(/) o_ :r: u LLI !:::: (/) 0 _J ::::, CL CL SOIL DESCRIPTION Sandy Lean CLAY with Gravel: very dark grayish brown, slightly moist very stiff Sandy CLAY with Gravel: grayish brown, moist, very stiff saturated firm e LLI _J o_ ::,; <( (/) LLI o_ >-f- (/) a: LLI _J o_ ::,; <( (/) ........ SPT ........ 21 .... .... ........ .... ....SPT ........ 9 .... ........ .... SPT : .... 13 ........ .... E (/) 5 0 _J � z 28 12 13 0 <D 6 BORING NO. B-3 JOB NO. SL 10322-6 DRILLING INFORMATION DRILL RIG: HOLE DIAMETER: SAMPLING METHOD: APPROX. ELEVATION: Mobile B-24 6 Inches SPT Not Recorded 15 Feet 1 of 1 a: � LLI LLI f->-� _J <( a: 'G u (,C) � � 5 � 0 z LLI >-z � z <( !:::: = 0 = ::,; ::,; a: f- f-u �- LLI f-::::, >-e z ::::, z z U'J-::::, z 0 f-LLI LLI i= zx ::,; LLI ::,; f-(/) (/) c;S in i= (/) f- f-(/) <( LLI f-x LLI z LLI z <( 0 o_ 0 i= z z :r: u 0 0 z 0 _J �� o_ 0 <( LLI 0 EE::,; u U:: u o_ �0 u ::,; 0 u "' "' "' g' � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 '"' 220 High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 805-543-8539 1021 Tama Lane, Ste 105, Santa Maria, CA 93455 Phone: 805-614-6333 201 S. Milpas St, Ste 103, Santa Barbara, CA 93103 Phone: 805-966-2200 BORING LOG E S C::> L LJ ---r-I C::> r---..J S PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT: DRILLING LOCATION: DATE DRILLED: LOGGED BY: 250 Tank Farm Road See Figure 3, Field Investigation November 7, 2023 D. Wordeman Depth of Groundwater: 12 Feet Boring Terminated: >-(,C) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION :r: _J f-0 (/) o_ :r: LLI !:::: (/) 0 _J ::::, CL Sandy Lean CLAY with Gravel: very dark grayish brown, slightly moist very stiff CL Sandy CLAY with Gravel: grayish brown, slightly moist, stiff saturated SC Clayey SAND: mottled dark grayish brown and dark brown, saturated, loose LLI _J o_ ::,; <( (/) LLI o_ >-f- (/) a: LLI _J o_ ::,; <( (/) ........ SPT ........ 25 .... .... ........ .... ....SPT ........ 10 .... ........ .... SPT : .... 4 ........ .... E (/) 5 0 _J � z 33 13 4 0 <D 6 BORING NO. B-4 JOB NO. SL 10322-6 DRILLING INFORMATION DRILL RIG: HOLE DIAMETER: SAMPLING METHOD: APPROX. ELEVATION: Mobile B-24 6 Inches SPT Not Recorded 15 Feet 1 of 1 a: � LLI LLI f->-� _J <( a: 'G u (,C) � � 5 � 0 z LLI >-z �z <( !:::: =0 ::,; ::,; a: f- f-� LLI f->-e z ::::, z z u in ::::, z ::::, 0 f-LLI LLI i= z ::,; LLI ::,; f-(/) (/) c;S c;S in i= (/) f- f-(/) <( f-x LLI z LLI z i= z z :r: u 0 z <( 0 o_ 0 <( 0 0 _J c;S o_ 0 LLI 0 ::,; u U:: u o_ � �0 u ::,; 0 u EE 17.7 19.2 41.1 "'"'g' � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 '"' 220 High Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 805-543-8539 1021 Tama Lane, Ste 105, Santa Maria, CA 93455 Phone: 805-614-6333 201 S. Milpas St, Ste 103, Santa Barbara, CA 93103 Phone: 805-966-2200 BORING LOG E S C::> L LJ ---r-I C::> r---..J S PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT: DRILLING LOCATION: DATE DRILLED: LOGGED BY: 250 Tank Farm Road See Figure 3, Field Investigation November 7, 2023 D. Wordeman Depth of Groundwater: 11 Feet Boring Terminated: >-(,C) 0 :r: _J 0 f-(/) o_ :r: u LLI !:::: (/) 0 _J ::::, CL CL SOIL DESCRIPTION Sandy Lean CLAY with Gravel: very dark grayish brown, slightly moist, hard Sandy CLAY with Gravel: grayish brown, slightly moist, firm saturated firm e LLI _J o_ ::,; <( (/) LLI o_ >-f- (/) a: LLI _J o_ ::,; <( (/) ........ SPT ........ 25 .... .... ........ .... ....SPT ........ 5 .... ........ .... SPT : .... 4 ........ .... E (/) 5 0 _J � z 33 7 4 LLI a: ::::, 0 f-<D (/) 6 0 ::,; BORING NO. B-5 JOB NO. SL 10322-6 DRILLING INFORMATION DRILL RIG: HOLE DIAMETER: SAMPLING METHOD: APPROX. ELEVATION: Mobile B-24 6 Inches SPT Not Recorded 15 Feet 1 of 1 a: � LLI LLI f->-� _J <( a: 'G u (,C) � � 5 � 0 z >-z � z <( !:::: = 0 = ::,; ::,; f- f-u �- LLI f-::::, >-e z z z U'J-::::, z 0 LLI LLI i= zx ::,; LLI ::,; f-(/) (/) c;S in i= f- f-(/) <( LLI f-x LLI z LLI z <( 0 o_ 0 i= z z :r: u 0 z 0 _J �� o_ 0 <( LLI 0 EEu U:: u o_ �0 u ::,; 0 u "' "' "' g' � GeoSolutions Inc. Project 250 Tank Farm Road Operator JM-FA Filename SDF(523).cpt Job Number SL10322-6 Cone Number DDG1589 GPS Hole Number CPT-01 Date and Time 11/30/2023 7:56:36 AM Maximum Depth 50.85 ft EST GW Depth During Test 12.