Agenda packet — San Jacinto City Council, June 2, 2026 (part 3 of 11)

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts regarding physically dividing an established community. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 2) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
The proposed SJV-MDP is located within the City of San Jacinto, the City of Hemet, and unincorporated Riverside County. The drainage facility alignments are primarily situated within or adjacent to road rights-of-way and disturbed open areas. Typically, master planned drainage facilities are integrated into general plans, specific plans, and other land use plans adopted by the local lead agency with land use authority. This proposed project will not conflict with existing land use designations or zoning within the MDP Project area. Additionally, Section 18.2.a(b) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 exempts public agency projects like this one from County zoning regulations. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant.

Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project implements one of the SJV MDP Facilities. The SJV-MDP was adopted to control and mitigate flooding in the City of San Jacinto and portions of the City of Hemet and unincorporated 152
Riverside County. Further, the San Jacinto General Plan Land Use Element provides for a development and resource conservation pattern that preserves and protects San Jacinto’s unique character while promoting opportunities for economic development, local job growth, and expanded housing opportunities. The Line E Project would remain consistent with the land use goals and policies identified in the Land Use Element. Additionally, the San Jacinto General Plan Resource Management Element encourages the protection and enhancement of natural and man-made resources in the City. The Project would be consistent with the land use goals and policies identified in the Resource Management Element. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the San Jacinto General Plan.

The San Jacinto Noise Ordinance, which is set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 – Noise Control is designed to protect people from non-transportation noise sources such as construction activity; commercial, industrial, and agricultural operations. Through compliance with the City of San Jacinto Municipal Code Chapter 8.40.050-A, the Line E Project would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Refer to the discussion below in item M.2.

Additionally, the Project is also consistent with the MSHCP of which San Jacinto is a Permittee, as discussed above in item D.6.

Therefore, the Line E Project would not conflict with local land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect because it proposes drainage facilities consistent with the existing land use designations in the Line E Project area and would comply with the provisions of the San Jacinto Noise Ordinance.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.

Figure 26 - Existing Development Source: Riverside Co. GIS, 2025.

Byrd St
Odel St
N Warren Rd
Casa Loma
Cottonwood
Ave
N Warren Rd
San Jacinto River
N Ly
on Ave
N Sanderson Ave
N Ramona Blvd
De Anza Dr
Ramona Expy
Ramona Expy
N Sanderson Ave
Golden Era Golf
Course
N Sanderson Ave
N Lyon Ave
Cottonwood Ave
Cawston Ave
Ivy Crest Dr
Roanoke St
Sandalwood
St
LEGEND
Permanent Impact Boundary

0.25 Mile Buffer
Existing Development
H:\2023\23-0007\GIS\PRO\Line E Addendum\project_map\project_map.aprx; Map created 27 Jan 2026 Line E Addendum
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Feet
San Jacinto Valley Regional
Water Reclamation Facility
154
L. MINERAL RESOURCES
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the
residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Source(s): SJV-MDP IS, GP DEIR
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the state?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined that the proposed MDP Project is located in the Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ-3) area, where the presence of mineral deposits is likely but their significance is undetermined. The drainage facility conceptual alignments are mainly within or adjacent to road rights-of-way and disturbed agricultural areas, which would not significantly impact known mineral resources. The MDP detention basins are also not situated on identified mineral resources and, being excavated earthen structures, their construction would not permanently affect mineral resource availability. Therefore, the MDP Project's potential impacts to known mineral resources are considered less than significant. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 26.)
Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project site is primarily disturbed agricultural land within MRZ-3. The City has no known or identified mineral resources of regional or statewide importance. (SJGP EIR, pp. 5.12-3, 5.12-7.) Therefore, no impact would occur regarding the loss of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or residents of the state.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the state. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
The SJV-MDP IS determined that implementation of the SJV-MDP would not significantly impact known mineral resources. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 26.)
Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project disturbance area does not contain any locally important mineral resources recovery sites delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. (SJGP EIR, pp. 5.12-3, 5.12-7.) There would be no impacts in this regard. 155
For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 156
M. NOISE
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is
Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project result in:
1) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Source(s): SJV-MDP IS, GP DEIR
1) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined that construction of MDP Facilities would involve heavy equipment such as backhoes, excavators, cranes, water trucks, wheeled loaders, blades/road graders, tunnel/boring machines, and dump trucks. Construction would also include truck trips to move, cut, and fill material for the proposed basins. Maintenance operations would include the use of utility trucks and occasionally, heavy machinery such as: excavators, scrapers, mowers, dozers, or backhoes to maintain the basins. These types of equipment can generate noise levels from 65-95 dBA at 50 feet. Riverside County Ordinance 457 restricts construction activities near residences between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. from June to September, and between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. from October to May. San Jacinto also requires compliance with its noise regulations to minimize temporary construction noise impacts. Construction may create significant short-term noise increases, which would cease when construction of the MDP Facility is complete. Maintenance activities would generate less noise than construction and occur infrequently and briefly. Therefore, through compliance with local noise ordinances, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 27.)
Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
Construction of the Line E Project would entail the use of the same types of equipment analyzed in the SJV MDP EIR. Specifically for Line E, it is expected the type of construction equipment used would include: off-road construction equipment, crawler tractor, excavators, graders, rollers, rubber tired loader, scrapers, signal boards, tractor/loaders/backhoes, crane, bore/drill rig, air compressors, plate compactor, and rough terrain forklifts. These types of equipment can generate noise levels from 80 dBA Lmax11 to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. (Caltrans, p. 7-22; FTA, p. 176.) 11 Lmax is the highest sound power level in a specific time period. (Caltrans). 157
Given that all Line E Project construction would take place within San Jacinto, the San Jacinto Noise Ordinance, which is set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 – Noise Control, is the applicable noise ordinance. The San Jacinto Noise Ordinance is designed to protect people from non-transportation noise sources such as construction activity; commercial, industrial, and agricultural operations.

Stationary noise source standards are set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 8.40.050-A, which states, The following noise standards for maximum allowable noise level due to stationary noise sources shall apply to all development and infrastructure projects, unless otherwise specifically indicated:

Type of Land Use
Allowed Equivalent Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.

All single-family residential properties 65 45
All multifamily residential properties and mobile home
parks 65 50
All commercial property 65 60
The residential portion of mixed-use properties 70 70
All manufacturing or industrial properties and all other uses 70 70
San Jacinto regulates construction noise per Municipal Code Chapter 8.40.090, which states:

A. The erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration or repair of any building shall occur between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and between nine a.m. and six p.m. on Sundays and holidays, except when such work complies with the terms of a temporary use permit which may be issued by the community development director or his or her designee, upon a showing of sufficient need due to hot or inclement weather, or the use of an unusually long process material, or other circumstances of unusual and compelling nature.

