The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution No. 2011-162RESOLUTION NO. 2011-162 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF TASK ORDER NO. 2011-4 TO THE STANDARD MASTER AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF VERNON AND CH2MHILL ENGINEERS, INC. WHEREAS, on February 23, 2009, the City Council of the City of Vernon adopted Resolution No. 9866 approving a Standard Master Agreement (the "Agreement"), with CH2MHILL, Inc., to provide environmental and engineering support and related services, as well as construction management services, in connection with power and energy projects on a task basis; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2009, the City Council of the City of Vernon adopted Resolution No. 10,081 approving Task Order No. 1, Modification B to the Agreement; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2011, the City Council of the City of Vernon adopted Resolution No. 2011-71 authorizing the execution of Task Order No. 2011-1 for additional funding for the development and permitting if the City's wind energy project; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2011, the City Council of the City of Vernon adopted Resolution No. 2011-89 authorizing the execution of Task Order No. 2011-3 for additional funding to support and cover necessary activities to comply with local, state and federal requirements; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2011, the City Council of the City of Vernon adopted Resolution No. 2011-150 authorizing the execution of Task Order No. 2011-4 for additional funding for ongoing support to maximize the land asset value of the City's wind energy project; and WHEREAS, by a memorandum dated September 22, 2011, the Director of Light & Power has recommended that the City enter into Task Order No. 2011-4 pursuant to the Agreement in an amount not to exceed $134,727.00.00 for construction activities along the roads located on the City's controlled lands in southeastern Kern County; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Vernon has determined that, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b)(1) and (7) of Section 2.27 of the Vernon City Code, it is in the public interest and necessity to approve Task Order No. 2011-4 to the Agreement with CH2MHILL Engineers to provide professional and consulting services for the necessary activities required to comply with local, state and federal requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby finds and determines that the recitals contained hereinabove are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby approves Task Order No. 2011-4, with CH2MHill Engineers, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby authorizes the Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem to execute Task Order No. 2011-4 for, and on behalf of, the City of Vernon and the City Clerk is hereby authorized to attest thereto. SECTION 4: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby instructs the Director of Light & Power, or his designee, to take whatever actions are deemed necessary or desirable for the purpose of 2 implementing and carrying out the purposes of this Resolution and the transactions herein approved or authorized. SECTION 5: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby directs the City Clerk, or the City Clerk's designee, to send a fully executed Task Order No. 2011-4 to CH2MHILL Engineers, Inc. SECTION 6: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall certify to the passage, approval and adoption of this resolution, and the City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall cause this resolution and the City Clerk's certification to be entered in the File of Resolutions of the Council of this City. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October, 2011. GK ' Name: Hilario Gonzales Title: Mayor ayu —Pro-Ted - 3 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I, Willard G. Yamaguchi, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2011-162, was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon at a regular meeting of the City Council duly held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, and thereafter was duly signed by the Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem of the City of Vernon. Executed this j�7 day of October, 2011, at Vernon, California. (SEAL) iiYl5rd ama i, i y Clerk 4 EXHIBIT A TASK ORDER NO.2011-4 THIS TASK ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE STANDARD MASTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN CH2M HILL, INC. AND THE CITY OF VERNON FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2009, AS AMENDED MAY 3, 2011 ("AGREEMENT") The City of Vernon Renewable Energy Lands Project (VREL), which is incorporated herein by this reference, with respect to the ("Project') to provide construction services for installation of a new culvert. Specific Services: Provide services as described in the attached proposal dated 09/20/2011, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Compensation Provisions: Time and materials basis at rates set forth in the proposal in an amount not to exceed $134,727 unless previously approved by the City in writing. - Work Schedule: As set forth in the attached Task Order 2011-4 proposal, herein incorporated by reference. The Authorized Representatives designated below are authorized to act with respect to Task Order. Communications between the parties shall be between parties and their consultants or subcontractors shall be through the Authorized Representatives: For CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. For the Client Name: Mark L. Bricker and Starr Dehn Name: Hilario Gonzales, Mayor Address: 1100 112" Ave. NE, Ste 400 Address: 4305 Santa Fe Avenue, Bellevue, WA 98004 r. Vernon, CA 90058 Telephone: 425-233-3294 Telephone: 323-583-1811 Except as specifically modified in this Task Order No. 2011-4, all terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement remain in full force and effect: This Task Order No. 2011-4 will be effective the date of approval by the City Council. Accepted for CH2M HILL,.Engineers INC. by: Name: Mark L. Bricker Title: Vice President, Environmental Services Name: Start Dehn Tide: Environmental Services Accepted for Client by: Name: Hilaio Gonzales Title: Mayor Attest: Name and Title Approved As To Form Name and Title SCONREL TASKORDER_2011-4 09-27-2011.DOCXI111750001 COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL Attachments: Attachment A - Scope of Work Attachment B - Engineering Construction Cost Estimate Attachment C - Technical Memorandum Drainage Study for County of Kern Rudnick Road Culvert Placement Kelso Valley, CA; July 2011 Attachment D - Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Existing Access Road (Rudnick Road).City of. Vernon (A.PN: 444-060-03);Qnyx Ranch, CA September 30, 2010 Attachment E - Project Plans for Rudnick Road Culvert Placement, Kelso Valley, CA. CH2M HILL July 2011 Attachment F - Salem Engineering Group proposal dated August 11, 2011 Attachment G - Schedule Attachment A Scope of Work City of Vernon Renewable Energy Land (VREL) Culvert Replacement ATTACHMENT A Scope of Work General Scope The detailed scope of work in this proposal covers the following tasks: • Project Management • Work Planning • Prepare SOW • Subcontracting • Construction Project Management CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. (CH2M HILL) will provide project management services for the duration of the project. Project management services will include tracking and reporting on construction progress and costs, maintaining project and document controls, subcontract management and invoice processing, and financial accounting throughout the duration of the work. CH2M HILL will require project safety to comply with federal, state, and local regulations as well CH2M HILL requirements. The elements of work that will be performed as part of Project Management includes: • Construction oversight • Submittals management • Disposal facility transportation records (if required) • ConstructionQuality Control (CQC) • Field records management • Health and Safety Plan compliance • Environmental compliance records review • Subcontractor management Reporting will be accomplished using the following construction management and project control templates: • Quantity tracking • Action item list • QC inspection documentation • Daily records and photo logs CITY OFVERNON PROPOSAL • Schedule summary reports • Non-conformance and corrective action report, if needed Work Planning The work planning effort will include: • Preparation of a Safety Hazard Analysis • Preparation of a Construction Quality Checklist • Coordination for access to the site • Coordination with the Subcontractor Prepare Subcontract Scope of Work CH2M HILL will prepare a detailed SOW and submit to a prequalified Subcontractor that meets CHUM HILL health and safety and insurance requirements. Site Bid Walk CH2M HILL will conduct a site bid walk with the bidding Subcontractors and review the scope of work to obtain a shared vision of the required work activities. Construction CH2M HILL has developed Project Plans for the proposed culvert replacement project and all pertinent design and construction information. Construction will include the following: Site Preparation Site preparation activities include the following: • Install erosion and sediment controls and other temporary environmental controls o Temporary fence (Type ESA) o Silt fence o Fiber rolls o Temporary check dams o Clearing and grubbing • Deploy specific heavy equipment by Subcontractor required to perform the -construction activities • Identify and clearly mark the work area to prevent storm water run-on or runoff. Excavation and Install Culvert . Excavation activities will include the following: • Overexcavatethe existing area and prepare for installation of the culvert • Placement of 48-inch corrugated steel culvert • Stockpile excavated soil out of the wash • Cut slopes will not exceed 1:1 • Slopes will not exceed 10 vertical feet Backfill and Compact Excavations All grading will conform to the Kern County County Building Code and the equivalent City of Vernon Municipal Codes. Fill will be compacted to the following minimum relative compaction criteria: • Backfill will be placed in maximum 12-inch loose lifts and compacted before the next lift is placed. • Compaction will be completed using a sheep's foot attachment to the excavating Equipment and/or sheep foot roll compactor • Fill Slopes will not exceed 2:1 • Backfill will be from an offsite approved borrow source • Field Observations, Special Inspection and Testing - this will be completed by Salem Engineering Group (Attachment G). o Soil Compaction Testing - Measure the compaction of fill soils for compliance to recommended minimum percentages in roadways, trenches, and other backfilled areas utilizing the nuclear gage or tube method of testing. Perform compaction testing of aggregate base material in paved areas. o Laboratory Testing - The laboratory -testing program would incorporate physical tests for the determination of soil moisture, density, and compressive strength. In -Situ Moisture and Density tests will likely be conducted o Compaction and Special Inspection Reports - At the completion -of the grading operations, a final report will be submitted. The report will document all our field and laboratory activities, including field observation and compaction testing. The report would be prepared and signed by a California Licensed Civil Engineer. • Site restoration will include: o Erosion control - hydro seed o Rock slope protection (Light, Method B) o Rock slope protection fabric The Site will be bladed and restored with existing materials such that the finished topography conforms to the pre -construction topography and the ground surface is clean and free of debris, is graded to a smooth surface free of depressions ("birdbaths"), and drains to the existing drainage system. Construction Management The Construction Manager will supervise and inspect daily field work, and will prepare daily field reports to document progress made, change conditions, nonconformance work, and any other issues that impact the project. Field records will be managed in accordance with the Construction Quality Checklist and will be used to support the development of other project deliverables. The CH2M HILL Construction Manager's goal is to execute this project in a manner that reduces cost and schedule by delivering greater performance and efficiencies. Budget Summary CH2M HILL's budget estimate for this scope of work is provided in Table 1. CH2M HILL labor and expense rates have previously been submitted to the City. The proposed budget will not be exceeded without prior written authorization from the City. In the event that unanticipated circumstances arise that increase the needed level of effort or require additional cost, CH2M HILL may require a scope amendment and additional funding. CH2M HILL may solicit competitive bids for portions of the project that have been categorized as Construction. Our proposal includes the best -value selections for the excavation and disposal category. However if a reasonable bid may be obtained by a sole source selection based on past relationships with CH2M HILL approved subcontractors, this approach may assist in reducing schedule and project costs. CH2M HILL has utilized Innovative Construction Solutions (ICS) for dozens of projects both large and small over the last 5 years and the quality of their work, safety record, and competitive