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8 Cone Size 15cm²Soil Behavior Referance*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 600 TIP TSF 0 16 FRICTION TSF 0 10 Fs/Qt %-20 100 PRESSURE U2 PSI 0 12 1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*) 12 - sand to clayey sand (*) CPT DATA DE P T H (f t ) SO I L BE H A V I O R TY P E GeoSolutions Inc. Depth 4.99ft Ref* Arrival 9.14mS Velocity* Depth 10.01ft Ref 4.99ft Arrival 16.80mS Velocity 510.50ft/S Depth 15.03ft Ref 10.01ft Arrival 27.11mS Velocity 439.89ft/S Depth 20.01ft Ref 15.03ft Arrival 38.04mS Velocity 432.22ft/S Depth 25.03ft Ref 20.01ft Arrival 49.92mS Velocity 409.08ft/S Depth 30.02ft Ref 25.03ft Arrival 59.29mS Velocity 520.32ft/S Depth 35.01ft Ref 30.02ft Arrival 64.45mS Velocity 951.93ft/S Depth 40.03ft Ref 35.01ft Arrival 69.29mS Velocity 1024.03ft/S Depth 45.01ft Ref 40.03ft Arrival 72.81mS Velocity 1405.37ft/S 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Depth 50.03ft Ref 45.01ft Arrival 76.09mS Velocity 1518.48ft/S Time (mS) Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83 * = Not Determined COMMENT: CPT-01 250 Tank Farm Road GeoSolutions Inc. Project 250 Tank Farm Road Operator JM-FA Filename SDF(524).cpt Job Number SL10322-6 Cone Number DDG1589 GPS Hole Number CPT-02 Date and Time 11/30/2023 8:42:47 AM Maximum Depth 50.69 ft EST GW Depth During Test 11.20 ft Net Area Ratio .8 Cone Size 15cm²Soil Behavior Referance*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 600 TIP TSF 0 16 FRICTION TSF 0 10 Fs/Qt %-20 100 PRESSURE U2 PSI 0 12 1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*) 12 - sand to clayey sand (*) CPT DATA DE P T H (f t ) SO I L BE H A V I O R TY P E GeoSolutions Inc. Depth 4.99ft Ref* Arrival 9.37mS Velocity* Depth 10.01ft Ref 4.99ft Arrival 15.62mS Velocity 625.37ft/S Depth 15.03ft Ref 10.01ft Arrival 25.00mS Velocity 483.88ft/S Depth 20.01ft Ref 15.03ft Arrival 35.54mS Velocity 448.23ft/S Depth 25.03ft Ref 20.01ft Arrival 47.18mS Velocity 417.32ft/S Depth 30.02ft Ref 25.03ft Arrival 56.09mS Velocity 547.71ft/S Depth 35.01ft Ref 30.02ft Arrival 59.37mS Velocity 1495.89ft/S Depth 40.03ft Ref 35.01ft Arrival 62.96mS Velocity 1380.21ft/S Depth 45.01ft Ref 40.03ft Arrival 64.92mS Velocity 2529.68ft/S 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Depth 50.03ft Ref 45.01ft Arrival 67.03mS Velocity 2362.07ft/S Time (mS) Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83 * = Not Determined COMMENT: CPT-02 250 Tank Farm Road APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Soil Test Reports LABORATORY TESTING This appendix includes a discussion of the test procedures and the laboratory test results performed as part of this investigation. The purpose of the laboratory testing is to assess the engineering properties of the soil materials at the Site. The laboratory tests are performed using the currently accepted test methods, when applicable, of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Undisturbed and disturbed bulk samples used in the laboratory tests are obtained from various locations during the course of the field exploration, as discussed in Appendix A of this report. Each sample is identified by sample letter and depth. The Unified Soils Classification System is used to classify soils according to their engineering properties. The various laboratory tests performed are described below: Expansion Index of Soils (ASTM D4829) is conducted in accordance with the ASTM test method and the California Building Code Standard, and are performed on representative bulk and undisturbed soil samples. The purpose of this test is to evaluate expansion potential of the site soils due to fluctuations in moisture content. The sample specimens are placed in a consolidometer, surcharged under a 144-psf vertical confining pressure, and then inundated with water. The amount of expansion is recorded over a 24-hour period with a dial indicator. The expansion index is calculated by determining the difference between final and initial height of the specimen divided by the initial height. Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (ASTM D4318) are the water contents at certain limiting or critical stages in cohesive soil behavior. The liquid limit (LL or WL) is the lower limit of viscous flow, the plastic limit (PL or WP) is the lower limit of the plastic stage of clay and plastic index (PI or IP) is a range of water content where the soil is plastic. The Atterberg Limits are performed on samples that have been screened to remove any material retained on a No. 40 sieve. The liquid limit is determined by performing trials in which a portion of the sample is spread in a brass cup, divided in two by a grooving tool, and then allowed to flow together from the shocks caused by repeatedly dropping the cup in a standard mechanical device. To determine the Plastic Limit a small portion of plastic soil is alternately pressed together and rolled into a 1/8-inch diameter thread. This process is continued until the water content of the sample is reduced to a point at which the thread crumbles and can no longer be pressed together and re-rolled. The water content of the soil at this point is reported as the