B. No landowner, construction company owner, contractor, subcontractor or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool, equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section.

C. Exceptions.

1. The provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency construction work performed by a private party when authorized by the city manager or his or her designee;

2. The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees, by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons performing such work or pursuant to the direction of, or on behalf of, any public agency; provided, however, this exception shall not apply to the City of San Jacinto, or its employees, contractors or agents, unless:
158
a. The city manager or a department head determines that the maintenance, repair or improvement is immediately necessary to maintain public services; or b. The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours; or
c. The city council has approved project specifications, contract provisions, or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day that would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section;

3. Any construction that complies with the noise limits specified in Section 8.40.040 or 8.40.050.

Construction of the Line E Project would occur during daytime hours which minimizes potential noise impacts to nearby residences. Based on San Jacinto Municipal Code Chapter 8.40.050-A, the daytime construction noise threshold is 65 dBA Leq. Using a construction noise level of 85 dBA Lmax and assuming there is no intervening barrier between the construction equipment and noise receiver, construction noise may exceed 65 dBA at a distance of less than 500 feet12 from where construction equipment is operating. This means, to comply with the noise limits set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 8.40.050-A, temporary noise barriers may be required if there are any sensitive receptors, such as occupied residences, less than 500 feet away. The closest sensitive receptors are an existing residence southeast of the intersection of Sanderson Avenue and Record Road. The distance to the property line for this residence across Sanderson Avenue is approximately 88 feet (27 meters).

Should this residence still be occupied at the time of construction, the City could use a temporary noise barrier per this Municipal Code section if determined necessary. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 27.) The Line E Project consists of stormwater drainage facilities, which will not generate noise once it is in operation. Other than maintenance, there would be no long-term noise resulting from operation of the Line E Project. Through compliance with the City of San Jacinto Municipal Code Chapter 8.40.050-A, the Line E Project would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts resulting in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Line E Project area in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is needed. 2) Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant
The SJV-MDP IS determined that the construction of the proposed project would generate temporary groundborne vibration and noise typical of grading activities. While these vibrations may temporarily affect nearby offices and residences, they would be short-term and not excessive. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 27.) 12 Distance calculated for R2 using the formula SPL2 = SPL1 – 20 log(R2/R1) where SPL1 = 85 dBA Lmax; SPL2 = 65 dBA Leq;; R1 = 50 feet.
159
Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
Construction activities that produce vibration that can be felt by adjacent land uses include the use of vibratory equipment, large bulldozers, and pile drivers. The primary sources of vibration during construction are usually vibratory rollers and large bulldozers. (SJGP EIR, p. 5.13-45.) The only sensitive historic structure that could be affected by construction of the Line E Project is Metropolitan’s Casa Loma Barrel No. 1. Metropolitan currently limits the vibrations within the existing siphon to 0.5 in/sec PPV to prevent damage to this structure from excessive vibrations. Depending on the design choice for how the Line E Channel crosses the Casa Loma Barrel No. 1, there is a potential to impose significant vibrations on this siphon. Preliminary analysis indicates it is feasible that construction induced vibrations from caisson drilling would not exceed Metropolitan’s vibration limit of 0.5 PPV. (Kleinfelder-A, p. 2.) Therefore, because construction-related vibration would be temporary and under Metropolitan’s limits, impacts regarding the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground-borne noise levels would be less than significant.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to a generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
3) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined the nearest airport to the Project area is, the Hemet-Ryan Airport located in Hemet less than one mile southwest from the southernmost portion of the MDP boundary.

As the SJV-MDP Project would not result in the construction of new places of employment or new homes, the MDP Project would not involve placing people in a noisy environment near an airport or private airstrip. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 28.) Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
As discussed in the response to item I.5, the Line E Project site is located approximately four miles from Hemet-Ryan Airport and is not within the Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Due to the distance from the Hemet-Ryan Airport and because the project would not involve the construction of new places of employment or new homes, implementation of the Line E Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related the exposure of people to excessive noise levels from a private air strip, public airport, or public use airport. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
160
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
1) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Source(s): DOF, SCAG
1) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Significant and Unavoidable Impact The SJV-MDP does not include the construction of new homes or businesses, and therefore would not directly induce substantial population growth in the MDP area. Implementation of the SJV-MDP may indirectly induce substantial population growth in the SJV-MDP boundaries by providing flood control infrastructure. As a comprehensive, area-wide master drainage plan, the SJV-MDP is sized and designed to accommodate continued development throughout the San Jacinto Valley per the San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County General Plans. New development would be accompanied by construction of both on-site storm detention basins and related structures in the near term, and construction of master plan facilities in San Jacinto and Hemet that would accompany longer term improvements to the San Jacinto River channel. It is important to note, that while a project may have a potential to induce growth, it does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the public or private sectors. (SJV-MDP EIR. pp. 3.8-6 – 3.8-7.) The SJV-MDP EIR determined the MDP Project could indirectly induce population growth in the San Jacinto Valley by removing one potential barrier to growth, by providing planned drainage infrastructure. The City of San Jacinto, the City of Hemet and the County of Riverside General Plans outline the type of development and growth that would be allowed in the area. Thus potential indirect impacts from development in the project area are not expected to exceed the potential impacts that have already been disclosed in their General Plan EIRs. Yet, because implementation of the proposed Project could indirectly induce substantial population growth in San Jacinto, Hemet, and portions of unincorporated Riverside County, impacts are considered significant. However, no mitigation measures can reduce these indirect impacts to less than significant levels, necessitating a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approval of the SJV-MDP Project. (SJV-MDP EIR, pp. 3.8-6 – 3.8-9.)
Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project would not directly induce population growth, as it does not introduce housing or long-term employment opportunities. As a regional drainage facility, the Line E Project has the potential to indirectly induce population growth in the Line E subwatershed by removing an obstacle to development. Since approval of the SJV-MDP Project in 2013, San Jacinto and Riverside County updated their respective General Plans and population projections in 2022 and 161
2015, respectively. Implementation of the Line E Project would indirectly facilitate future planned growth per the General Plans for San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County. Thus potential indirect impacts from development Line E subwatershed are not expected to exceed the potential impacts that have already been analyzed and disclosed in the current San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County General Plan EIRs.