pricing -has resulted in many successful projects. CH2M HILL is considering utilizing ICS for the Rudnick Road construction. TABLE Breakdown of Estimated Time and Materials Budget -Task Order 2011-4 Task No. Description C f2M HILL Labor Hours CH2M HILL Labor Costs subcontracts and Expenses Budget cul-VOukEPLACEMENT CR.PM Project Management 48 $6,728 $0 $6.728 CR.PS Plans/Submittals 40 $6,870 $10 $6,880 CR.FW Fieldwork 62 $10,800 $110,319 $121,119 TOTAL 160 $24,398 $110,329 $134,727 ProjectClarifications and•Assumptions To provide clarity on key aspects and potential risks at the Site, the following clarifications and exceptions are presented for the proposed work. Required fees for the construction -grading permit, up to a maximum of $5,000, will be paid by CH2MHILL as described in Task Order No. 2011-1, previously submitted to the City for approval on March 21, 2011. Subcontract services.are currently expected not to exceed $109,000. CH2M HILL will provide one onsite professional- to manage and provide safety and quality oversight of the work for the duration of construction, which is anticipated not to exceed 5 days. This professional will provide Construction, Health and Safety, and Quality Assurance Management for the project. Construction oversight for the culvert replacement project incorporates CH2M HILL onsite monitoring of subcontractor activities as described in Task Order No. 2011-1, previously submitted to the City for approval on March 21, 2011. In addition, as part of this scope of work, one full-time professional is assumed to be onsite for the first and last day of construction activities. Surveying is not included in the scope of work. • If required, preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared by others. Pricing for a SWPPP can be provided upon request. Pricing does include implementation of the Water Pollution Control Program. • Construction water will be imported from offsite source via use of a highway rated trucks. • Excavated soil not reused will be stockpiled onsite out of the wash. • Offsite disposal of any materials is not included in this proposal. Should disposal of waste become necessary, CH2M HILL can provide pricing upon request. Dust control will only be applied during regular working hours while crews are onsite. • Vegetative material removed prior to excavation will be stockpiled onsite for removal by others if necessary. Pricing for disposal of this material can be included upon request. • No treatment of soil or segregating or screening of oversized soil is included. • No provisions or cost have been included for removing -or relocating any fencing. • It is assumed that access to the site will not be restricted. • Work will be completed in accordance with the Technical Memorandum Drainage Study for County of Kern Rudnick Road Culvert Placement Kelso Valley, CA; July 2011 including: o The culvert is designed to convey the runoff from a 100-year recurrence interval without overtopping the road and to maintain a headwater elevation for a 10- year recurrence interval below the top of the pipe in accordance with Kern County standards. o The proposed culvert diameter is 48 inches corrugated steel pipe with projecting end inlet and outlet. Minimum 3-feet of cover shall be maintained over the culvert. In order to match existing channel invert elevations and road grades the culvert will have over 3-feet of cover. o The culvert is designed to provide the necessary hydraulic capacity based on design flows as summarized above to pass the runoff from a 100-year storm event without overtopping the road. o Rock slope protection will be installed at the inlet and outlet of culvert to prevent localized scouring. The rock slope protectionpad will be 6 times the diameter in length and 3 times the diameter in width. Two additional feet of the length will overlap the culvert and the top of the pad will match the existing channel grade. Rock slope protection sizing I based on California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and Shore Protection Manual. o The contractor is responsible for implementing and maintaining erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction in accordance with all local and state agency requirements. The BMPs shall be constructed and properly maintained at all times until permanent vegetation is fully established. • Work will be completed in accordance with the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Existing Access Road (Rudnick Road) City of Vernon (APN: 444-060- 03) Onyx Ranch, CA September 30, 2010, Sections: o Section 11.2 - Preparation o Section 11.4 - Slope Construction and Maintenance o Section 11.5 - Fill Placement and Compaction o Section 11.6 - Surface Drainage Control o Section 11.7 - Temporary Excavation Stability o Section 11.9 - Utility Pipe Bedding and Backfill Work will be completed in accordance with the Project Plans for Rudnick Road Culvert Placement, Kelso Valley, CA. CH2M HILL July 2011 • Salem Engineering Groups Conditions o Fee Estimate for performing the aforementioned Scope of Services will be billed on time and material basis in accordance with the attached fee schedule. A minimum of 4 hours will be charged per visit, with an increment of 2-hour blocks thereafter. A maximum 1-hour travel time each way will be charged per visit. o Work over 8 hours or on Saturdays will be billed at 1.5 times the rates shown herein. Work on Sundays will be billed at twice times the rates shown herein. o Total Estimated Fee for performing the aforementioned Scope of Services is $3,025.00. This valueds not a "Not To Exceed" estimate. o Since Salem's work is highly dependent upon the contractor and contractor's performance, and the contract documents require re -tests and re -inspections due to errors by the general contractor to be paid by the general contractor, additional inspections due. to re -tests and re -inspections would be subject to reimbursement by the general contractor. o The above noted fee estimate assumes that the project plans and geotechnical report have been prepared and reviewed in accordance with CH2MHii1 design criteria. The hourly rates and unit test cost we propose for this project are presented above. Our invoices will be submitted on a.monthly basis and will be billed based on the hourly rates and unit test cost presented herein. Project Schedule A detailed schedule is included as Attachment H. Project Team The following personnel will provide the primary leadership on the project. Construction Project Manager The Construction Project Manager (CPM) for the project is Randy Rose. Randy will be directly responsible for the management of all phases of project. The CPM will provide overall direction during execution of the project activities. The CPM will also manage reporting requirements, schedule updates, milestone schedules, etc. The CPM will be responsible for overall project budget and schedule. Specific duties will include: • Construction Project Management for the project • Financial accounting and reporting • Leadership for the Team • Safety, quality assurance, and environmental compliance inspections • Communication with City of Vernon • Assuring the project is executed in accordance with the Contract, Safety Hazard Analysis, and Construction Quality Checklist Task Manager The Task Manager for the project will be Eric Lothman. Eric will provide coordination with subcontractors and will provide the daily onsite oversight of the subcontractor while the construction activities are being performed. Overall Project Manager Jessica Kinnahan is the project manager for all tasks related to the Vernon Renewable Land project and will be involved directly with the Construction Project Manager and the Task Manager to provide continuity and one point of contact for the project. Contract Terms ('_H2M HILL proposes to perform this work as Task Order No. 2011-4, on a time -and materials basis under the contract terms and conditions from the Master Services Agreement dated March 4, 2009, as amended in April 2011. Attachment B Construction Cost Estimate CITY OF VERNON PROPOSAL ENGINEER'S CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE KELSO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA RUDNICK ROAD CULVERT PLACEMENT ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEASURE ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL i TEMPORARY FENCE (TYPE ESA) LF 40 $10 S400 2 PREPARE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM IS 1 $3,500 S3,500 3 SILT FENCE LF 250 33 $750 4 FIBER ROLLS LF 230 55 $1,150 5 TEMPORARY CHECK DAM LP 60 $10 $600 6 CLEARING AND GRUBBING IS 1 $7,000 $7,000 7 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 730 $30 S21,900 8 IMPORTED BORROW CY 200 $50 SIO,000 9 EROSION CONTROL(HYDROSEED) SF 86,500 $0.25 $21,625 10 48-INCH CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE LF 92 $110 $10,120 11 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (LIGHT, METHOD B) CY 210 $85 $17,850 12 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION FABRIC SOFT 2,730 $4 S10,920 13 MOBILIZATION IS 1 $7,000 $7,000 TOTAL CONTRACT ITEMS SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS OF WORK PROJECT SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES(101A) PROJECT TOTAL FOR BUDGET PURPOSES USE $112,815 $O S112,815 S11,282 $124,097 _ . $125,000 IN PROVIDING OPINIONS OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST, THE CLIENT UNDERSTANDS THAT THE ENGINEER HAS NO CONTROL OVER COST OR THE PRICE OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS, OR OVER THE CONTRACTOR'S METHOD OF PRICING AND THAT THE OPINIONS OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS PROVIDED HEREIN ARE TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE ENGINEER'S QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE. THE ENGINEER MARES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, TO THE ACCURACY OF SUCH OPINIONS AS COMPARED TO ACTUAL BID OR ACTUAL COSTS. Attachment C Technical Memorandum Drainage Study Technical Memorandum Drainage Study for County .of Kern Rudnick Road Culvert Placement Kelso Valley, CA July 2011 CH2MHILL Purpose The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to summarize the criteria, assumptions, and calculations for sizing a new culvert where the existing Rudnick Road crosses a natural drainage channel. The site is located on the northern edge of Assessor's Parcel No. 444-060- 03 controlled by the City of Vernon in the Kelso Valley area of Kern County, California. The existing unpaved Rudnick Road will be excavated and reconstructed with a new culvert. Vegetation and growth outside of the roadway consists of sparse trees, brushes and shrubs. The calculations presented in this memorandum are based on available survey provided by Critigen, which includes Lidar taken in May 2009 and field survey taken in June 2011. Horizontal datum is based on NAD 83, Zone 5 and vertical datum is based on NAND 88. Drainage Criteria and Assumptions The culvert is designed to convey the runoff from a 100-year recurrence interval without overtopping the road and to maintain a headwater elevation for a 10-year recurrence interval below the top of the pipe in accordance with Kern County standards. The proposed culvert diameter is 48 inches corrugated steel. pipe with projecting end inlet and outlet. Minimum 3-feet of cover shall be maintained over the culvert. In order to match existing channel invert elevations and road -grades the culvert will have over 3-feet of cover. Hydrology Existing topographic information was used to delineate one-118-acre basin whose storm runoff impacts the proposed access road. Refer to the attached Rudnick Road Drainage Basin Map. There is an existing low water crossing that will remain in place approximately 400 feet to the west of the proposed culvert location. In accordance with the Kern County Hydrology Manual, storm water runoff design flows were estimated using the Rational Method, which calculates peak discharge for basins less than 640 acres in size. Refer to the attached hydrology calculations. Culvert Hydraulics The culvert is designed to provide the necessary hydraulic capacity based on design flows as summarized above to pass the runoff from a 100-year storm event without overtopping the road. Refer to the attached FHWA software version 7.2, HY8 report. Scour Protection Rock slope protection will be installed at the inlet and outlet of culvert to prevent localized scouring. The rock slope protection pad will be 6 times the diameter in length and 3 times the diameter in width. Two additional feet of the length will overlap the culvert and the top of the pad will match the existing channel grade. Rock slope protection sizing is based on California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and Shore Protection Manual. Temporary Erosion Control The contractor is responsible for implementing and maintaining erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction in accordance with all local and state agency requirements. The BMPs shall be constructed and properly maintained at all times until permanent vegetation is fully established. neer's Statement These drainage calculations have been prepared by or under the supervision of the following registered Civil Engineer. The registered Civil Engineer has reviewed the technical information contained herein and has judged the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. P 9T •• /1 'l'1. 