plastic limit. The plasticity index is calculated as the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit. Direct Shear Tests of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions (ASTM D3080) is performed on undisturbed and remolded samples representative of the foundation material. The samples are loaded with a predetermined normal stress and submerged in water until saturation is achieved. The samples are then sheared horizontally at a controlled strain rate allowing partial drainage. The shear stress on the sample is recorded at regular strain intervals. This test determines the resistance to deformation, which is shear strength, inter-particle attraction or cohesion c, and resistance to interparticle slip called the angle of internal friction φ. Particle Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM D422) is used to determine the particle-size distribution of fine and coarse aggregates. In the test method the sample is separated through a series of sieves of progressively smaller openings for determination of particle size distribution. The total percentage passing each sieve is reported and used to determine the distribution of fine and coarse aggregates in the sample. Density of Soil in Place by the Drive-Cylinder Method (ASTM D2937) and Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass (ASTM D2216) are used to obtain values of in- place water content and in-place density. Undisturbed samples, brought from the field to the laboratory, are weighed, the volume is calculated, and they are placed in the oven to dry. Once the samples have been dried, they are weighed again to determine the water content, and the in-place density is then calculated. The moisture density tests allow the water content and in-place densities to be obtained at required depths. GeoSolutions, Inc.(805) 543 - 8539 Boring Hole Depth (ft)Sample LL PI γd_max (pcf) ωc_opt (%) C (psf) ø (deg) C (psf) ø (deg) B-1 0-6.5'A Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Lean CLAY CL 65.6 49 34 56 B-1 4'Black Sandy CLAY CL 1315 17.7 1144 20.1 B-1 6.5-7.5'B Grayish Brown Clayey SAND SC 41.9 29 8 B-1 7.5-11'C Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY CL 65.5 B-2 4'Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty SAND with Gravel SM 11.3 B-2 9'Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Silty CLAY CL-ML 27.4 B-2 14'Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Silty CLAY CL-ML 30.5 B-4 4'Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty Clayey SAND SC-SM 17.7 B-4 9'Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty Clayey SAND SC-SM 19.2 B-4 14'Dark Brown Sandy Silty CLAY CL-ML 41.1 LABORATORY SUMMARY REPORT SHEET Sample ID Material Description Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Mo i s t u r e Co n t e n t ( % ) Direct Shear (Ultimate) % F i n e s Atterberg Limits Compaction Curve Direct Shear (Peak) 12388 12/13/23 DB US C S Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s Project: Client: Job #: 1 Ex p a n s i o n In d e x R- V a l u e Checked By: Lab #: Date: 250 Tank Farm Road SL10322-6 Tank Farm Road, LLC Date: LEGEND TEST RESULTS symbol location depth Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) B-1 0-6.5'49 15 34 B-1 6.5-7.5'29 21 8 Report By: Aaron Eichman 2 Grayish Brown Clayey SAND GeoSolutions, Inc.(805) 543-8539PLASTICITY INDEX TEST SUMMARY REPORT (ASTM D4318) CLASSIFICATION Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Lean CLAY 12/13/23 AE 250 Tank Farm Road Tank Farm Road, LLC Project: Client: Project #: Checked by:SL10322-6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pl a s t i c i t y I n d e x Liquid Limit "A" LINE: PI = 0.73 (LL -20) *Atterberg Limits -plotting between dotted lines are borderline classifications requiring use of dual symbols. CL-ML CL CH ML or OL MH or OH ML or OL PLASTICITY CHART For classification of fine-grained soils and fine fraction of coarse-grained soils * Remarks: Testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D4318 NP -material tested is nonplastic (liquid or plastic limit tests could not be performed) Date: PLASTICITY (FINER FRACTION) symbol location depth Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (PI) Expansion Index (EI) B-1 0-6.5'49 15 34 56 B-1 6.5-7.5'29 21 8 - B-1 7.5-11'---- symbol location depth D100 D60 D30 D10 Cu Cc % Sand % Passing No. 200 % Silt % Clay B-1 0-6.5'19.0 0.069 NA NA NA NA 30.4 65.6 NA NA B-1 6.5-7.5'19.0 0.189 NA NA NA NA 49.1 41.9 NA NA B-1 7.5-11'9.5 0.069 NA NA NA NA 33.5 65.5 NA NA 3 % Gravel 4.0 SL10322-6 Checked By: 9.0 1.0 Grayish Brown Sandy CLAY GeoSolutions, Inc. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Lean CLAY Grayish Brown Clayey SAND LEGEND LEGEND PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS SUMMARY PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT (805) 543-8539 12/13/2023 AE Project:250 Tank Farm Road Client:Tank Farm Road, LLC Project #: Remarks: Testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D422 and D4318 (where applicable) NP -non-plastic NA -not available (could not be calculated from data) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t P a s s i n g , % Grain Size, mm 0.005 mm0.075 mm4.75 mm75 mm Cobbles Gravel coarse fine Sand coarse medium fine Silt Clay Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Testing D100 -grain size diameter corresponding to 100% passing (mm) D60 -grain size diameter corresponding to 60% passing (mm) D30 -grain size diameter corresponding to 30% passing (mm) D10 -grain size diameter corresponding to 30% passing (mm) Cc -coefficient of curvature: Cc = (D30)2 / (D60*D10) Cu -coefficient of uniformity: Cu = D60 / D10 Project:250 Tank Farm Road Client:Tank Farm Road, LLC Sample:B-1 @ 4' Depth:4.0 Feet Location:B-1 LL PL PI % passing No. 200 Gs * nm nm nm nm 2.7 * Gs = assumed; nm = not measured Peak Ultimate 17.7 20.1 1315 1144 Rate of Deformation (in/min)0.024 0.024 0.024Angle of Internal Friction, øpeak (degrees): 15.5 15.5 15.5 Diameter (in)2.42 2.42 2.42 Sample Height (in) Ultimate Shear Stress (ksf) Horiz. Displ. at Ult. Shear (in) 2.00 1.914 0.140 1.819 0.242 Specimen No. 1 2 1.00 1.00 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Black Sandy CLAY 3 Initial Conditions Horiz. Displacenent at Peak Shear (in) Dry Density 109.6 108.5 108.0 Sample Type in-situ Specimen No. 1 2 3.00 2.350 4 1.00 Water Content (%) Cohesion, Cpeak (psf) 3 4.00 2.552 0.233 2.549 0.240 Normal Stress (ksf) Test Data Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 0.241 2.348 0.240 12388 12/12/2023 SL10322-6 AE GeoSolutions, Inc.DIRECT SHEAR TEST SUMMARY REPORT (ASTM D3080)(805) 543-8539 Project #: Date Tested: Lab #: Checked By: 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Horizontal Displacement (in) σ = 2 ksf σ = 3 ksf σ = 4 ksf Peak Ultimate -0.025 -0.020 -0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 Ve r t i c a l D i s p l a c e m e n t ( i n ) Horizontal Displacement (in) σ = 2 ksf σ = 3 ksf σ = 4 ksf 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Peak Ultimate Linear (Peak) Remarks: Saturated APPENDIX C Seismic Hazard Analysis Design Map Summary (SEAOC, 2019) SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS According to section 1613 of the 2022 CBC (CBSC, 2022), all structures and portions of structures should be designed to resist the effects of seismic loadings caused by earthquake ground motions in accordance with the ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, hereafter referred to as ASCE7-16 (ASCE, 2016). Estimating the design ground motions at the Site depends on many factors including the distance from the Site to known active faults; the expected magnitude and rate of recurrence of seismic events produced on such faults; the source-to-site ground motion attenuation characteristics; and the Site soil profile characteristics. As per section 1613.2.2 of the 2022 CBC, the Site soil profile classification is determined by the average soil properties in the upper 100 feet of the Site profile and can be determined based on the criteria provided in Table 20.3-1 of ASCE7-16. ASCE7-16 provides recommendations for estimating site-specific ground motion parameters for seismic design considering a Risk-targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) in order to determine design spectral response accelerations and a Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) in order to determine probabilistic geometric mean peak ground accelerations. Spectral accelerations from the MCER are based on a 5% damped acceleration response spectrum and a 1% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Maximum short period (Ss) and 1-second period (S1) spectral accelerations are interpolated from the MCER-based ground motion parameter maps for bedrock, provided in ASCE7-16. These spectral accelerations are then multiplied by site-specific coefficients (Fa, Fv), based on the Site soil profile classification and the maximum spectral accelerations determined for bedrock, to yield the maximum short period (SMS) and 1-second period (SM1) spectral response accelerations at the Site. According to section 11 of ASCE7-16 and section 1613 of the 2022 CBC, buildings and structures should be specifically proportioned to resist design earthquake ground motions. Section 1613.2.4 of the 2022 CBC indicates the site-specific design spectral response accelerations for short (SDS) and 1-second (SD1) periods can be