Additionally, the SJV MDP still remains the guiding document to address stormwater and flooding control within the Line E Project area. Because the Line E Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth, there would be no new impact in this regard.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts resulting from the direct or indirect inducement of substantial unplanned population growth in the Line E Project subwatershed. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 2) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined the construction of the proposed MDP Facilities in the conceptual locations shown in the SJV-MDP EIR is not anticipated to displace any existing homes. Because no homes are being displaced, the construction of replacement housing is not required. Potential impacts would be less than significant. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 29.) Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
Construction of the Line E Project would not require the displacement of existing people or housing; therefore construction of replacement housing is not required.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts regarding the displacement of existing people or housing and the construction of replacement housing. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
162
O. PUBLIC SERVICES
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is
Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
1) Fire Protection
2) Police Protection
3) Schools
4) Parks
5) Other Public Facilities
Source(s): SJGP; SJGP EIR; SJDFS; USD; SJV-MDP IS
1) Fire Protection?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: No Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined the proposed MDP Facilities would not require additional services or extended response times for fire protection services. When constructed, the proposed SJV-MDP Facilities should reduce the need for fire department resources related to flooding. (SJV-MDP IS, p.

29.)
Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project does not propose any new or physically altered government facilities. The Line E Project would not directly result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities.

Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 2) Police Protection?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: No Impact
The SJV MDP EIR determined that construction of the proposed SJV-MDP Facilities does not include new homes or businesses that would require additional police protection facilities, services or extended response times. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 29.) Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project does not propose any new or physically altered police protection facilities. The Line E Project would not directly result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities.

Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 3) Schools?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: No Impact
The SJV MDP EIR determined the proposed SJV-MDP Project does not involve new housing or employment opportunities that would affect local school enrollment or the need for new school facilities. Because school facilities would not be impacted by implementation of the SJV-MDP, no impacts are anticipated. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 29.)
Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project does not propose any new or physically altered school facilities. The Line E Project would not directly result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered other public facilities or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 165
P. RECREATION
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is
Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
1) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Source(s): SJGP; SJGP DEIR; SJV-MDP IS
1) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: No Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined that the MDP Project does not include new homes or businesses that would increase the use of existing parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 30.)
Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project does not include new homes or businesses that would generate residents or employees that would use parks and recreational facilities. As such, there would be no increase in the use of existing parks or recreations facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not increase in the use of existing parks or recreations facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
2) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: No Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined that construction of the proposed MDP Project does not include housing or employment opportunities and would not trigger the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities. However, the proposed Project basins could be designed for dual-use purposes. No impacts are anticipated. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 30.) Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project, does not include recreational facilities. The Line E Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As such, there would be no adverse physical effect on the environment resulting from the construction of expansion of recreational facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, 166
or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 167
Q. TRANSPORTATION
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
1) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
2) Conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
3) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
4) Result in inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
Source(s): Project Description
1) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined that the project will be partially constructed within road rights-of-way, causing minor, short-term increases in vehicle traffic due to construction activities. This may result in slight delays or temporary congestion. Encroachment permits and traffic control plans will be obtained and approved by the relevant governing agencies to address these short-term traffic impacts.

Consequently, potential impacts are considered less than significant.

Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
As an infrastructure project, the Line E Project would not in it of itself conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system because the Line E Project is an earthen and underground channel located within ROW or proposed ROW. The Line E Project would be required to provide a traffic control plan for the construction of the Project. Through compliance with required traffic control plans, impacts to any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system would be less than significant and no new mitigation is required.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
2) Conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
This threshold was not a part of the State CEQA Guidelines at the time the SJV-MDP EIR was prepared. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was passed by the California State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013. SB 743 required the Office of Planning and Research and the California Natural Resources Agency to develop alternative methods of measuring transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, which included SB 743. CEQA 168
Guidelines Section 15064.3 provides that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating the project's vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(2), “projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” The SJV-MDP EIR determined that the adoption of the MDP and the construction and operation of the facilities would not cause an increase in traffic and are not traffic generating. (SJV-MDP EIR, pp. 30-32.) As such, the impact on traffic was determined to be less than significant.

Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project will construct an earthen and underground stormwater channel that would temporarily increase traffic in the area as a result of construction-related vehicles. However, because water facilities are not trip generators, there would be no ongoing operational net increase in VMTs.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. subdivision (b). Thus, the Project’s impacts related to VMT would be less than significant.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related VMT. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
3) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: No Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined that construction of the project will not change current or future roadway configurations nor alter the area in such a way to introduce a new hazard or increase hazards. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 31.) Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
As stated in the SJV-MDP EIR, the construction of MDP facilities, including the Line E Project, which will be primarily earthen and underground within existing and proposed roadways, will not alter current roadway configurations or introduce new hazards. Therefore, the Line E Project would not result in impacts related to hazards due to design features.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to substantially increase hazards. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 4) Result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: No Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined that construction of the proposed project will not reconfigure current roadways that would result in inadequate emergency access. Access would be maintained throughout the construction activities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.(SJV-MDP IS, p. 31.) Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project would not result in inadequate emergency access because the construction of the channel would not reconfigure current roadways that would result in inadequate emergency access.

During temporary construction activities, as discussed above in item Q.1, traffic control measures to 169
accommodate local traffic and ensure the safety of drivers and workers during construction would be implemented. Additionally, in accordance with the original findings of the SJV-MDP EIR, access would be maintained throughout construction. Therefore, the Line E Project would not result in impacts related to inadequate emergency.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to inadequate emergency access. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 170
R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1 (k), or
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision I of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Source(s): SJV-MDP EIR, AE-GP DEIR
Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance 1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k) or 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision I of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision I(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
These thresholds were not a part of the State CEQA Guidelines at the time the SJV-MDP EIR was prepared. As discussed in Section E. Cultural Resources, prehistoric cultural resources were evaluated at a program level as not all of the conceptual alignments for the SJV-MDP Facilities could be surveyed. The results of a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) sacred lands record search conducted during preparation of the Historical/Archeological Resources Survey Report, San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan, October 8, 2008 (Appendix D.1 to the SJV-MDP EIR), identified the presence of Native American cultural resources within the SJV-MDP Project’s boundary and suggested the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and 10 other local Native American representatives be contacted for further information. Correspondence was initiated with contacts of the 11 organizations on the referral list provided by NAHC, in addition to the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Temecula Band of Luiseño Mission Indians. No specific sites of Native American cultural concern were identified within the SJVMDP Project boundary by any of the tribal representatives contacted; however, the presence of a Native American monitor was requested. Because portions of the conceptual footprint of the SJVMDP Facilities were unable to be surveyed due to restricted access and Native American monitoring was requested, SJV-MDP EIR mitigation measures MM Cultural 2a through MM Cultural 2c, as set forth in item E.2 would be implemented to reduce impacts to cultural resources, to less than significant. (SJV-MDP EIR, pp. 3.5-15 – 3.5-16.)
171
Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), signed into law in 2014, amends CEQA and establishes new requirements for tribal consultation. The law applies to all projects that have a notice of preparation or notice of negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration. It also broadly defines a new resource category of "tribal cultural resource" and establishes a more robust process for meaningful consultation that includes:
• Prescribed notification and response timelines
• Consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact evaluation, and mitigation measures
• Documentation of all consultation efforts to support CEQA findings.