1 No. C72091 EZ: 6-30-12 ] CIVIV <9Q nor CAUk Cv 7-15-11 RUDNICK ROAD DRAINAGE BASIN MAP County of Kern Rudnick Road Culvert Placement Kelso Valley, CA Hydrology Calculations By: L. Alliger Rational Method Hydrology Calculations 1) Refer to Rudnick Road Drainage Basin Map Length ft Area Acres Elevation Dro Ft 3500 118 240 2) Intensity -Duration Curve Intensity in/hr Attached Figure 2 yr - 6hr 1.4 B-10 2 r- 24 hr 2.5 8-21 100 yr-6hr 3.01343 100 r-24 hr 6.0 B-54 K1 K2 K3 K4 Project Location (latitude) 35018'-32= 3.30=X5 Sierra Nevada Eq B.8 Y2 = 0.126+0.561 (X1)(X1/X2) Y2 =�57 Y100=-0.030+0.816(Y2)(X3/X1)+0.63/X5 Y100= 1.18 See Figure D-3 10 yr Y10=0.83 S=0.45'Sierra 'Nevada Mountains 3) See Figure D-1 Tc=21 min Unveloped with good cover 4) Tc=21 min 10 year 100 year 5) Soil Group "C" Curve Number = 82 Figure C-2 Fp= 0.34 Figure C-5 ap= 1.0 Fm=apFp Fm= 0.34 6) la=0.2S S=1000/82-10 = 2.20 la= 00.44 P24 = 1.18 100yr Y 1=(P24-la)A2/(P24-Ia+S)(P24) Y1= 0.158 7) Q=CIA Q10= 51.8 cis Q100= 74.2 cfs 1= 1.29 in/hr 1= 1.85 in/hr 3 2 Y'Z : U. 671 Hm' 0.5 0, I 1 J 0 2 S 10 25 SO 400 RETURN PERIOD IN YEARS NOTE, 1. FOR INTEIWEDLLTE NETUIMN PEI1100S PLOT SO-YEAN AND IDO-TEAR ONE MOOR VALUES FNDY YAPS, THEN CONNECT POINTS AND HEAD VALUE FOR OESINED RETURN PERNID, FOR EXAMPLE GIVEN N>-TEAR ONE HOURS O.RS' AND 100-YEAR ONE NOUN • I.RO'. 2S-TEAK ONE NOUII•LIS'. RETd1ENCEoNOAA ATLAS 21 VOLUME.=-O►L-NTZ RAINFALL DEPTH VERSUS KERN COUNTY RETURN PERIOD FOR HYDROLOGY MANUAL PARTIAL DURATION SERIES FIGURE D-3 L 1000 — 000 500 700 600 TC, LIMITATIONSt 100 I. Maximum length • 1000 Feet TC 90 2. Maximum area ■ 10 Acres 5� -� (min) 6o H 6 u am _ 50 B 35 s 400 u 30 '0 25 e E 0 300 20 19 p1�i� 250 " 17 16 15 14 200 13 J 12 II 150 IL•P 7 a 5 4 KERN COUNTY HYDROLOGY MANUAL =3 w C O+Q soto 8 1 10 Undev4bped Good QW12 H ��7m'd bped E Fair Ca1r _ .6 /14 �o Und"pped Poor Cover 0 `o �2 13 �0 ! 16 Singis Family 17 E (5-7 Du/AC)i1 is t Povedbl o KEY 25 S Pi Development SO- Apartment 75- Mobile Home S0 e 65- Condominium 60-Single Family-6,000 ft2 Lot 40-Single Family-1/4 Acre Lot 35 20- Single Family -I Acre Lot 10 = Single Family-21/2 Acre Lot 40 ( I) L• 55d, H•S d, K. single Family (5.7 ou/Acl Development, Tc■12 6 min. (2) L• 55d, H• 5V, K• Commercial Development, Te■9.7 min TIME OF CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA for Curve(1)Numbers of 1i ologic Soil -Cover Complexes For Pervious Areas -AMC II Wity of Soil-jr2mup Cover Type (3) Cover (2) A I B NATURAL COVERS - Barren (Rockland, eroded and graded land) 77 86 91 94 Chaparral, Broadleaf Poor 53 70 80 85 (Mena' ta, ceanothus and scrub oak) Fair 40 63 75 81 Good 31 57 71 78 Chaparral, Narrawleaf Poor 71 82 88 91 (Chemise and Redskank) Fair 55 72 81 86 Grass, Annual or Perennial Poor 68 79 86 89 Fair 49 69 79 84 Good 39 61 74 80 Meadows or Cianagas Poor 63 77 85 88 (Areas with seasonally high water Fair 51 70 80 84 table, principal vegetation is sad Good 30 58 71 78 forming grass) Open Brush Poor 62 76 84 88 (Soft wood shrubs-luckwheat,sage,etc.) Fair 46 66 77 83 Good 41 63 75 81 Woodland (4) Poor 45 66 277 83 (Coniferous or broadleaf trees Fair 36 60 73 79 predominate. canopy density is at Good 30 55 70 77 least 50 percent) Woodland, Grass Poor 57 73 .'$2".86 (Coniferous or hroadleaf trees with Fair 43 65 'lb 82 canopy density from 20 to 50 percent) URBAN COVERS Good 32 58 72 79 - Residential or Commercial Landscaping Good 39 61 74 80 (Lawns, shrubs, etc.) Turf Poor 68 79 86 89 (Irrigated and mowed grass) Fair 49 69 79 84 - Good 39 61 74 80 KERN COUNTY CURVE NUMBERS FOR Hydrology Mauual PERVIOUS AREAS FIGURE C-2 (1 of 2) HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Rudnick Road Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 4252.00 it, Outlet Elevation (invert): 4245.56 6 Culvert Length: 92.00 6, Culvert Slope: 0.0700 Culvert Summary Table Total Dlacharge (Ms) Culver) Discharge lots) Headwater Elevation (ft) Inlet Canlrol[Depth De 91 p (%)(%) el ol Flow Type Normal Depth (ft) Critical Depth (%) OuItet Depth (fl) Taliweler Depth (ft) Outlet Velocity (ft/8) Tallweter Velocity (%/s) 51.00 51.80 4265.31 3.313 3.313 1-Stf 1.357 2.153 2.153 1.148 7.518 13.107 54.04 64.04 1 4255.41 3.413 3.413 1-S7f 1.387 2.201 2.201 1.168 7.631 13.246 58.28 56.281 4266.51 3.614 3.614 6-S1f 1.418 2.249 2.249 1.164 7.739 13.382 58.52 56.52 1 4255.62 3.615 3.615 "if 1.449 2.297 2.297 1.201 7.841 13.513 60.78 80.78 4255.72 3.718 3.718 5-81f 1.480 2.345 2.345 1.219 7.938 13.640 63.00 63.00 4255.82 3.822 3.622 5-SI 1.511 2.393 2. 993 1.235 8.030 13.764 65.24 65.24 4266.93 3.927 3.927 5-S1f 1 1.541 2.435 2.435 1.251 8.143 13.885 67.48 67.48 4256.03 4.033 4.033 5-S1f 1.672 2.478 1 2.476 1.267 8.269 14.003 69.72 69.72 4266.14 4.142 4.142 6- if 1.602 2.516 2.516 1283 8.385 14.118 71.98 71.88 4268.25 4.252 4.252 5.571 1.828 2.557 2.557 1.298 8.486 14.230 74.20 74.20 4258.38 4.384 4.3fi4 5-51f 1.856 2.598 2.598 1.313 8.603 14.339 Site Data - Culvert 1 SiteDataOption: Culvert Invert. Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 4252.00 ft Outlet Station: 92.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 4246.56 ft Number of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - Culvert 1 Barrel Shape: Circular Barrel Diameter: 4.00 ft Barrel Material: Corrugated Steel Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0240 Inlet Type: Conventional Inlet Edge Condition: Thin Edge Projecting Inlet Depression: NONE Tailwater Channel Data - Rudnick Tailwater Channel Option: Triangular Channel Side Slope (H:V): 3.00 (_ 1) Channel Slope: 0.0700 Channel Manning's n: 0.0200 Channel Invert Elevation: 4252.00 ft Roadway Data for Crossing: Rudnick Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation Crest Length: 150.00 ft Crest Elevation: 4266.00 ft Roadway Surface: Gravel Roadway Top Width: 22.00 ft Attachment D Geotechnical Engineering Investigation WMI ring Group Inc. _ 'r ah:i 4l r sl�ilp�sF '��G. 1 f , s x .J ✓til��trJfl'.-t,"ir tr&,fs ) ✓ - - . -`I. .tea n rt s✓.Y e, �:: A .:�� err IA r� ';Y s' ,1 �(✓ 'r �.t j'.sJi�.(,�r��,�r ,iti�l If lr - �i �r; l�£rrvl�'r r'v/rid 'isr�ys *f y-. -� ... I:, r r f ��,� � S.✓i,. i s vl rp5J1 '�o-vN, e In )1 ..✓ r.lv )'�iv ,+r I ![L� lAr this Id 4u S�.,l ) r s 1 ll ltr fJ+ fir\ (i�i'ry )t ✓s rJts Nr j�.}4Yl�t�h9,�'�D�A(t ✓, GI30TECTICGF�tIN(d Ii�T�J$s I�ATIorr' ' EXIST' , It-' i l.:tf t {I� P r + fl✓f�� rSie �f,a>'.Y 4 , �, a�' "C 1 4 � i n' 1'i rs r2F1<� �` �I ✓a•1�l l l e �,sd `�REPIii�DFIQRe adlyr 'al +�' ).1. { y pJliMi rt••IR(G�IKi}Yhr),1l3+ r r r5 2 ,l 69��v > 1p , ✓� rah ra4'4 )7,.�� i + i lTI a r .r / e _ �✓{I'i Y..1'�'71 I rA'Y ill �1 1 slut14tr,�t },rY' 1 r° i t) i _ 1 i t 2, s 'Sx\jV rl F� '�4✓t1 � t� s �a : (�" ny a,V,f', s ,s �!I r'1 1 :A }• _ Ar ��N 1 4}ijl �r4G A>RiY if� + v t , Y!} l� �+ PsN ptu\11. Not IN J�i_ f �t ! '-1 rs n P � 1-,Y�i t ;$t}}7 ✓ ` l d )d�� r 1y" ��°Smod$`►�� 11 r 1t le I,I�,y is J gAK�:�18P18E.1D '+j�I�t>jR�� `► f ! Ill,xs, ✓n»' 7'� r cA+.1'r�`. v�661f,3�39�l,,`s'.,jll t��' OFpit r i i.<. lM % ✓. 1, r r e , iy>o U1,, vayrq�, r , I xi. tx✓ r r ! i ncl 1._) , t ill L b srfr+'df dsli'S kkr4 tA'. �at4 Fi 1y rs1�' 1 C iJ st 1 Y ,Is 1 } if Flr, 1 r Ai 'ni s.0 is y la + '[ 1 rFarlt (tyy,�ax�{ ,j. t l4ir F 11`.tfSlf�s,�'}'ll c i-�slf 'x fk} n a sJ ft✓FC 1" r\,,; J/`{ 1 r Yl 4 �, \M1�4'11 n )r ll 1 , nl �I'4 +`A �1 ��..�l fi1�L�AlAF if Fp � jl; yj1tl411, `.fit .'!11 r l .) � r, `st }s >i 1 v� i nY � �4p�'�� YI'L1 J r'^P C�I�J�✓�,/,%'{'s �F r�Y�r( t q Y , C ys! �la . s',, , fi+y+ k + I� Nv w�,d>ar r` '% S!{i ly )r��o �4 �n v✓{Y'4`1 s j�✓�\ I L d, ;� '�+y+�� {A )+ r t d5[Yl,lj ')�r'� t �pp1f q„ � wr 1, 1 ✓ 4t✓) ( A a 4it Rir ( ✓ wi r In G�'1 O'Y MI J:. ,�\ 1 a l s , k' it n P. r + tYh *�Y'�r/ °V' c {) tY�ZKy \}�1� !`•+A'{t'i a. J� 5 x) 6 Y!n 1~ •o A q+� �t ll d I' r l n r '! Y i/✓ �vr i,, iokl �s s4 5 �Y q �4��!��n ��r � ��h'�`�i!%i�)39��TICt I•if '~ '+�d. 1 s 'tt"' f✓: sbA�titrfstr)isl `)yb w�f�3�.xy 1 i�, 41, A( 7,1y '1.�4Y.'J++Rr rtt A �r�,.e1 ,,I Yr(e i) 11; )sir , c G^ sSs l t t w JtF is Y } rr r +.'y✓ ,-r^? 6) 4 I, 1'. ' r 'i' 1 A ry `t s t. , lJx, 1J r-✓,r�, 11y. i.�x i, �•`rl �x 17�i}�..A. f f. yr Q♦ , ). y F.: {/Irk > IF. �1 r �}s� rlY,�w l , i ,>tn �fr�}St rkl M1r 1+" S;.✓r'V i�\) <: �'.. 1 . ;r�,. Engineering Group, Inc. GEOTEC14NICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION EXISTING ACCESS ROAD (RUDNICK ROAD) CITY OF VERNON (APN: 444-060-03) ONYX RANCH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: MR. MARC PASQUINI PASQUINI ENGINEERING 903 "H" STxEET BAKERSFIEI.D, CA 93301 Prepared by: ® Engineering Group, Inc 2321 PERSEUS COURT BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308 (661) 393-9711 Job No. 2-210-00599 September 30, 2010 2321 Perseus Court • B2kemfiel4 CA 93308 • (661) 393-9711 • Fax (661) 393-9710 Engineering September 30, 2010 job No. 2-210-00599 Mr. Marc Pasquini Pasquini Engineering 903 "i-I" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Geotecbnical Engineering Investigation Existing Access Road (Rudnick Road) City of Vernon (APN: 444-060-03) Onyx Ranch, California DcarMr. Pasquini: At your request and authorization, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) has prepared this Geo .-chniml Engineering investigation for the site of the Existing Access Road (Rudnick Road) a located in Onyx Ranch, California. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. Should you have questions regarding this report or need additional information, please contact the undersigned at 661.393.971-1. Respectfully submitted, S M Engin^ee\nn Grovp, Inc. Wa e . reg er Regional Manager Distribution: 4 copies - Addressee 2321 Perseus Court a Bakersfield, CA 93308 a (661) 393-9711 a Fax (661) 393.9710 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................ ............................................ I 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 1 3.0 SITE LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTION ................................................. ...................... 2 4.0 GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 2 5.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2 6.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ............. ........................................................................ 2 7.0 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................. 3 8.0 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................................................................ 3 9.0 SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT .................................................4 10.0 SLOPE STABILITY ........................................................... 4 11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......... — .. .. 11.1 Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction 6 11.2 Site preparation ................................................................................................................................ ...6 11.3 Wet Soil Treatment for Earthwork Construction ....................................................................................... 6 11.4 Slope Construction and Maintenance........................................................................................................ ? 11.5 Fill Placement and Compaction ................................................................................................................. a 11.6 Surface Drainage Control .......................................................................................................................... 8 13.7 Temporary Excavation Stability.......................................................................................... ...................... 9 11.8 Retaining Wall Design .................................................... ............. 9 11.9 Utility Pipe Bedding and B2ckfilling ........................................................................................................ I I 11-10 Pavement Design .................................................................................................................................... 11 12.0 PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING .....................12 13.0 CHANGED CONDITIONS ........................ .................................................................... 12 SITEPLAN ................................................................................................................ Figures 1A through ID FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS............................................................ Appendix A GENERAL EARTHWORK/PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS ....................................... Appendix B Engineering Group, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION EXISTING ACCESS ROAD (RUDNICK ROAD) CITY OF VERNON (APN: 444-060-03) ONYX RANCH, CALIFORNIA 110 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the site of the Existing Access Road (Rudnick Road) located in Onyx Ranch, California. The investigation included a Field exploration program of drilling a total of four (4) test borings to depths ranging from 6 to 10 feet below existing ground surface, the collection of soil samples, and a variety of laboratory tests to supplement the field data. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, Engineered Fill, utility trench backfll, drainage and landscaping, retaining walls, soil liquefaction,. slope stability, and pavement design. The - locations of the borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figures 1A through 1D. The scope of our services for this investigation does not include slope stability evaluation beyond the access mad area. The results of the field exploration and laboratory test data are included in Appendix "A". General Earthwork / Pavement Specifications are presented in Appendix "B". If conflicts in the text of the report occur with the specifications in the appendices, the xecommendations in the text of the report have precedence. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing access road is unpaved and approximately 4,370 feet long and 15 to 24 feet wide with cut slope on one side and fill slope on the other side. The maximum cut slope is approximately "10 feet high with a slope ratio of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The maximum fill slope is approximately 10 feet high with a maximum slope ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). We understand that the access road was constructed at an unknown time and is currently being used to provide access to portions of the land around Weldon Estate in the area of Monarch Mine. The year of construction, construction methods, and geotechnical considerations at the time of construction are not known regarding the access road. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the existing subsurface conditions encountered relating to the construction of cut/fill slopes, structural integrity of the existing slopes and provide slope stability analysis. The scope of our investigation includes a program of field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and preparation of a final report. The scope of our services for this investigation does not include slope stability evaluation of any slopes beyond the existing access road. 2321 Perseus Court • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • (661) 393-9711 0 Fax (661) 393-9710 3.0 SITE LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTION The site is located on the northern edge of Assessors Parcel No. 444-060-03 owned by the City of Vernon in the Onyx Ranch area of the County of Kern, California. The road is a typical hillside access dirt road with minor cuts and fills along the edges of the road. Vegetation growths beyond the roadway consist of sparse trees, bushes and shrubs. Occasional erosions, washed gullies and shallow slope failures are present along the slopes. 4.0 GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC CONDITIONS The existing access road is located in a hilly terrain in Onyx Ranch area of the County of Kern which is a topographic and structural basin that is bounded on the east by the Sierra Nevada and on the west by the Coast Ranges. The Sierra Nevada, a fault block dipping gently southwestward, is composed of igneous and metamorphic rocks of pre -Tertiary age that comprise the basement complex beneath the surfiaal soil. The Coast Ranges contain folded and faulted sedimentary rocks of Mesozoic and Cenozoic age, which are similar to those rocks that underlie the Valley at depth and non -conformably overlie the basement complex; gently dipping to nearly horizontal sedimentary rocks of Tertiary and Quaternary age overlie the older rocks. These younger rocks are mostly of continental origin and in the Bakersfield area; they were derived from the Sierra Nevada. The Coast Ranges evolved as a result of folding, faulting and accretion of diverse geologic terrains. They are composed chiefly of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks that are sharply deformed into complex structures. They are broken by numerous faults, the San Andreas Fault being the most notable feature; As exposed on the surface and as observed in -the exploratory borings, the bedrock consists of generally massive to poorly bedded sandstone of light -gray to tan, thin bedded, semi -siliceous to day shale, and fish scales. Deposits encountered on the subject site during exploratory drilling -are discussed in detail in this report. The area in consideration shows no mapped faults on -site according to maps prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology (now known as the California Geologic Survey) and published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). The project site is not located within a State of Califomis Earthquake Fault Zone. Soils on site are classified as Site Class C in accordance with Chapter 16 of the California Building Code. 5.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the subsurface conditions encountered during field exploration and to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for site preparation, earthwork procedures, slope construction, and retaining wall design parameters. The scope of our investigation included a program of field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and preparation of this report. 6.0 FIELD EXPLORATION Our Geld exploration consisted of site surface reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. The exploratory test borings (B-1 through B-4) were drilled on September 24, 2010 within the existing access road area at the approximate locations shown on Figures 1A through 1D, Site Plan. The lest borings were advanced with a 6'/a-inch diameter auger rotated by a truck -mounted CME-45 drill rig. The test borings were extended to depths ranging from 6 to 10 feet below the existing grade. Job No. 2.210-00599 2 ® Engineering Group, Inc. The materials encountered in the test borings were visually classified in the field, and logs were recorded by a Professional Engineer at that time. Visual classification of the materials encountered in the test borings was generally made in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). A soil classification chart and key to sampling is presented on the Unified Soil Classification Chart, in Appendix "A". The logs of the test borings are presented in Appendix "A". Subsurface soil samples were obtained by driving a Modified California sampler. Penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall to drive the sampler to a maximum depth of 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the last 12 inches is recorded as Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) on the logs of borings. Soil samples were obtained from the test borings at the depths shown on the logs of borings. The samples were recovered and capped at both ends to preserve the samples at their natural moisture content. At the completion of drilling and sampling, the test borings were b2ckfilled with drill cuttings. 7.0 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of natural moisture, density, shear strength, expansion and consolidation potential, and gradation of the materials encountered_ Details of the laboratory test program and the results of laboratory test are summarized in Appendix "A". This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix "A" 8.0 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Based on our findings, the subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. In general, the soils within the depth of exploration consist of 1 to 2 feel of loose surfitial soil underlain by dense soil and sandstone bedrock. Field and laboratory tests suggest that the deeper soil and bedrocks are moderately strong and slightly compressible. These soils extended to the termination depth of our borings. For a more detailed description of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs in Appendix "A" should be consulted. The soils were classified in the field during the drilling and sampling operations. The stratification lines were approximated by the field engineer on the basis of observations made at the time of drilling. The actual boundaries between different soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary. For a more detailed description of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs (Figures A-1 through A-4, in Appendix "A') should be consulted. The Boring Logs include the soil type, color, moisture content, dry density, and the applicable Unified Soil Classification System symbol. The locations of the test borings were determined by measuring from features shown on the Site Plan, provided to us. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants. Job No. 2.210.00599 3 ® Engineering Group, Inc. Test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and after the drilling operations. Free groundwater was not encountered during this time of investigation. It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time, being dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions as well as other factors. Therefore, water )eve] observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. 9.0 SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particles suspension caused by a compete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than clean sand. Liquefaction usually occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by seismic events. To evaluate the liquefaction potential of the site, the following items were evaluated: ❑ Soil type ❑ Groundwater depth ❑ Relative density ❑ Initial confining pressure ❑ Intensity and duration of groundsh"g The sollbeneath the site consists of dense to very dense sandstone. Groundwater is expected to be at a depth of greater than 50 feet. The potential for liquefaction is considered to be low based on the relatively dense materials and the absence of shallow groundwater. 10.0 SLOPE STABILITY The gross stability analysis was performed using PCSTABLSM, a computer program developed at Purdue University. A random technique was used to search the critical surface with the lowest safety factor. AB searches were performed using the modified Bishop method. The slope stability was analyzed based on the typical grade condition for the 1:1 cut slope and 2:1 fill slope. The shear strength parameters were determined based on the laboratory test results. For the analyses, an internal friction angle of 33 degrees and -a cohesion of 100 psf were used for the fill slope and an internal friction angle of 30 degrees and a cohesion of 100 psf were used for the fill slope and. The results of the analyses are attached and the summary of die safery factor is as follows: Slope Condition FacfotofSafety 1:1 Cut Slop, 10 feet High 1.58 2:1 FLU Slop, 10 feet High 2.23 The results indicated that the local slopes are stable with a factor of safety greater than 1.5. The results of the slope stability analysis are presented in Appendix "A". Job No. 2-210-00599 4 � Engineering Group, Inc. 11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the data collected during this investigation, and from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the current use provided that the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design and construction (if any). All grading and earthwork should be done in accordance with the Grading Ordinances of the County of Kern and the applicable portions of the General Earthwork / Pavement Specifications in Appendix "B", and the following provisions. The upper soils have a loose/soft consistency. In their current condition the existing cut/fill slopes should continue perform as intended but may require routine annual maintenance. These soils are disturbed, have low strength characteristics, and are highly compressible when saturated. Accordingly, it is recommended that prior to any new construction the upper loose soils be overexcavated and recompacred. This compaction effort should stabilize the surface soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during our field investigation. Deeper loose soils if encountered during grading should also be overexcavated and recompacted. The scope of out services for the investigation does not include slope stability evaluation beyond the roadway (i.e. entire hillside). All retaining wall foundations should be founded in the undisturbed bedrocks or compacted fill to provide a uniform support for the retaining wall, if any. Difficult excavation is anticipated for deeper excavation due to the dense bedrock formation. Large earthmoving equipment or local blasting may be required to achieve the required depth. Fill slopes should not be constructed steeper than a gradient of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Cut slopes should not be constructed steeper than a gradient of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). The maximum height of cut and fill slopes should not exceed 10 feet vertically. To reduce the erosion of graded slopes, it is recommended that all slopes be planted with ground cover vegetation and deep rooted vegetation as soon as practical. The proper maintenance of proper lot drainage and vegetation should be performed. Over -irrigation should be prevented. A rodent control program should be established and maintained. For slopes steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), the slope face should be covered with a material which Will retain soil particles and promote vegetative growth, and is then immediately mulched and seeded. Tensar Erosion Control Mat has been developed for these applications. A thin layer of topsoil on the erosion control material layer will greedy contribute to seeding success. Proper maintenance of drainage and vegetation should be performed. Irrigatipn of landscaping should be controlled to maintain a consistent moisture content sufficient to provide healthy plant growth without over watering. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from tops of slopes toward suitable drainage devices. Job No. 2-210-00599 5 ® Engineering Group, Inc. The shrinkage of recompacted soil and fill placement is estimated at 5 to 15 percent. This value is an estimate and may vary significantly depending on several items including soil conditions, compaction effort, weather, etc. Subsidence, below the Engineered Fill, is anticipated to be less than 0.01 feet, due to the recommended over -excavation. Detailed geotechnical engineering recommendations are presented in the remaining portions of the text. The recommendations are based on the properties of the materials identified during our investigation. 