taken as two-thirds of maximum (SDS = 2/3*SMS and SD1 = 2/3*SM1). Per ASCE7-16, Section 21.5, the probabilistic maximum mean peak ground acceleration (PGA) corresponding to the MCEG can be computed assuming a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475-year return period) and is initially determined from mapped ground accelerations for bedrock conditions. The site-specific peak ground acceleration (PGAM) is then determined by multiplying the PGA by the site-specific coefficient Fh (where Fh is a function of Site Class and PGA). Spectral response accelerations and peak ground accelerations, provided in this report were obtained using the computer-based Seismic Design Maps tool available from the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 2022). This program utilizes the methods developed in ASCE 7-16 in conjunction with user-inputted Site location to calculate seismic design parameters and response spectra (both for period and displacement) for soil profile Site Classes A through E. 12/21/23, 10:15 AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://www.seismicmaps.org 1/3 USGS web services were down for some period of time and as a result this tool wasn't operational, resulting in timeout error. USGS web services are now operational so this tool should work as expected. Parcels 10 and 11, 250 Tank Farm Road Latitude, Longitude: 35.2468, -120.6661 Date 12/21/2023, 10:15:17 AM Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16 Risk Category II Site Class D - Stiff Soil Type Value Description SS 1.048 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period) S1 0.386 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period) SMS 1.132 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 0.755 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description SDC null -See Section 11.4.8 Seismic design category Fa 1.081 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second Fv null -See Section 11.4.8 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.463 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1.137 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.526 Site modified peak ground acceleration TL 8 Long-period transition period in seconds SsRT 1.048 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 1.165 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 2.778 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.386 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 0.427 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration. S1D 0.968 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 1.132 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) 12/21/23, 10:15 AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://www.seismicmaps.org 2/3 Type Value Description PGAUH 0.463 Uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Peak Ground Acceleration CRS 0.899 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 0.903 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s CV 1.31 Vertical coefficient 12/21/23, 10:15 AM U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://www.seismicmaps.org 3/3 DISCLAIMER While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website. APPENDIX D Preliminary Grading Specifications PRELIMINARY GRADING SPECIFICATIONS A. General 1. These preliminary specifications have been prepared for the subject site; GeoSolutions, Inc. should be consulted prior to the commencement of site work associated with site development to ensure compliance with these specifications. 2. GeoSolutions, Inc. should be notified at least 72 hours prior to site clearing or grading operations on the property in order to observe the stripping of surface materials and to coordinate the work with the grading contractor in the field. 3. These grading specifications may be modified and/or superseded by recommendations contained in the text of this report and/or subsequent reports. 4. If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these grading specifications, the Soils Engineer shall provide the governing interpretation. B. Obligation of Parties 1. The Soils Engineer should provide observation and testing services and should make evaluations to advise the client on geotechnical matters. The Soils Engineer should report the findings and recommendations to the client or the authorized representative. 2. The client or their authorized representative should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. The client or authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Soils Engineer. During grading the client or the authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. 