AB 52 does not apply to the Line E Project as neither a notice of preparation nor notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration is being issued. As identified in the response to item E.2, above, no prehistoric archaeological resources were documented within or adjacent to the site and no specific sites of Native American cultural concern were identified within the SJV-MDP Project boundary by any of the tribal representatives contacted.

As discussed in response item E.2, preparation of the Cultural Resource Study for the San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan Line E, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California, satisfies SJV-MDP mitigation measure MM Cultural 2a. Based on the results and recommendations of that study, the Line E Project would implement clarified mitigation measures CMM Cultural 2b and CMM Cultural 2c, as set forth above in item E.2. These clarified mitigation measures update, clarify, and amplify the requirements of SJV-MDP MM Cultural 2b and MM Cultural 2c for monitoring, preparation of a treatment and disposition plan, and the process to be followed for an inadvertent find. The clarified mitigation measures does not provide mitigation for a new potentially significant impact not disclosed in the SJV-MDP EIR.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts resulting in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Clarification of the SJV-MDP EIR mitigation measures to be Line E Project-specific does not mitigate new impacts or constitute new information of substantial importance. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 172
S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
1) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
2) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
3) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may service the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
4) Generate solid waste in excess of State or Local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
5) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Source(s): Project Description; SJV-MDP IS; UWMP; WSCP; WCSMP Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance 1) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined that the MDP project would not generate wastewater, eliminating the need for wastewater treatment. However, constructing the proposed drainage facilities may necessitate relocating existing water and sewer lines. These relocations would take place within the SJV-MDP Project's impact area and would not result in significant impacts beyond those already associated with the proposed MDP Project. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 32.)
Line E Project Conclusion: No New Impact/No Impact
Existing utilities in conflict with the Line E Channel’s RCBs crossing at Sanderson Avenue are shown on the Long Axis Plan included in Appendix B. Any proposed utility crossings would be coordinated with adjacent property owners and/or developers and projects to the extent that information is available, and relocation plans would be prepared during the final design phase. (PDR, p. 8.) For the reasons set forth above, the implementation of the Line E Project, would not require the relocation or construction of additional water, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities beyond those analyzed originally. Therefore, there are no new impacts, 173
changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would necessitate the preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 2) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined the SJV-MDP Project does not involve activities that would require permanent water supplies. Construction of the proposed MDP Facilities would necessitate short-term water use in order to provide for dust control. Impacts are less than significant. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 33.) Line E Project Conclusion: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project would use water for dust control during construction. Operation and maintenance of the Line E Project does not involve activities that would require permanent water supplies.

For the reasons set forth above, the implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years. Therefore, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would necessitate the preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
3) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may service the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: No Impact
The SJV-MDP IS determined implementation of the MDP Project would not generate wastewater. No new wastewater treatment facilities are required as a result of the proposed SJV-MDP Project. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 33.)
Line E Project Conclusion: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project consists of stormwater drainage facilities which would not generate wastewater.

Thus, no new wastewater treatment facilities are required as a result of the proposed SJV-MDP Project.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts regarding the capacity of the City (as wastewater treatment provider) to serve its existing commitments. Thus there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
4) Generate solid waste in excess of State or Local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: No Impact
The SJV-MDP EIR determined the MDP Project would not generate solid waste or require landfill services long-term. Construction waste would mainly consist of trash from crews and minimal debris, with demolition possibly needed. Temporary construction and demolition waste is expected to be minimal, not exceeding a single commercial dumpster per week per phase. Local landfills, such as Badlands and Lamb Canyon, have sufficient capacity to accept this waste. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 33.) 174
Line E Project Conclusion: No New Impact/No Impact
As with the SJV-MDP Project, solid waste generated during the construction of the Line E Project is expected to be minimal. Local landfills, such as Badlands and Lamb Canyon, have sufficient capacity to accept this waste. Additionally, construction of the Line E Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.34, Construction and Demolition Waste Management, which requires diversion of a minimum of 50 percent of the construction and demolition debris, in compliance with State and local statutory goals and policies, and creation of a mechanism to secure compliance with the stated diversion requirement to reduce the amount of waste generated within San Jacinto. (SJGP EIR, p. 5.9-13.)
For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts regarding the generation of solid waste in excess of State or Local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals related to solid waste. Thus there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
5) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: No Impact
As discussed in item S.5. above, the SJV-MDP EIR determined the proposed project would not generate large quantities of solid waste on a long-term basis. The disposal of construction waste will comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. Potential impacts are less than significant. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 33.) Line E Project Conclusion: No New Impact/No Impact
As discussed in item S.5, above, construction of the Line E Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.34, Construction and Demolition Waste Management, which requires diversion of a minimum of 50 percent of the construction and demolition debris, in compliance with State and local statutory goals and policies, and creation of a mechanism to secure compliance with the stated diversion requirement. Thus, the disposal of construction waste would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statues and regulations related to solid waste. Thus there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
175
T. WILDFIRE
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is
Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
If located in or near a state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
2) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
3) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
4) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Source(s): CALFIRE; GP DEIR; GP
1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
This threshold was not a part of the State CEQA Guidelines at the time the SJV-MDP EIR was prepared. However, as discussed in item I.6. above, the SJV MDP EIR determined the SJV-MDP area is not located within a designated hazardous fire area. The proposed MDP Facilities would not interfere with evacuation or emergency response plans. Road access would be maintained or detours would be provided during project construction. Implementation of the MDP would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 21.) Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
As discussed in the response to item I.6., above, the Line E Project is not located within a designated hazardous fire area. Road access would be maintained or detours would be provided during Project construction so as not to not interfere with evacuation or impair execution of emergency response plans.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to substantially impairing and adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
2) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
176
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
This threshold was not a part of the State CEQA Guidelines at the time the SJV-MDP EIR was prepared. However, as discussed in item I.6., above, the SJV-MDP EIR determined the MDP Project area, was not located within a designated hazardous fire area. Further, The SJV-MDP does not propose habitable structures; thus, there would be no project occupants. Implementation of the MDP would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 21.) Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project involves the construction of a channel and confluence basin and does not propose any habitable structures. Therefore, the Line E Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, the impacts are considered less than significant.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks resulting from flooding or landslides. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 3) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
This threshold was not a part of the State CEQA Guidelines at the time the SJV-MDP EIR was prepared. However, as discussed in item I.6., above, the SJV-MDP EIR determined the Master Drainage Plan area, are not located within a designated hazardous fire area. Implementation of the MDP would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 21.).

Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project involves the construction of a stormwater drainage channel, in an area that is either vacant or used for active agriculture. The area the Line E Project is located within would not require installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, the Line E Project impacts related to exacerbated fire risk would be less than significant.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would result in infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risks. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
4) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
This threshold was not a part of the State CEQA Guidelines at the time the SJV-MDP EIR was prepared. However, as discussed in item I.6., above, the SJV-MDP EIR determined the Master Drainage Plan area, is not located within a designated hazardous fire area. Implementation of the 177
SJV-MDP would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (SJV-MDP IS, p. 21.)
Line E Project: No New Impact/No Impact
The Line E Project does not include habitable structures, nor would it substantially alter existing drainage patterns. Therefore, there would be no impacts with regard to exposing people or structures to significant risks resulting from runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts regarding exposure to post-fire risks. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required. 178
Source(s): Analysis in this Addendum, AE-A, GLA-A, GLA-B 1) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation.

Potential to Degrade the Quality of the Environment: Construction and operation of the SJV-MDP Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. As indicated in the analysis in the MDP IS/EIR, either no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated would occur with respect to each of the environmental issues analyzed in the SJV-MDP Project.

Potential to Impact Biological Resources:. Implementation of the SJV-MDP, has the potential to impact special status species, birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or California Department of Fish and Game Code, riparian habitat, and drainage ditches regulated by CDFW. All potentially significant impacts to biological resources would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant impact with the implementation of SVJ-MDP EIR mitigation measures MM Bio 1 through MM Bio-8. (SJV MDP EIR, pp. 3.4-22 – 3.4-28; 5.0-8 - 5.0-9.) Potential to Eliminate Important Examples of the Major Periods of California History or Prehistory:

Impacts related to historic and archaeological resources were found to be less than significant within the portions of the Project footprint surveyed. Additional surveys, documentation, and coordination with Native American Tribes will be required through MM Cultural 1 through MM Cultural 4 No unique geologic feature is known to exist and no fossils have been documented in the Project U. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is
Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Does the Project:
1) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
2) Have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable
future projects)?
3) Have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
179
footprint. However, the Project footprint is underlain by deposits that could potentially have a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Mitigation measures MM Cultural 5 through MM Cultural 8 outline specific measures that will be taken if certain soil types or any artifacts are unearthed during construction activities. Therefore, through implementation of proposed mitigation measures, potential impacts to cultural resources will be reduced to less than significant. (SJV MDP EIR, p. 5.0-13.) Therefore, the potential of the SJV-MDP to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Line E Project: New Mitigation is Required
Potential to Degrade the Quality of the Environment: Construction of the Line E Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. As indicated in the analysis in this Addendum, there is no substantial change in the significance of impacts from those disclosed in the SJV-MDP EIR. This means no new potentially significant impacts. The analysis determined either new mitigation required, or no new impact/no impact, or reduced impact would occur with respect to each to the environmental issues analyzed in this Addendum.

Potential to Impact Biological Resources: The results of the Biological Technical Report and Jurisdictional Delineation of the Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line E Project, as well as the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Analysis for Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Area, San Jacinto Valley Master Drain Plan Line E, and the analysis in the responses to items D.1 through D.4 above, indicate the Line E Project has the potential to impact special status species, birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or California Department of Fish and Game Code, non-wetland waters regulated by the Regional Board and non-riparian streambed regulated by CDFW. However, with implementation of MM Bio-E1, MM Bio-E2, MM BioE3, MM Bio-E4, MM Bio-E5, MM Bio-E6, MM Bio-E7, MM Bio-E8 and clarified mitigation measure CMM Bio-1, potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced to less than significant.

Preparation of the BTR and focused surveys satisfies SJV-MDP EIR mitigation measures MM Bio 2, MM Bio 3, MM Bio 4, MM Bio 5, and MM Bio 6.

Potential to Eliminate Important Examples of the Major Periods of California History or Prehistory:

The results of the Cultural Resource Study for the San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan Line E, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California, (CRS) identifies the entire Line E area as heavily disturbed on the surface by agricultural activity, road development, and addition of modern structures. It was concluded the Colorado River Aqueduct is eligible for listing, but is outside of the Project’s vertical limits, and therefore would not be affected by this Project. Although, the likelihood of the presence of intact archaeological deposits is low, in order to provide protection in the unlikely event that archaeological resources are unearthed during construction, the Line E Project will implement clarified mitigation measures CMM Cultural-2b and CMM Cultural-2c. Preparation of the CRS satisfies SJV-MDP mitigation measure MM Cultural 2a. Through compliance with applicable regulations and clarified mitigation measures (CMM Cultural 2b and CMM Cultural 2c) impacts to important examples of California history or prehistory would be less than significant.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new potentially significant impacts regarding potential to degrade the environment, potential to impact 180
biological resources, and potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. New mitigation is required for the Line E Project to address potential impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee and special status bird species; however through implementation of mitigation measures, impacts will be less than significant. This does not change the determination made in the SJV-MDP. Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. No further analysis is required.
2) Have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects)?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Significant and Unavoidable
The SJV-MDP EIR concluded potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the SJV-MDP are temporary and would cease once construction is complete except for impacts to agricultural resources, and population and housing, specifically indirect growth inducement. The SJVMDP boundaries contains approximately 4,600 acres of “Agricultural Land” as defined in Section 210060.1 of CEQA, implementation of the Project will have significant indirect and direct impacts to agricultural resources. Depending on the facility or combination of facilities constructed at any given time, SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM-10, and PM-2.5 and SCAQMD LSTs for PM-10 and PM-2.5 could be exceeded during construction. Although these are direct, short-term impacts that would cease once construction is complete. the impact is not considered to have a cumulatively considerable net increase on ozone and PM-10, which are non-attainment in the region under both state and federal standards, and is considered less than significant. The SJV-MDP has the potential to indirectly induce substantial population growth in San Jacinto, Hemet, and portions of unincorporated Riverside County by removing an obstacle to development. However, the potential indirect impacts would not exceed the impacts that have already been addressed during the adoption of the San Jacinto General Plan EIR (May 2006), the Hemet General Plan Final EIR (August 1992), or the Riverside County General Plan Final EIR (October 2003).

The SJV MDP is consistent with local and regional plans. The SJV MDP adheres to all other land use plans and policies with jurisdiction in the area and will not increase traffic volumes or VMT within the area. However, because the SJV MDP could indirectly induce growth and potentially exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds, Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (SJV MDP EIR, pp. 5.0-6-8, 5.0-15-17.)
Line E Project: No New Impact/ No Impact
As discussed in the responses to Sections C, D, F, H, J, K, L, and M, the Line E Project is consistent with local and regional plans, and its mitigated air quality emissions do not exceed established thresholds of significance. The Line E Project adheres to all other land use plans and policies in San Jacinto and would not increase VMT. The Line E Project is not considered growth-inducing as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) because it would not induce, either directly or indirectly, population and/or housing growth beyond what is envisioned by San Jacinto General Plan. Therefore, construction and operation of the Line E Project would not result in incremental impacts that are considered cumulatively considerable.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased incremental significant impacts that are cumulatively considerable. Thus, there are no new 181
impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required. 3) Have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
SJV-MDP EIR Conclusion: Less than Significant with Mitigation.