11.1 Groundwater InOuence on Structures/Construction Based on our findings and historical records, it is not anticipated that groundwater will rise within the zone of structural influence or affect the construction for the project. However, if earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become saturated, "pump," or not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during city weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product. Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. 11.2 Site Preparation General site clearing should include removal of vegetation, organic materials, and existing utilities, structures, trees and associated root systems, rubble, rubbish, and any loose and/or saturated materials. Site stripping should extend to a minimum depth of 2 to 4 inches, or until all organics in excess of 3 percent by volume are removed. Deeper stripping.may be required in localized areas. These materials will not be suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-structural areas with the approval of the owner and landscaper. Any excavations that result from clearing operations should be backfilled with Engineered Fill. Our field staff should be present during site clearing operations to enable us to locate areas where depressions or disturb soils are present and to allow our staff to observe and test the backfill as it is placed. If site clearing and backfilling operations occur without appropriate observation .and testing by a qualified geotechnical consultant, there may be the need to over -excavate the subject area to identify uncontrolled fills prior to mass grading. As with site clearing operations, any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and backfilled. The resulting excavations should be baekfdled with Engineered Fill. 11.3 Wet Soil Treatment for Earthwork Construction The upper soils, during wet winter months or due to prolonged watering, may -become very moist due to the absorption characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations may encounter very moist unstable soils which may require removal to a stable bottom. The wet soils may become non conducive to site grading as the upper soils yield under the weight of the construction equipment. Therefore, mitigation measures should be performed for stabilization. Jab No. 2-210-00599 6 ® Engineering Group, Inc. Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material or placement of crushed rocks or Aggregate base material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product. Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to provide appropriate recommendations. The most common remedial measure of stabilizing the bottom of the excavation due to wet soil condition is to reduce the moisture of the soil to near the optimum moisture content by having the subgrade soils scarified and aerated or mixed with drier soils prior to compacting. However, the drlring process may require an extended period of time and delay the construction operation. To expedite the stabilizing process, crushed rock may be utilized for stabilization provided this method is approved by the owner for the cost purpose. If the use of crushed rock is considered, it is recommended that the upper soft and wet soils be replaced by 6 to 24 inches of/4-inch to 1-inch crushed rocks. The thickness of the rock layer depends on the severity of the soil instability. The recommended 6 to 24 inches of crushed rock material will provide a stable platform. It is further recommended that lighter compaction equipments be utilized for compacting the crushed rock. A layer of geofabric is recommended to be placed on lop of the compacted crushed rock to minimize migration of soil particles into the voids of the crushed rock, resulting in soil movement. Although it is not required, the use of geogrid (e.g. Tensar BX 1100 or TX 140) below the crushed rock will enhance stability and reduce the required thickness of crushed rock necessary for stabilization. IIA Slope Construction and Maintenance The slopes should be constructed in accordance with the typical figures and details as shown in the General Earthwork / Pavement Specifications, Appendix "B" (i.e. Stabilization Fill, Buttress Fill, Daylight Shear key, Shear Key, Fill Slope above Natural Ground, Fill Slope Above Cut Slope, Backdrain, Geofabric Subdrain, Benching for Compacted Fill, Rock Disposal, Canyon Subdrain and Transition Lot). Where fill slopes are to be constructed on original ground that slopes steeper than 6:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The benches should be cut into the dense slope as the grading operations proceed. The first bench (base or key bench) should be at least 15 feet wide. Each bench should consist of a minimum g feet wide of level terrace, with the rise to the next bench held for 4 feet or less. All cut and..fill-slopes should be landscaped immediately with erosion, drought and fire resistant plants approved for hillsides. Rodent control and slope maintenance should be instituted on an slopes. To reduce the erosion of graded slopes, it is recommended that all slopes be planted with ground cover vegetation and deep rooted vegetation as soon as practical. Proper maintenance of lot drainage and vegetation should be performed. Irrigation of landscaping should be controlled to maintain a consistent moisture content sufficient to provide healthy plant growth without over watering. A rodent control program should be established and maintained. Trenched excavated on a graded slope face for utility or irrigation lines or for any purpose should be backfilted with compacted fill. The fill should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry densiry as determined by ASTM D 1557-07. Job No. 2.210-00599 ® Engineering Group, Inc. The graded pad should have a gradient of at least 2 percent away from slopes and structures. Soil berms should be provided at the crests of descending slopes. 11.5 Fill Placement nod Compaction The upper organic -free, on -site, native soils are predominately silty sand. These soils will be suitable for reuse as non -expansive Engineered Fill, provided they are cleansed of excessive organics, debris and rocks over 3 inches in size. 19te preferred materials specified for engineered fill are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the Contractor, since he has complete control of the project site. Imported non -expansive non -corrosive fill should consist of a well -graded, slightly cohesive silty 6ne sand or sandy silt, with relatively impervious characteristics when compacted. This material should be approved by the Engineer prior to use and should typically possess the following characteristics: Maximum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 50 Minimum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve . 15 ,Maximum Particle Size 3 inches Maximum Plasticity Index 12 Maximum U13C Standard 29-2 Expansion Index 20 Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 8 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture - conditioned to near the optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557.07 Test Method. Fill soils should be placed in lifts approximately 6 inches thick, moisture -conditioned to near the optimum moisture content (±26/o) for granular soils and compacted to achieve at last 92 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557-07. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable. 1L6 Surface Drainage Control The ground surface should slope away from footings and pavement areas toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. It is recommended that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Subgrade soils in pavement areas should be sloped a minimum of 1 percent and drainage gradients maintained to arty all surface water to collection facilities and off site. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Roof drains should be installed with appropriate downspout extensions out -falling on splash blocks so as to direct water a minimum of 5 feet sway from the structures or be connected to the storm drain system for the development. Job No. 2-210-00599 $ Engineering Group, Inc. 11.7 Temporary Excavation Stability Temporary excavations planned for the construction may be excavated, according to the accepted engineering Practice following Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards by a contractor experienced in such work. Open, unbraced excavations in undisturbed soils should be made according to the table below. Recommended Excavation Slopes Depth of Excavation (ft) Slope (Horizontal:Verdcan 0-5 5-10 2.5:1 If, due to space limitation, excavations near existing structures tie performed in a vertical position, braced shorings or shields may be used for supporting vertical excavations. Therefore, in order to comply with the local and state safety regulations, a properly designed and installed shoring system would be required to accomplish planned excavations and installation. A Specialty Shoring Contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of such a shoring system during construction. Braced shorings should be designed for a maximum pressure distribution of 30H, (whm H it the depth of the exravarion in feet). The foregoing does not include excess hydrostatic pressure or surcharge loading. Fifty percent of any surcharge load, such as construction equipment weight, should be added to the lateral load given herein. Equipment traffic .should concurrently be limited to an area at least 5 feet from the shoring face or edge of the slope. The excavation and shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from the test borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered during the excavations. SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to provide field review to evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recommendation. Slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulation, (e.g. OSHA) standards for excavations, 29 CFR part 1926, or Assessor's regulations. 11.8 Retaining Wall Design Retaining wall footings should be founded on fir, natural or compacted materials. The footing should have a minimum width of 15 inches and extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Footing concrete should be placed into neat excavation. The bottom of footing excavations should be maintained free of loose and disturbed soil. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to -pouring concrete. Footings constructed as recommended herein may be designed for the maximum bearing capacity shown below. Job No. 2.210-00599 9 ® Engineering Group, Inc. Load Allowable Loading Static Load 2,000 psf Total Load, Including Wind or Seismic Loads 2,660 psf Active, at -rest and passive unit lateral earth pressures against footings and walls are presented below: Lateral Pressure Conditions Equivalent Fluid Pressure — Level Backfrll pef Equivalent Fluid Pressure — 2:1 Bac1dI4 pcf Active Pressure, Drained 32 45 1 At -Rest Pressure, Drained I 53 1 55 R I Passive Pressure I 400 I 250 (sloping down) I Active pressure applies to walls, which are free to rotate. At -rest pressure applies to walls, which- are - restrained against rotation. The preceding lateral earth pressures assume sufficient drainage behind retaining walls to prevent the bugd-up of hydrostatic pressure. The top one -foot of adjacent sobgrade should be deleted from the, passive pressure computation. A coefficient of friction of 0.45 may be used between scil subgrade and footings. The foregoing values of lateral earth pressures and frictional coefficients represent ultimate soil values and a safety factor consistent with the design conditions should be included in their usage. For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted solely by the passive pressure, we recommend a minimum safety factor of I.S. For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted by the combined passive and frictional resistance, a minimum safety factor of 2.0 is recommended. For lateral stability against seismic loading conditions, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.1. Retaining and/or below grade walls should be drained with either perforated pipe encased in free -draining gravel or a prefabricated drainage system. The gravel zone should have a minimum width of 12 inches wide and should extend upward to within 12 inches of the top of the wall. INC upper 12 inches of backfill should consist of native soils, concrete, asphaltic -concrete of other suitable backfrU to minimize surface drainage into the wall drain system. The aggregate should be washed, evenly graded mixture of crushed stone, or crushed .or -unc ushed gravel, and should conform to ASTM 0448, Size 57, with 100 percent passings Wa-inch sieve and not more than 5 percent passing a No. 4 sieve. Prefabricated drainage systems, such as Miradrain®, Enkadrain®, or an equivalent substitute, are acceptable alternatives in lieu of gravel provided they are installed in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations. If a prefabricated drainage system is proposed, our firm should review the system for final acceptance prior to installation. Job No. 2.210-00599 10 ® Engineering Group, Inc. Drainage pipes should be placed with perforations down and should discharge in a non -erosive manner away from foundations and other improvements. The top of the perforated pipe should be placed at or below the bottom of the adjacent pavements. The pipe should be placed in the center line of the drainage blanket and should have a minimum diameter of 4 inches. Slots should be no wider than 1/8-inch in diameter, while perforations should be no more than V.