3. The contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with project plans, specifications, and controlling agency requirements. C. Site Preparation 1. The client, prior to any site preparation or grading, should arrange and attend a meeting which includes the grading contractor, the design Structural Engineer, the Soils Engineer, representatives of the local building department, as well as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 72 hours’ notice. 2. All surface and sub-surface deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed building and pavement areas and disposed of off-site or as approved by the Soils Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, any debris, organic materials, construction spoils, buried utility line, septic systems, building materials, and any other surface and subsurface structures within the proposed building areas. Trees designated for removal on the construction plans should be removed and their primary root systems grubbed under the observations of a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. Voids left from site clearing should be cleaned and backfilled as recommended for structural fill. 3. Once the Site has been cleared, the exposed ground surface should be stripped to remove surface vegetation and organic soil. A representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should determine the required depth of stripping at the time of work being completed. Strippings may either be disposed of off-site or stockpiled for future use in landscape areas, if approved by the landscape architect. D. Site Protection 1. Protection of the Site during the period of grading and construction should be the responsibility of the contractor. 2. The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. 3. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the contractor should install check-dams, de-silting basins, sand bags, or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions. E. Excavations 1. Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under the observation and recommendations of the Soils Engineer. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to: 1) dry, loose, soft, wet, organic, or compressible natural soils; 2) fractured, weathered, or soft bedrock; 3) non- engineered fill; 4) other deleterious materials; and 5) materials identified by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. 2. Unless otherwise recommended by the Soils Engineer and approved by the local building official, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Final slope configurations should conform to section 1804 of the 2022 California Building Code unless specifically modified by the Soil Engineer/Engineering Geologist. 3. The Soil Engineer/Engineer Geologist should review cut slopes during excavations. The contractor should notify the Soils Engineer/Engineer Geologist prior to beginning slope excavations. F. Structural Fill 1. Structural fill should not contain rocks larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension, and should have no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches in greatest dimension. 2. Imported fill should be free of organic and other deleterious material and should have very low expansion potential, with a plasticity index of 12 or less. Before delivery to the Site, a sample of the proposed import should be tested in our laboratory to determine its suitability for use as structural fill. G. Compacted Fill 1. Structural fill using approved import or native should be placed in horizontal layers, each approximately 8 inches in thickness before compaction. On-site inorganic soil or approved imported fill should be conditioned with water to produce a soil water content near optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent based on ASTM D1557- 12e1. 2. Fill slopes should not be constructed at gradients greater than 2-to-1 (horizontal to vertical). The contractor should notify the Soils Engineer/Engineer Geologist prior to beginning slope excavations. 3. If fill areas are constructed on slopes greater than 10-to-1 (horizontal to vertical), we recommend that benches be cut every 4 feet as fill is placed. Each bench shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide with a minimum of 2 percent gradient into the slope. 