Effects on human beings were evaluated as part of the aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, and traffic sections of the SJV MDP EIR. Except for indirect growth inducement, impacts to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise and traffic were found to be less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Line E Project: No New Impact/ No Impact
This Addendum evaluated effects on human beings as part of the aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, and traffic and determined there is no substantial change in the significance of impacts from those disclosed in the SJV MDP EIR. Therefore, there are no new potential direct or indirect impacts on human beings resulting from the Line E Project.

For the reasons set forth above, implementation of the Line E Project would not result in any new or increased environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

Thus, there are no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the Line E Project that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND. No further analysis is required. 182

5. Earlier Analysis/References Incorporated by Reference Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits and encourages an environmental document to incorporate, by reference, other documents that provide relevant data. The documents summarized below are incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this Initial Study, where that information is relevant to the analysis of potential impacts of the Project. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at, or can be obtained through, the City of San Jacinto Planning Department.

SJGP City of San Jacinto. Envision San Jacinto General Plan 2040. November 2022. (Available at
https://www.sanjacintoca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10384345/File/City%20Gover nment/Community%20Development/Planning/General%20Plan%202040/Published% 20Envision%20San%20Jacinto_2024.pdf, accessed October 2024.) SJGP EIR City of San Jacinto, General Plan Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.2020120312), July 2022. (Available at
https://sanjacinto.generalplan.org/documents-amp-maps, accessed February 18, 2025.)
MC City of San Jacinto, Municipal Code, December 6, 2022. (Available at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanJacinto/#!/SanJacinto01/SanJacinto01.html, accessed February 12, 2025.)
SJV-MDP EIR Albert A. Webb Associates, Environmental Impact Report for the San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan and the San Jacinto Regional Area Drainage Plan Amendment (SJV-MDP) (State Clearinghouse Number 2009041077, certified by the San Jacinto City Council, January 14, 2013. (Available at City of San Jacinto Planning Department, 595 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, CA 92583.) SJV-MDP IS Albert A. Webb Associates, Environmental Checklist Form, San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan and the San Jacinto Regional Area Drainage Plan Amendment, April 13, 2009. (Included as Appendix A to the Environmental Impact Report for the San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan and the San Jacinto Regional Area Drainage Plan Amendment (SJV-MDP) (State Clearinghouse Number 2009041077), certified by the San Jacinto City Council, January 14, 2013. (Available at City of San Jacinto Planning Department, 595 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, CA 92583.) Additional reference materials that were used in the preparation of this Addendum include the following:

AE-A Applied Earthworks Inc., Cultural Resources Study for the San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan Line E, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. January 2024. (Appendix E)
AE-B Applied Earthworks Inc., Revised Paleontological Technical Memorandum for the Shea Properties- Sanderson Avenue Project, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. October 9, 2023. (Appendix F)
183
ALUC County of Riverside Airport Land Use Commission, Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted February 9, 2017. (Available at https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/2023-06/Hemet.pdf, accessed February 3, 2025.)
CalEEMod
Output
Albert A Webb Associates. CalEEMod Output. August 2024. (Included as Appendix C.)
Caltrans California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. (Available at https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013- a11y.pdf, accessed February 24, 2025.)
CARB-A California Air Resources Board, State and Federal Standard Area Designations webpage, November 2023. Available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-areadesignations, accessed October 21, 2024.

CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CalEEMod User Guide, Version 2022.1. April 2022. Available at https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/01_User%20Guide.pdf, accessed October 21, 2024.

CEC California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by Entity, 2022. Available at http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx, accessed October 2024.

Cortese California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). (Available at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE &site_type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WAS TE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29, accessed February 11, 2025.)
DOF Department of Finance, Table 2: E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State, January 2021-2024 with 2020 Benchmark. (Available at https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-population-estimates-forcities-counties-and-the-state-2021-2024-with-2020-census-benchmark/, accessed February 10, 2025.)
Energy Tables Albert A Webb Associates, Energy Tables, September 2024. (Included as Appendix G).

FTA Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. (Available at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-reportno-0123_0.pdf, accessed February 24, 2025.) FMMP California Department of Conservation - Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Farmland Map: Riverside County, 184
California. (Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed February 11, 2025.)
GLA-A Glen Lukos Associates, Inc., Biological Technical Report for San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan Line E, Located in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California, January 28, 2025. (Included as Appendix D.1.) GLA-B Glen Lukos Associates, Inc., Determination of Biologically Equivalent of Superior Preservation (DBESP) Analysis for Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan Line E, January 20, 2026. (Included as Appendix D.2.)
GLA-C Glen Lukos Associates, Inc., Jurisdictional Delineation of the Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line E Project, and Approximately 14,000 Linear-Foot Drainage Alignment in the City of San Jacinto Riverside County, California, October 30, 2024. (Included as Appendix H in Appendix D.1.)
GLA-D Glen Lukos Associates, Inc., Results of Focused Surveys for Crotch’s Bumble Bee Conducted for the MDP Line E Project, an Approximately 14,000 Linear-Foot Alignment in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California, August 14, 2025. (Included as Appendix D.3.)
Judgment Eastern Municipal Water District v. City of Hemet, et al. Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1207274 entered April 18, 2013. Available at https://www.emwd.org/post/hemet-san-jacinto-watermaster, accessed January 12, 2024.

Kleinfelder-A Kleinfelder, Structures Report, February 14, 2025. (Included as Appendix A.1.) Kleinfelder-B Kleinfelder, Draft Geotechnical Investigation Report, Dan Jacinto Line E Storm Drain, San Jacinto, California, February 13, 2025. (Included as Appendix A.2.) PDR Albert A. Webb Associates, Preliminary Design Report for Line E, San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan, May 15, 2025. (Available at Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 1995 Market Street, Riverside CA 92501.) ROUX-A Roux Associates Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment North Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, California, January 30, 2024. (Included as Appendix H.1)
ROUX-B Roux Associates Inc. Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report, Line E (Proposed Irrigation Channel), North Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, Riverside County, California, March 14, 2024. (Included as Appendix H.2) SCAQMD-A South Coast Air Quality Management District. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, May 2005. Available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/completeguidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=4, accessed October 2024. 185
SCAQMD-B South Coast Air Quality Management District. Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology, Revised July 2008. Available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds, accessed October 2024.