-inch in diameter. If retaining walls are less than 6 feet in height, the perforated pipe may be omitted in lieu of weep holes on 4 feet maximum spacing. The weep holes should consist of 4-inch diameter holes (concrete walls) or unmortared head joints (masonry walls) and placed no higher than 18 inches above the lowest adjacent grade. Two 8-inch square overlapping patches of geotextile fabric (conforming to Section 88-1.03 of the CalTrans Standard Specifications for "edge drains") should be affixed to the rear wall opening of each weep hole to retard sod piping. During grading and backfilling operations adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance equal to the wall height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures. Within this zone, only hand operated equipment ("whackers," vibratory plates, or pneumatic compactors) should be used to compact the backfill sods. 11.9 Utility Pipe Bedding and Backiilling Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practice following OSHA. (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be minimized; cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater flow into open excavations could be experienced; especially during or following periods of precipitation. Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these sandy sods. Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 92 percent of maximum density based on ASTM D1557-07 Test Method. Pipe bedding should be in accordance with pipe manufacturer recommendations. The contractor is responsible for removing all water -sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction. 11.10 Pavement Design Based on the site soil condition, an R-value of 35 was used for the preliminary flexible asphaltic concrete pavement design. The R-value should be verified during grading of the pavement areas. The following table shows the recommended pavement sections for various traffic indices. The pavement design recommendations provided herein are based on the State of Califorris Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) design manual. The asphaltic concrete (flexible pavement) is based on a 20- year pavement fife utilizing 1200 passenger vehicles, 10 single unit trucks, and 2 multi -unit trucks. Job No. 2-210-00599 11 ® Engineering Group, Inc. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE fV.1 .'A. ne:.,. e...1 Traffic Index Asphaltic Concrete Class II a ate Base* Compacted Sub ade*r 5.5 3.0" 5.5" 12.0" fH..w T.,,.4 Ae..1 Traffic Index Asphaltic Concrete Class II ARgregate Base* Com acted Sub ade** 6.5 3.5" 7.51, -Yr76 e0mpae110n baud on ASTM D7557-07 Tell Melbod a 92% compaction bated on A$774 D7357-07 Tea Melbod 12.0 PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING We recommend that a review of plans and specifications with regard to foundations, and earthwork be completed by SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) prior to construction bidding. SALEM should be present at the site during site preparation to observe site clearing, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and compaction of Fill material. SALEMs observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish .substantial conformance . with these recommendations. Moisture content of the subgrade should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement. SALEM should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to assess whether the actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions anticipated during the preparation of this report. SALEM should also observe placement of foundation concrete. 13.0 CHANGED CONDITIONS The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test borings drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figures 1A through 11). The report does not reflect variations which may occur between the test borings. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction La initiated. If variations then appear, a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report will be necessary after, performing on -site observations during the'exc2votion period and noting the characteristics of such variations. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present and for the -proposed construction. If site conditions change due to natural processes or human intervention on the property or adjacent to die site, or changes occur in the nature or design of the project, or if there is a substantial time lapse between the submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, the conclusions and recommendations contained in our report wig not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by SALEM and the conclusions of our report are modified or verified in writing. Job No. 2-210-00599 12 ® Engineering Group, Inc. The validity of the recommendations contained in this report is also dependent upon an adequate testing and observations program during the construction phase. Our firm assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts or recommendations unless we have been retained to perform the on - site testing and review during construction. SALEM has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the owner and project design consultants. The -report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 980-6455. Respectfully submitted, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. Clarence Jiang, GE Senior Geotechnical Engneer RGE 2477 ®t:npynght SALEM tintpact6nA Group, Im. R. Sammy alem, �WVE, G REREA Principal Engineer r v q RCE 52762 / RGE 2549 ,'y�pi, F�S�I,4e ;L Job No. 2-210.00599 13 ® Engineering Group, Inc O , C) �rc N2� o w z � Q» g WZou a_wo+ F zo fp w Y � U umow LU I L) c+zw 92 8 w g l m o l R I I 2. � ƒ!§ cd to rUu4c § zZg 2 LU ui ;§`( m.&2 mx� L) Z Uuj Z� °§_ LT � f 'fi ♦� J M ! 1 G. 1 1 � � 1 � r " I 1v �o� \ GWwp \ 1, Fu ul0za z 20�o zQolJ Q W zz�� •` \ i -L u j uIY V kA O m a Sk ozw ul F rl O � w I•n ici (D�u N O Z Q W`or me Z Za 7 g RZ=ol w iz'� z11 (A WYIo -j LL cal Ea0 O K Z=T0w qY Oaf 0 2 '� O ' T • T O T i O .. c0 i i i O... __. r_ _.. ._r ... .._. ._._.___.� r ...... LO . _ O .. . -- --• -- .... i co N O O O O O O LO 14t ch N T d a O N V r O w m Lq n N U. d a 0 _m IL N _O Cl) N N LL CUT ** PCSTABLSM ** --slope stability Analysis -- Run Date: 10/ 6/ 2010 Run By: CI Input Data Filename: cut Output Filename: Cut out PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Cut Slope BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 5 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 10.00 40.00 20.00 1 2 40.00 20.00 60.00 30.00 1 3 60.00 30.00 80.00 30.00 1 4 80.00 30.00 90.00 40.00 1 5 90.00 40.00 120.00 50.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type($) of Soil Soil Total Saturated .Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type unit wt. unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 33.0 .00 .0 1 A Critical Failure surface Searching Method, using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been specified. 100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 100 Surfaces Initiate From Each of 1 Points Equally spaced Along The Ground Surface Between x - 90.00 ft. and x - 80.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between x = 90.00 ft. and x = 110.00 ft. unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends is Y = .00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface, * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure surface Specified By 5 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) Page 1 CUT 1 80.00 30.00 2 84.78 31.48 3 89.0S 34.07 4 92.S7 37.62 5 94.98 41.66 Circle center At X - 1.S83 76.4 ; Y vvv Page 2 S0.2 and Radius, 20.S FILL as PCSTABLSM as --slope stability Analysis -- Run Date: 10/ 6/ 2010 Run By: c Input Data Filename: fill Output Filename: fill.out PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Fill Slope BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 5 Total Boundaries Boundary x-Left Y-Left x-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below and 1 .00 10.00 40.00 20.00 1 2 40.00 20.00 60.00 30.00 1 3 60.00 30.00 80.00 30.00 1 4 80.00 30.00 90.00 40.00 1 5 90.00 40.00 120.00 50.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of soil Soil Total saturated Cohesion FTittion Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt.. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 100.0 30.0 .00 .0 1 A critical Failure surface searching Method, using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been specified. SOO Trial surfaces Have seen Generated. 100 Surfaces Initiate From Each of 5 Points Equally spaced Along The Ground Surface Between x - 37.00 ft. and x - 40.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between x = 60.00 ft. and x = 80.00 ft. unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At which A surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. a a safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method a a Failure Surface specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point x-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) Page 1 FILL 1 37.75 19.44 2 42.75 19.21 3 47.70 19.90 4 52.44 21.50 5 $6.80 23.93 6 60.64 27.13 7 63.02 30.00 Circle Center at X = .41.5 ; v 46.3 and Radius, 27.1 *`t 2.226 *** Page 2 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 1.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION: The Geld investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploratory program. Exploratory borings were advanced at the site. The boring locations are shown on the attached site plan. The soils encountered were logged in the field during the exploration and with supplementary laboratory test data are described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Penetration and/or Resistance tests were performed at selected depths. 'These tests represent the resistance to driving a 2-and/or 3-inch outside diameter core barrel, respectively, 18 inches into the soil. The N-Value obtained from the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and/or driving the Modified California Sampler (MCS) was recorded based on the number of blows required to penetrate the last 12 inches. The driving energy was provided by a hammer weighing 140 pounds, falling 30 inches. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained while performing this test. Sag samples of the disrwbed soil were obtained from the auger cuttings. All samples were rerumed to our laboratory for evaluation. 2.0 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION: The laboratory investigation was programmed to detemtine the physical and mechanical properties of the foundation soil underlying the site Test results were used as criteria for determining the engineering suitability of the surface and subsurface materials encountered. In situ moisture content, dry density, consolidation, direct shear, and sieve analysis tests were determined for the undisturbed samples representative of the subsurface material. These tests, supplemented by visual observation, comprised the basis for our evaluation of the site material. The logs of the exploratory borings and laboratory determinations are presented in this Appendix. Unified Soil Classificatinn Svcte.rn Ma'orDivisions Letter Symbol Description „ to GW ;; •,°.� •� Well -graded gravels and gravel -sand mixtures, to a Clean little or no fines. g y 80 Gravels :• ¢•• Poorly -graded gravels and gravel -sand mixtures, littl GP or no fines. z Gravels GM Silty gravels, gravel -send -silt mixtures. GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures. With Fines 60 c S W Well•graded sands and gravelly sands, linle or no E. Clean Sands y. fin', e, fines. v a o Z o SP :, �tei r, Poorly -graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines. N fla Sands With SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures 0 e Fines SC Clayey sands, sandy -clay mixtures. 9 ML rgan Inoic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or 7 Silts and Clays ]clayey fine sands: 'e is Liquid Limit less than norgantc c ays o ow to medium plastic—graveTT 8 m 50% clays, sandyclays, ail clays. lean clays. OL , ,' Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. e •`- 6) L00 a N Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fines r' ' a x Silts and Clays MH sands or silts elastic silts. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. a tj 5 Liquid Limit greater than 50% OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. 0 Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, muck, and other highly organic soils. !t?