4. If fill areas are constructed on slopes greater than 5-to-1, we recommend that the toe of all areas to receive fill be keyed a minimum of 24 inches into underlying dense material. Key depths are to be observed and approved by a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. Sub-drains shall be placed in the keyway and benches as required. H. Drainage 1. During grading, a representative of GeoSolutions, Inc. should evaluate the need for a sub-drain or back-drain system. Areas of observed seepage should be provided with sub-surface drains to release the hydrostatic pressures. Sub-surface drainage facilities may include gravel blankets, rock filled trenches or Multi-Flow systems or equal. The drain system should discharge in a non- erosive manner into an approved drainage area. 2. All final grades should be provided with a positive drainage gradient away from foundations. Final grades should provide for rapid removal of surface water runoff. Ponding of water should not be allowed on building pads or adjacent to foundations. Final grading should be the responsibility of the contractor, general Civil Engineer, or architect. 3. Concentrated surface water runoff within or immediately adjacent to the Site should be conveyed in pipes or in lined channels to discharge areas that are relatively level or that are adequately protected against erosion. 4. Water from roof downspouts should be conveyed in solid pipes that discharge in controlled drainage localities. Surface drainage gradients should be planned to prevent ponding and promote drainage of surface water away from building foundations, edges of pavements and sidewalks. For soil areas we recommend that a minimum of 2 percent gradient be maintained. 5. Attention should be paid by the contractor to erosion protection of soil surfaces adjacent to the edges of roads, curbs and sidewalks, and in other areas where hard edges of structures may cause concentrated flow of surface water runoff. Erosion resistant matting such as Miramat, or other similar products, may be considered for lining drainage channels. 6. Sub-drains should be placed in established drainage courses and potential seepage areas. The location of sub-drains should be determined after a review of the grading plan. The sub-drain outlets should extend into suitable facilities or connect to the proposed storm drain system or existing drainage control facilities. The outlet pipe should consist of a non-perforated pipe the same diameter as the perforated pipe. I. Maintenance 1. Maintenance of slopes is important to their long-term performance. Precautions that can be taken include planting with appropriate drought-resistant vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect, and not over-irrigating, a primary source of surficial failures. 2. Property owners should be made aware that over-watering of slopes is detrimental to long term stability of slopes. J. Underground Facilities Construction 1. The attention of contractors, particularly the underground contractors, should be drawn to the State of California Construction Safety Orders for “Excavations, Trenches, Earthwork.” Trenches or excavations greater than 5 feet in depth should be shored or sloped back in accordance with OSHA Regulations prior to entry. 2. Bedding is defined as material placed in a trench up to 1 foot above a utility pipe and backfill is all material placed in the trench above the bedding. Unless concrete bedding is required around utility pipes, clean sand should be used as bedding. Sand to be used as bedding should be tested in our laboratory to verify its suitability and to measure its compaction characteristics. Sand bedding should be compacted by mechanical means to achieve at least 90 percent relative density based on ASTM D1557-12. 3. On-site inorganic soils, or approved import, may be used as utility trench backfill. Proper compaction of trench backfill will be necessary under and adjacent to structural fill, building foundations, concrete slabs, and vehicle pavements. In these areas, backfill should be conditioned with water (or allowed to dry), to produce a soil water content of about 2 to 3 percent above the optimum value and placed in horizontal layers, each not exceeding 8 inches in thickness before compaction. Each layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative density based on ASTM D1557-12. The top lift of trench backfill under vehicle pavements should be compacted to the requirements given in report under Preparation of Paved Areas for vehicle pavement sub-grades. Trench walls must be kept moist prior to and during backfill placement. K. Completion of Work 1. After the completion of work, a report should be prepared by the Soils Engineer retained to provide such services. The report should including locations and elevations of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests, other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the approved Soils Engineering Report. 2. Soils Engineers shall submit a statement that, to the best of their knowledge, the work within their area of responsibilities is in accordance with the approved soils engineering report and applicable provisions within Chapter 18 of the 2022 CBC.