SCAQMD-C South Coast Air Quality Management District. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance, October 2008. Available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-6/ghg-meeting-6- guidance-document-discussion.pdf?sfvrsn=2, accessed October 2024.

USD San Jacinto Unified School District. District Sites 2022-2023. Available at https://4.files.edl.io/36b3/07/20/22/151729-f47375f4-ac59-4223-b89e904b64b6c14b.pdf, accessed January 15, 2025. 24002328.001A Page 1 of 4 February 14, 2025
© 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First Avenue, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039

S T R U C T U R E S R E P O R T
February 14, 2025
Kleinfelder Project No.: 24002328.001A
Mr. Eric Hays
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, California 92506
Subject: Structural Design of Line E Channel Crossing over MWD Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 San Jacinto, California
Introduc,on
This report discusses the development of a preliminary crossing design for the proposed Line E channel over the exis7ng Casa Loma Barrel No.1 Siphon operated by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). This report discusses the concepts considered for this crossing and why one concept was ul7mately chosen over the other. Addi7onally, this report presents the design criteria, plans for the preliminary crossing and the preliminary design calcula7ons. Finally, construc7on restric7ons and a preliminary construc7on work plan are discussed.

Crossing Concepts
Two concepts were developed for the proposed crossing. Both concepts support a reinforced concrete “relieving slab” isolated from the soil above the siphon by a 6-inch layer of polystyrene foam. The first concept is supported on shallow spread foo7ng founda7ons, and the second concept is supported on castin-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles. Preliminary geometries and dimensions for both concepts are presented in AAachment 1.

Concept 1: Relieving Slab on Spread Foo7ngs
This concept is more consistent with the MWD Detail SK-1 from the Guidelines for Improvements and Construcon Projects Proposed in the Area of Metropolitan’s Facilies and Right-of-Way. An advantage of this concept is that it simplifies the seAlement analysis by limi7ng the effects of the crossing structure on the global seAlement behavior. The primary drawback of this concept is that, due to the quality of the na7ve soil, the local seAlement beneath the crossing is higher than in Concept 2. One mi7ga7on method for this issue is to stage the construc7on to allow founda7on seAlement due to backfill and dead load to 24002328.001A Page 2 of 4 February 14, 2025
© 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First Avenue, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 occur prior to the placement of the channel liner. Using this methodology, differen7al seAlement between the crossing structure and the channel liner can be limited to under 1 inch. Another drawback of this concept is that it requires greater excava7on than Concept 2 which, in turn, can impose greater heave on the siphon during the construc7on sequence. The magnitude of this heave can be reduced by dividing up the foo7ng excava7on and placing segments of the foo7ngs prior to excava7ng the full length of the foo7ng.

Concept 2: Relieving Slab on CIDH Concrete Piles
This concept is supported on CIDH concrete piles that rely on skin fric7on along the length of the pile. The top por7on of these concrete piles are cased in a smooth steel casing to limit the transfer of the forces from the piles to the siphon. The main benefit of this concept is that the crossing seAlement can be reduced by increasing the pile length. Also, the overall structure width of Concept 2 is 14 feet less than Concept 1, allowing more room in the right of way for future MWD projects. One disadvantage of this concept is that, because the concrete piles are supported on deeper soil layers, the crossing structure may not necessarily seAle with the adjacent surface level structures. This means that if significant subsidence or liquefac7on occurs, the crossing structure may seAle less than the surrounding structures resul7ng in it ending higher than the adjacent liner. A transi7on slab was incorporated into this op7on to mi7gate this poten7al. Addi7onally, the installa7on of these piles has the poten7al to impose significant vibra7ons on the exis7ng siphon. Preliminary analysis using of Caltrans’ Transporta7on Construc7on Vibra7on Guidance Manual (April 2020) showed that drilling shaIs at this distance from the siphon without exceeding the sustained peak par7cle velocity limit of 0.5 in/sec set by MWD is feasible. It should be noted though, there is some uncertainty in this analysis given the variability of soils and equipment.

Proposed Crossing Design
Of the concepts considered, the relieving slab on shallow founda7ons (Concept 1) was chosen as the proposed crossing type. This crossing geometry was chosen because its main limita7ons, including large crossing seAlements and heave during excava7on, can be mi7gated to acceptable levels through construc7on staging. The CIDH concrete piles in Concept 2 present greater risk to the siphon during construc7on. Addi7onally, the possibility of the crossing rising above the adjacent channel lining due to the surrounding soil subsiding could infringe on the func7onality of the channel. Preliminary plans for the proposed crossing are provided in AAachment 4, and preliminary structural calcula7ons suppor7ng this design are provided in AAachment 5.

Design Criteria
The crossing is designed according to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifica7ons 8th Edi7on with Caltrans Amendments, dated August 2019 and Errata dated June 2024 as modified by the project specific Design Criteria Memo dated 01-12-2024 (provided in AAachment 2). In addi7on to the H-20 design vehicle discussed in the Design Criteria Memo, the an7cipated service vehicles used by Riverside County Flood Control, a Volvo EC300E Excavator (36.5 Ton) and a Caterpillar D6 Bulldozer (24.25 Ton), are also considered. These two addi7onal vehicles are treated as typical design vehicles, and their demand is 24002328.001A Page 3 of 4 February 14, 2025
© 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First Avenue, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 included in the live load envelopes for Strength IA and Service IA load combina7ons. The geometries for these vehicles are presented in AAachment 5.

Se.lement Analysis
A preliminary global seAlement analysis using PLAXIS 3D was conducted for both concepts and included the adjacent channel berms. This seAlement analysis calculated the displacement imposed on the exis7ng siphon due to the crossing structure and berm construc7on sequence along with the subsequent water and live loading on the crossing and the surrounding area. This analysis determined the necessity of using lightweight fill (preliminarily assumed 30 pcf maximum unit weight) for the channel berms within the vicinity of the siphon (see AAachment 3 for preliminary limits of lightweight fill). Based on this analysis the proposed crossing would sa7sfy the MWD limit of 0.25 inches of seAlement over 100 feet. This seAlement analysis is discussed in the Project Geotechnical Inves7ga7on Report.

Construc,on Restric,ons and Methods
Restric7ons must be placed on staging and methods of construc7on to mi7gate detrimental effects on the siphon during the construc7on of the crossing structure. These restric7ons will be introduced here.

Addi7onally, a preliminary work plan for the construc7on of this crossing is presented in AAachment 6.

Excava7on for the foo7ngs shall be conducted symmetrically on either side of the siphon. The excava7on and placement of the foo7ngs shall be broken into three stages to prevent excessive heave on the siphon.