}itiiCfi Ylirrrt Granular Soils Cohesive Soils Description - Blows Per Foot (Corrected) Description - Blows Per Foot (Corrected) MCS sSPT MCS rSPT Very loose <5 <4 Very soft <3 <2 Loose 5 - 15 4 - 10 Soft 3-5 2-4 Medium dense 16 r 40 11 - 30 Firm 6 - 10 S - 8 Dense 41 - 65 31 - 50 Stiff 11 - 20 9 - 15 Very dense >65 >50 Very Stiff 21 - 40 I6 - 30 Hard >40 >30 MCS = Modified California Sampler SPT = Standard Penetration Test Sampler Project: Onyx Ranch Back Cyn. Area Access Road Project No: 2-210-0559 Client: Pasquini Engineering Boring No. B-1 Figure No.: A-1 Location: Rudnick Road, Onyx Ranch, CA Logged By: M.A. Depth to Water> Initial: None At Completion: None SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test d J CL c - c 'o r Description ELB ,-6 Z C „ .o o m a)20 3 60 100 o v, In° M V A a to 3 0 Ground Surface Silty Sand (SM) I Loose; moist; black; medium -grained; 103.4 8.3 MCS 7 drills easily. i 5 Grades medium dense; dark brown; I 103.7 8.2 MCS 16 medium to fine-grained; trace of chalk. Grades very dense; gray -brown; i 111.1 7.6 MCS 60 medium -grained. ti 10 End of Borehole i i I 15 i s ' I 20 • 25 ; Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger SALEM Drill Date: 9.24.10 Drill Rig: CME-46 Engineering Gro-up, Inc. Hole Size: 6'h inch Driller: CVT Sheet: 1 of 1 Project: Onyx Ranch Back Cyn. Area Access Road Project No: 2-210-0559 Client; Pasquini Engineering Boring No B-2 Figure No.; A-2 Location: Rudnick Road, Onyx Ranch, CA Logged By: M.A. Depth to Waters Initial: None At Completion: None SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test d x r 7o Description a=i o d E Ij ` O C 0 E 20 60 100 m 3 to f N Ce. 0 Ground Surface Silty Sand (SM) Very dense; damp; dark brown; 102.8 8.7 MCS 78 medium -grained; trace of mica; drills 1 easily. 5 I Silty Sand (SM) Very dense: moist; brown; medium- NIA 4.a MCS 60 grained; drills hard. I i I 10 i N/A 7.4 MCS. 60 End of Borehole j i - I 15 i 20 i Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger SALEM Drill Date: 9.24.10 Drill Rig: GME45 Engineering Group, Inc. Hole Size: 6'% inch Driller: CVf Sheet: 1 of 1 Project: Onyx Ranch Back Cyn. Area Access Road Project No: 2-210-0559 Client: Pasquini Engineering Boring NO. B-3 Figure No.: A-3 Location: Rudnick Road, Onyx Ranch, CA Logged By: M.A. Depth to Water> Initial: None At Completion: None SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test d v c e ` ; d >a ►- o c c r a Description d r m a V o o ulc� a * u A. 20 60 100 w rn ren q1 3 Silty Sand (SM) Very dense; moist; brown; medium- grained; trace of while chalk; drills 115.0 8.1 MCS 85 firmly. 105.1 13.6 MCS 60 j Grades medium dense; off -while; NIA 6.1 MCS 60 medium to fine-grained; drills firmly. I End of Borehole i 1 t 20 i I 25 I Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger SALEM Drill Date: 9.24.10 Drill Rig: CME-45 Engineering Group, Inc. Hole Size: 6% inch Driller: CVT Sheet: 1 of 1 Project: Onyx Ranch Back Cyn. Area Access Road Project No: 2-210-0559 Client: Pasquini Engineering Boring, No. B-4 Figure No.: A-4 Location: Rudnick Road, Onyx Ranch, CA Logged By: M.A. Depth to Water> Initial: None At Completion: None SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test air A d � 1- p c o o Description d �� U o. .- a a� m ; m 20 60 100 m o r:04n a i V to as o Ground Surface Silty Sand (SM) Dense: moist; brown; medium -grained; i 102A 6.5 MCS 65 Irace of while chalk; drills firmly. 5_ Grades medium dense; drills easily. I 104.7 6.2 MCS 26 i Grades very dense. 110.1 6.7 MCS 60 • i 70 End of Borehole . ' I 20 I i I 25 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger SALEM Drill Date: 9.24.10 Drill Rig: CME-45 Engineering Group, Inc. Hole Size: 6Yz inch Driller: CVT Sheet: 1 of 1 a U) w F- LU cc Z) in W N n (L tn - Z Q O I'- Q d J O In Z 0 N O ■■■ MEMO 'id tll--• r■■■rm MENEM . ■ ■ ■ ■ VOLUME CHANGE IN PERCENT ►5 W cr V a d c d E W N a N ri > kn ad 0 c C M Ln V N ;i N = d « E V M Z CO ui Cev N W Z « N N a 0 a a LL W Y to w N N J N Q m 0 Z tO V7 O l9 N SMEAR STRESS, KSF 2 Q ir Q LLJ 0 � Qo co W w y F- IX +a N0 cr Q W N V Is O N d L O C Im v m > vi CL a w- O C � QQ Z. <.i a L+l cc N eV d C z E m O a Q C v iq m Ln a m N SHEAR STRESS, KSF LM d LL tq Y u C z O 4 CEOC� �60f1 N a a a s� ao N N CO) LU a W m fN W a H a c � o E a `o u' C b N P7 N U C N d E A d e u z m 5i m z c F CfA y p a` 113 m° y LL u o mr.i C :CC: OMESoon ii� HIM E�■■■'�® NONE um mom .�■■�.�■�B■..■■■■momomCN■■. ■■ina �m :gym M01 .■.. mC■�......■l■■■■C■■■■■■m o::':CC:::m::■:::CCC:�::: ■■■■■ ■■■ ■■■H■■.►\■■■ ■■■■■■I■ ■■■■ ■�■■■■.■■■■�■ ■.■■■■ONES So RELINE No ■■■■■■■■■. ■00111110110,1101ml SURE MEMO ��■■■■■■■®■INKE■■OZONE! NEWSMEN 0 W �!■■8■■■■�■■■■■N■■�■ ■ ■�■ ■�/■ ■■■B ■■®■= 00O1® SMEAR STRESS, KSF � N W ¢ h O z y ( st ( IY� M1to + 4 9v ��1+ I 1, •• d I i 1 '•� III• 1.if •f/ 1 �. J rt 4) 4 01 II c Y: !VIS 1.: ;I I t 1 I f1 1 4 , ,I I e .. I r+ � 1 SY � A I I1 .l1ll I l • Vy�2'�r f• l � �QJ�I� PI W., 1 1.(:: r f,Jl�'I�f YI [•) d i', � tl l ��' � �Y ( 1 / i l �'4u �'� 1 i! 11' �Rr I �1 'I -1k _ Y.'11 i]y)i ,l ' ,..' kkuili� jib ,�r t'. + ,pai4'F LI'S4 j4•' 'if\A'I\r I i,i �I AY! Ylkl 1. s� di i ; !il >N-li rr ✓d3 yv'.. 4 f rtn ,•!: ii yrf!-,� i ik �( ! �i f APPE M B GENERAL EARTHWORK /PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence. 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fig, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials. 2.0 PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthworks in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work Shan be inspected and tested by a representative of SALEM Engineering Group, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the Soils Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved, shall be certified by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary adjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shag be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect. No earthwork Shan be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor Shan notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Contractor agrees that he shag assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shag defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and an liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers. 3.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materiels Shan be densified to no less that 92 percent of relative compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method-07, UBC or CAL216, as specified in the technical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests Shan be as determined by the Soils Engineer. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shag be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils Engineer. 4.0 SOI1S AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarised himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report and the Contractor shag not be relieved of liability under the Contractor for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work. 5.0 DUST CONTROL-- The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off --site if caused by the Contractors operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or wind-blown materials attributable to his work. Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing and preparation of foundation materials for receiving flu, 6.0 CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the Soils Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site. Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. Tree roots removed in parking areas may be limired to the upper 1 h feet of the ground surface. Backfill or tree root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the proper control of backfdl placement and compaction. Burning in areas which are to receive fill materials shag not be permitted. 7.0 SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Pill, building or slab loads, shall be prepared as outlined above, scarified to a minimum of 6 inches, moisture -conditioned as necessary, and recomputed to 92 percent relative compaction. Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shag be moisture -conditioned as necessary and recomputed to 92 percent relative compaction. AD ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas which are to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any of the fill material. 8.0 EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the toleranrr. normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over -excavation below the grades specified shah be barkfilled at the Contractor's expense and shag be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements. 9.0 FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shag be moved or compacted without the presence of the Sods Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site Ells, provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site Us shag be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Soils Engineer. 10.0 PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The _placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shag be the responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jerdog shag not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface -compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final acceptance. 11.0 SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shag be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing, or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fell Operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill is as specified. 12.0 DEFINITIONS - The term "pavement" shag include asphaltic concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgtade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. The term "Standard Specifications": hereinafter referred to is the )anuary 1991 Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation, and the "Materials Manual" is the Materials Manual of Testing and Control Procedures, State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of 1-hghw2ys. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as defined in the applicable tests outlined in the Materials Manual. 13.0 SCOPE OF WORK - This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary for, and reasonably incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on die plans and as herein specified, except work specifically notes as "Work Not Included." 34.0 PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades revving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 92 percent. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of additiornl pavement courses. 15.0 UNTREATED AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shah be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class 11 material, V/2 inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shah be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The aggregate base material shah be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 26 of the Standard Specifications. The aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be tested and Approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. 16.0 AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shah be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate subbase material shah conform to the requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifcarions for Class II material - The aggregate subbase mauxial shah be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent, and it shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 25 of the Standard Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. 17.0 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be AR-4000. The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, '/2 inch maximum size, medium grading, and shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shah conform to Section 39, The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shah be rolled with a combination steel -wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in Section 39-6. The surface course shall be placed -with an Approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine. 18.0 FOG SEAL COAT - The fog seal (mixing type asphaltic emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in accordance with the requirements of Section 37. c• r, cn ~n crwwec M GENERALLY I. 7 SLOPE RFICK 15' UINNUN.) TYPICAL STABILIZATION SALEM FILL DETAIL BnRineering Group, Inc. TYPICAL. BUTTRESS FILL I . SALEMI DETAIL Engineering Group, Ina. OVEREXGVATF nAW L/M/r Of DAnrW LrOAVAVON I iNC AM" i 20' LIAXIN(/M� I I y / I I i EDulr IE TYPICAL BENCH/NC IS' NInNMUM B4SF 1 MWMI(AI / =AIt LON Or &ClJOV 04MEW PO SOILS £NCW££R iC N G% ENCIN£iMAG C£GLOGSr DURING DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL I SALEM Engineering Croup, loc. Q GROUND PROPOSED Maw COMPi4CMD nU w- TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL 1.5 7 RASE WIDTH w' DElERMMED BY SOILS ENGINEER SALEM s..00.... i... r,...., ice.. MC Or SLOPE SHOW ON GRADING PUN LWL7S LY FAAL EKCAVARON nNAc AGITNRY u7 T OOWNSLOPf KEY DLPIN i 7YRCAI BENCH --� WIM VARIES CONPEW EM N MM7ERW JYDCHT 15' M1AYM4V.V MSC KEY WIDTH WHERE MMIPAL SLOPE LS &I OR LiM arACMNG LS AOT MMCSWr HOWEVER, FA.L AS NOT TO BE PLACfO OON GONPRESMLf OR VAWffABLf AM7fXML. FILL SLOPE ABOVE I 'I SA,LEM NATURAL GROUND DETAIL i Rngineming Croup, Inc., 4" FINISH SURFACE J FT 7 N/N/NUN AER LMEAL FOOT OPEN GRADED AGCRECAfEe TAPE AND SC41 AT CONTACT REOUIIWNENTS 71" MMMUN COVER A CQNPAMED at SUPAC S-P FABRIC OR APPROVED EOUAL 7.L MW/NUM QOADIENT A „+� �p@i rw ppE0VED //P A'ATONS DO1SW) M/NMR/M2X LY170lEM• 777 OUTLET BENCN /NUMV TOW400 ORA/N DETAIL A -A CONPACrW 84CArILL 7YPICAL BENCMNG TEMPOWY FILL LEVEL 4" AlhWUUN UWf7FR APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE •Aare AGGRLGiTE 70 MELT MUOw/NG SPFGlIG1TlOA5 OR APPROVED EOLNL.• SILW SJZ£ PVCFMACF PASSIAL^ lI" N/N/N(/,l/ 1 112" liv 1" 5-40 .r/4" 0-17 J/B' 0-J NO. -V0 D-s BACKDRAIN DETAIL I SALEM (GEOFABRIC) I rugineering Grololh Lm. FINISH SL/RFACE 3 F7.3 MIM4#JM PER LWFAL FD07 APPROVED nUER ROCK" 4' MINIMUM DMMETER St 0 OMET PIPE SPACED PfR SAL FACNEFR RfOUAP£NfH/5 DWM 17' MWIMIIM COLER DETAL A -A COMAMCMD BWMI L 1?' MlN9.R/M 41APPROVM PIPE r Pf.• SCNf&XE 40 PDL VOM CMORYDE (P. V.C.) OR APPR06W EOUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH SWAOTH 1000 PSI. COMPACTED FILL 4" MWAILIMAROVED APP PERF NUMATM P70 /P£RFA 2MA5 OOwN . �l/N/NUA/ TX- q 70 OUAX7 BENCH INCLINED 70WAAD SLOPE TYR&L 9FNCW/NC ?rA# r I7LL LEVEL 4' MINIMUM MWi7fR APPROM SOLID OuRET PMf F1ILTFR ROCK MWERM 70 MQT FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED raML.• SEWW 1' J14" J/6' Na 4 N0. 30 N0. 50 NA 700 ?D0 96-106 40-IW 26-46 5-15 0-7 0-3 TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL I SALEMI F,ngin"'ing Gronp,lnc. SURFACF OF �— _ — — _ _ — — — — — — — �nRM F497H \ COMPACIFD fAL / / \ / REMOVE UNSU/TABLF 1TP/LJ4L BFNCHWDJ MATFRUL SEE D67AI/S 01 `INaIN6 WWWO TRENCH DETAIL 6' NAWMUM LAKRLAP M/N/NUM 9 FrJ PER LINEAL FOOT OF APPROVED DRNN MATEAYAL SUPAC S-P AMRIC DP APPROVED M AL ORNN MAMRUL 70 MEE7 FWOW kW SPECOCA7/ON OR APPROVED EOWL: ADD M/N/NUN !- 014ME7ER APPROVED PZMRAMD PIPE WHEN CMDIEA07 /S SIEVE SIZE PERMATAGE PASSING LfSS MW 2X 'W-/OO / 5-40 APPROVED PIPE TO OF SCHEDULE 40 J/A 0-17 PDLY RIDE /P.VGI OR APPROVFD EQ[fAt. A4rNIMUM CRUSH 57A J/8' 0-7 .VINYL-0b /000 psi. N0..200 0-d GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN DETAIL SALEM ;- Engineering Group, Inc. BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL SURFACE GRIN nu 3M/NMK/M �- "UNSUI7A�E Tj4' MrAL J 10' IYMC41 /N70 SLOPL'J MlEO 7X BENCHING FILL OVER CUT SUlNAC£ Ave F19N FARM MA7£RgL 1YN/SN F/LL SLOP£ ' vr f/N/SN CU! SLQ°E � T ` f0' 7YP/CCL 15' WNW& OR SWEITY £OU/VA[EN7 PER SO/L L7✓C1N££R/NC (1NCUNCO 7X MWMUM 1N70 51.OPV BENCHING FOR COMPACTED E , SALEM FILL DETAIL Rngincedng Grnnp )nc, C FLN15AW GRID£ CLEAR AREA FA4 FOUNDA1)ON L177UTACS —ANO SMARM#* POOLS O O d p 15• i0 wa/"W COMPACT/ON SLOPE FACE 5' OR BELOW DEPTH —� OF DEEPEST UDUT1' 7RO CH CTd9NULA4 SGVL FLOLt " I ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL � SALEM r Engineering Group Inc. SURFACE Df _ — — — — — — — — — _ — �F/RN EAR/H \ COMPACTED nAU / \ / REMOVE UASUSAOLE 7YPIL'4C BEM"WNG MAT£RNL SEE MM S MNIUM FAT£R M47ERW TO NEE7 RYl OWLNC SPLCg7CAWN OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE PEI7CENTA&C !" too 3/4' 80-1LNJ 40-100 Na 4 15-tO AV. JO 5-16 N0. SO 0-7 W. 700 O-3 70WAR0 TRFIICH DETAIL N, E�R,�PR �D 7P MA7MAL ADINO 1C MINIMUM APPROVED P/PE W BE (ypCNFOULE f0 OUAl.VM�AWN OR 10C N Syc GTH 1w�� PIPE DbWETER TD MEET THE FOLLOWW6 ER77ERL4 SURECT 10 FIELD REVIEW @WSW ON ACTUAL OEO7ECHAVEW CONDI7A%d rMOUMERED DURWC oplo ✓O. LEM N OF RUN PIPE DMAI R UPPER MO' I' SEW 1000' S. > 1500' R' TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN I! SALE DETAIL + Rn¢ineerinn nm cur for curInt t07 (YRAHS1WV) cw04c7E0 riu / UA%rA7HCRD BfDWOY 70P SOH i COULAWU i WCA7HERED AND i BEDROCK i it TRANSITION LOT DETAIL MOM DROtJN0 oPA:rNAt O40C/ND S' 0WPfYa VA7F AND RMSW I Attachment E ect Plans for Rudnick Road Culvert Placement W'A WA DSl3N NO md0 AIID avoumo m xmwawovmmvrum Z w W O Q U O Zz�w OaY< LL v Q�z LLJ o ZU0:Y N a 0 V �ssasssassa $SION WUBN3O ONV 'dM NOUVOO1'31111 'IIIHWZHO 4 ��(9 yy gggg yCyfE � aka =� m , n VO'AMIVA MIA NONNMgo"O Otl bNOINONN ,ww�rn��vrixs 3 ag I e A Ntlld ONIOV80 / AVMOVON 'IIIHWZHO w 0 z z w LU w U g a t- w W J �I� tl0'A3lltlA 0513N k p ° g NVId 1Oi11N00 NOISOH3 i pt ra•gg NONtl3Ai0 All0 `€ i y e mow NOINONtl wa 9 aL i i 8 ww L w a, 'IIIHWZHJ mawa�,aw�aw, � \ 1 vv vvv. �� AvVvv �vvI ,�' V� < v �!/� 9 %i �t�Vx /�!.� I III \ NX Iry A"v \u WA911VAOSIN NON�A JO �10 NVId IOUINOO NOISOUB GVOU AOINonu uo I -11HL AdZHD Fal r ell x Z Wfl I MIVA OS13M NVId IONINOD NOISOUB NON Ai0A 10 OVOH NO]Nonu "A" ',yll J A �y I V WdI U1NOO NOISOU3 NOWM iO ALO OtlOtl N�INONN �,,•� 'IIIHWZHO \ v v �l y\VA I r, 2• II\ 1 1 / l s' \ I ` l I I / r/r[ 'i _; i I , I i I I I - m IN p� ill II 1 11 f III , I v - /-i ill �I ILL,. II I SII u,�I I�i I - /:' I�III I I V` AiAA, �'N,� WV FNI r I A A� �v�vIIIII'IIII,��, Ipf I �II11� �1�"n li�il`,\(��1 V\1, I,. !ICI Ii��'�l I�1 lu CH2MHILL. Ifs 5 m' RUDNICK ROAD 6 •5e EROSION CONTROL PLAN CM OF ERROR �rE er nvo S B Y KELW VALLEY. Cp �v I•I �•-r ;, I I I ,i \- �::\\ .. i I I I / i I i 11 ill, I� E. I CH2MHILL. I�c gi§ RUDNICK ROAD EROSION CONTROL PLAN CITY OF VERNON P q 0 KELSO VALLEY, CA � � A R q q$n $ �R"R$ #('6 �€R gr RE 'jig, glo ulo ��1lRg i 5 p ill � � R all F $ ,j F€ 6 P Igaik m Foil g mlk list gp$` III g m t HIM 1. m % P F Y N ££� V €9ygAyg y$A^ gA QpN p3Y 99,yq Rp Y .qq v e �A p I gpPgpPy€gs�"R9 $F$@ p9'€5F Rz$ 5g R ° 31 r6@ 11l [[s'€€R g455`i ib ji SE 1, F Cg1 g g5 1Q5 81 fill z HIM i qg . fs o yg of 3 I�R S € ° & R IIf� R€ 4 P� g$€ o CC 33 m H e 4 qg i Ovl { 4 O m m 0 ' I � I a � I m I m i I IN I O I Y.YN. o `�7 $ _ J m K p D 0. R I" - - ' I I ' I i i I a I�€ CH2MHILL. b� ara RUDNICK ROAD 43Z p e e .b5g CRYOFVERNON C EROSION CONTROL DETAILS KELSO VALLEY, CA �'F °E'm0X er wv i�� a Attachment F Salem Engineering Group Proposal loll SALEM engineering group, Inc. August 11, 2011 Mr. Christopher S. Benson CH2MHill 222 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 207 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Proposal No. P2-611-0658 Phone: (916) 286.0280 Email: Chris.Benson@CH2M.com Subject: Proposal and Estimate of Fees Construction Testing & Inspection Services Proposed Rudnick Road Culvert Placement Kelso Valley, California Dear Mr. Benson: Salem Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) is pleased to submit this Cost Estimate to perform Construction Testing and Inspection for above -referenced site. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located on the northern edge of Assessors Parcel No. 444-060-03 owned by the City of Vernon. The access toad measures approximately 4,370 feet. It is understood that the access road was constructed at an unknown time and is currently being used. It is further understood that the toad is used to provide access to portions of land around the Weldon Estate in the area of Monarch Mine. 2.0 PURPOSE The purpose of the Construction Testing and Inspection is to confirm that the proposed access road is constructed in accordance with the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (By: CH21vHill, dated: July 2011) approved plans and specifications. 3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES Services to be provided in conjunction with the Construction Testing and Inspection would include field observation/testing, soil and laboratory testing. We understand that the requited tests and inspections during grading operations include engineer fill observations and compaction testing, pavement area subgtade and aggregate base compaction tests, and trench backfill compaction tests. 4055 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 110 a Fresno, CA 93722 • (559) 271-9700 s Fax (559) 275-0827 2321 Perseus Court • Bakersfield, CA 93308 • (661) 393-9711 • Fax (661) 393-9710 11650 Mission Park Dr., Suite 108 a Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • (909) 980-6455 • Fax (909) 980-6435 3850 North Wilcox Road, Suite F e Stockton, CA 95215 • (209) 931-2226 a Fax (209) 931-2227 Proposal P2-611-1102 August 11, 2011 3.1 Field Observations, Special Inspection and Testing Soil Compaction Testing Measure the compaction of fill soils for compliance to recommended mnvmum percentages in roadways, trenches, and other backfilled areas utilizing the nuclear gage or tube method of testing. Perform compaction testing of aggregate base material in paved areas. 3.2 Laboratory Testing The laboratory -testing program would incorporate physical tests for the determination of soil moisture, density, and compressive strength. The following tests would likely be conducted: In -Situ Moisture and Density 3.3 Compaction and Special Inspection Reports At the completion of the grading operations, a final report will be submitted. The report will document all our field and laboratory activities, including field observation and compaction testing. The report would be prepared and signed by a California Licensed Civil Engineer. 4.0 SCHEDULE AND FEES 4.1 Schedule Compaction reports will be submitted at the completion of grading activities. Progress reports will be submitted on a monthly basis. 4.2 Fees Our Fee Estimate for performing the aforementioned Scope of Services will be billed on time and material basis in accordance with the attached fee schedule. A minimum of 4 hours will be charged per visit, with an increment of 2-hour blocks thereafter. A maximum 1-hour travel time each way will be charged per visit. Work over 8 hours or on Saturdays will be billed at 1.5 times the rates shown herein. Work on Sundays will be billed at twice times the rates shown herein. Our Total Estimated Fee for performing the aforementioned Scope of Services is $3,025.00. This value is not a "Not To Exceed" estimate. Since out work is highly dependent upon the contractor and contractor's performance, and the contract documents require re -tests and re -inspections due to errors by the general contractor to be paid by the general contractor, additional inspections due to re -tests and re -inspections would be subject to reimbursement by the general contractor. The above noted fee estimate assumes that the project plans and geotechnical report have been prepared and reviewed in accordance with CH2MHill design criteria. The hourly rates and unit test cost we propose for this project are presented above. Our invoices will be submitted on a monthly basis and will be billed based on the hourly rates and unit test cost presented herein. 5.0 QUALIFICATION SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. is a multidiscipline consulting firm providing services in Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection and Material Testing. Our staff has the experience and ability to efficiently address a wide range of geotechnical problems, define their nature and significance, and develop cost-effective solutions or responses. The combination of high qualifications and low overhead allows SALEM to offer you and your client's unparalleled service. SALEM performs field inspections, field and laboratory testing of soil and other construction materials using experienced technicians who are certified in various grades and disciplines. IS] Proposal P2-611-1102 August 11, 2011 Our services are offered throughout California to a wide range of industries, commercial firms, farming operations, government agencies, research facilities, consultants, insurance companies, law firms, and others. Salem Engineering Group is an engineering firm with extraordinary determination to provide superior customer service. We specialize in geotechnical engineering, environmental engineering, and construction testing and inspection services. We have full capabilities to perform virtually all aspects of geotechnical engineering services, including initial soils and foundation investigations, geologic/seismic hazards studies, and environmental site assessments. Our staff has extensive experience in the design and implementation of cost-effective solutions. Laboratories for testing of construction materials such as soils, concrete, aggregates, bituminous products, masonry, steel and many others are maintained to complement the Special Inspection staff. We also provide forensic and structural engineering evaluation projects, including damage cause and effect, structural evaluation due to pipe damage, strength evaluation of historical buildings, and evaluation of structural integrity. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal for your consideration and look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have questions regarding this proposal, please contact the undersigned at (661) 393-9711. Respectfully submitted, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. �alke Testing &.Inspections Manager �Sl SALEM engineering group, inc. To: Mr. Christopher S. Benson CH2MHil1 222 E. Carillo Street, Suite 207 Santa Barbara, California 93101 (916) 286-0280 Cost Estimate Date: August 11, 2011 Estimate No.: P2-611-1102 1.0 Earthwork and Observations 30.0 $69.00 $2,070.00 2.0 Maximum Density Curve 3.0 $145.00 $435.00 3.0 Engineering Review - 4.0 $85.00 $340.00 3.1 Administration 4.0 $45.00 $180.00 ' Total Estimated Cost: $3,025.00 Our invoices will be submitted on a monthly basis and will be billed on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with the referenced cost estimate. Work performed on Weekends or Holidays will be billed at 1.5 and 2.0 times the rates respectively shown herein. A minimum of 2 hours will be charoed for all call -out testing Estimate Prepared bill: This estimate is for the services outlined above, subject to SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. terms and conditions, or as agreed by both parties. Minimum hourly charges apply to all testing and inspection services. To accept this estimate, sign here and return: 2321 Perseus Court Bakersfield, CA 93308, (661) 393-9711 (661) 393-9710 fax Attachment G Schedule � . .I \ } �) ! CO)C ». !!0 § �(|$ — / ƒZ3 ) ME c::. | ,}f\t-6 -0 f! ' «�\ §£$`@] ƒ) 2 6k/�*%!/)a'! ! * J \ © m■mmm � � -~ --- TM N I�J SIN y LLA 3 wlN N LL F w C N _ Cy 10 qqw qqw N h - ul IU ❑ LL N 3 - iy o � E w I-- 13 y LL f 3 •- F m n o` N � Q N W LL f 7 3 N � o� dm �L QN k- 13 �G �N 3 s'I 'N d N y w f N C E E v m 0 3 N � C co LL m 3 E E m y m a air � E d 0 LL = I— - 3 �N m a � N a 3 N � C � (n N j N LL cN F- O� m rn 3 o r~ Iao olN Q� ; to = �3 NIA QN LL f � O y W o N C E E '- LL F 3 r� o � 3 � Jai a Vl LL = F 3 Y .L 01 0) LL �N I- f/1 LL _F I� a f/1 N �m o � LL a`o �3 I .-r - Irk OiN —r1 W LL IF �' fV I is N I LL i C O N _ _ E E i I LL I 'I F E m- loco � E :Y ti LL = f n GI w LL y .n O - am IF F N 3 v� �n N v, LL d U N � � � N - >t N� ao �Ir N OE 2�N LN LL r ICJ N li LL r 3 o � LL pv r 3 r z� r LL E E m m 3 E T E o M ON =_ LL = r = 3 i N N 12 ON y m 8 ) N LL r 3 �r m m� a cn ON 0- LL >> tf N y r ao