Addi7onally, to limit vibra7onal impacts to the siphon, flowable backfill shall be used for backfilling the foo7ng. Placement of this backfill is to be conducted simultaneously on either side of the siphon and in front and behind the foo7ngs. A maximum difference in backfill depth of 1 foot is allowable in both loca7ons. Excava7on and backfill restric7ons are discussed in greater detail in the Project Geotechnical Inves7ga7on Report.

MWD requires any excava7on within 2 feet of the siphon to be performed with hand equipment. The foo7ngs are located such that the 1.5H:1V excava7on slope does not infringe in this 2-foot buffer zone.

The final cover over directly over the siphon is less than 2 feet and will require infringing on this buffer zone. As discussed in the preliminary work plan (AAachment 5) it is proposed that a vacuum truck be used to safely remove the soil in this region.

The formwork for the stem of the foo7ng shall be supported without bracing against the soil covering the siphon. This can be achieved by bracing against heel of the foo7ng and across to the stem formwork on the opposite side of the siphon. The base of the foo7ng may be poured neat against the sides of the excava7on.
24002328.001A Page 4 of 4 February 14, 2025
© 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First Avenue, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 List of A.achments
AAachment 1 – Conceptual Exhibits
AAachment 2 – Design Criteria Memo (Kleinfelder, 1-12-2024) AAachment 3 – Preliminary Lightweight Fill Limits
AAachment 4 – Preliminary Crossing Plans
AAachment 5 – Preliminary Crossing Calcula7ons
AAachment 6 – Preliminary Founda7on Work Plan
ATTACHMENT 1 - CONCEPT 1: SHALLOW FOUNDATION EXHIBIT
ATTACHMENT 1 - CONCEPT 2: DEEP FOUNDATION EXHIBIT
24002328.001A/SDI23M161435 Page 1 of 3 January 12, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First Avenue, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039

M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Eric Hays | Albert A. Webb Associates
FROM: Keith Gazaway | Kleinfelder
Jake Montgomery | Kleinfelder
DATE : January 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Shea Properties – Line E
Design Criteria Memo

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This design criteria memo pertains to the proposed crossing structure to span the exis;ng Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Siphon. The crossing is located just west of the city of San Jacinto in Riverside County, California where the proposed San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line E storm water channel crosses the exis;ng siphon. The purpose of the crossing structure is to prevent addi;onal loading on the exis;ng siphon due to channel loads including poten;al maintenance vehicles and water loads. The crossing structure will be placed where soil cover over the exis;ng siphon is reduced to under 4 feet or where warranted by the results of seClement analysis.

DESIGN METHODOLOGY
The crossing will be designed according to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifica;ons 8th Edi;on with Caltrans Amendments, dated August 2019 and Errata, dated October 2019 (AASHTO LRFD). Project specific requirements and modifica;ons will be listed in the following sec;ons. The Municipal Water District’s (MWD) “Improvement and Construc;on Guidelines” (dated July 2018) is incorporated into this design criteria.

DESIGN LOAD
The crossing structure will be designed to support a single H-20 truck design vehicle with a mul;ple presence factor of 1.0. The crossing will be designed to resist the weight of water loading; the water height will match the height of the adjacent canal berms for strength loads cases and will match the 100-year flood level for service load cases. Vehicle loading and water loading will not be considered concurrently.

Seismic loading will be checked to ensure the crossing structure does not impart addi;onal seismic surcharge on the exis;ng siphon. The applicable load combina;ons from the tables below will be used for the design of the crossing structures:

ATTACHMENT 2 - DESIGN CRITERIA MEMO (KLEINFELDER, 1-12-2024) 24002328.001A/SDI23M161435 Page 2 of 3 January 12, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First Avenue, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039

CROSSING LOAD COMBINATIONS
Load Combination DC, DD, DW, EH, EV,
ES, EL, PS, CR & SH *

LL, IM, CE,

BR, PL & LS WA TU EQ
Strength IA ϒp 1.75 0 0.5/1.2 0
Strength IB ϒp 0 1 0.5/1.2 0
Service IA 1 1 0 1.0/1.2 0
Service IB 1 0 1 1.0/1.2 0
Extreme I 1 0 0 0 1
*Load factors for permanent loads are based on AASTHTO LRFD Table 3.4.1-2

GEOMETRIC LIMITS
The crossing structure will be designed to provide a minimum of 6 inches of undisturbed soil over the top of the Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Siphon. Addi;onally, the crossing structure will be designed to allow for a compressible blanket, consis;ng of 6 inches of expanded polystyrene foam, to be placed between the boCom of the structure and top of the undisturbed soil. This compressible blanket will extend a minimum 1 foot past the edge of the exis;ng siphon. If foo;ngs are used for the crossing structure, the edge of the foo;ng will be offset a minimum of 5 feet from the outside of the exis;ng siphon and placed so that a line running at a 45-degree angle from the toe of foo;ng does not intersect the outside circumference of the exis;ng siphon. If driven pile founda;ons are used to support the crossing structure no por;on of the pile will infringe on a region within 20 feet of the center of the exis;ng siphon. If drilled micropile or cast-inplace pile founda;ons are used, no por;on of the pile will be placed within 5 feet of the outside of the exis;ng siphon. If pile founda;ons are used, the piles will be detailed to prevent down drag forces from being developed above the centerline of the exis;ng siphon.

DISPLACEMENT LIMITS
The maximum allowable differen;al seClement along the length of the exis;ng siphon will not exceed ¼ inch over 100 feet. Differen;al seClement between the crossing structure and the adjacent channel liner will not exceed 1 inch. The combined crossing long-term structural deforma;on, short-term structural deforma;ons and soil seClement will not exceed the thickness of the compressible blanket. Service load combina;ons will be used for the calcula;on of displacements.

CONCRETE COVER
AASHTO LRFD-CA Table 5.10.1-1 provides minimum concrete cover over reinforcement depending on the components and site condi;ons. Based on the geotechnical inves;ga;on this site is considered a nonmarine environment with non-corrosive soil. Therefore, where concrete components are adjacent to soil, a minimum concrete cover of 3 inches will be used. A minimum of 2 inches of cover will be used for any surface exposed to the channel flow. A minimum of 1.5 inches of cover will be used for surfaces adjacent to the polystyrene foam. Where necessary, according to Caltrans Memo to Designer 10-5, these minimum 24002328.001A/SDI23M161435 Page 3 of 3 January 12, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First Avenue, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 covers may be reduced by u;lizing epoxy coated rebar (ECR) and/or supplementary cemen;;ous materials (SCM). Cover may be reduced by ½ inch when using post-fabricated ECRs and 1 inch when using prefabricated ECRs and/or SCM. By no means will clear cover be reduced below 1 inch.

CRACK CONTROL
AASHTO LRFD Ar;cle 5.6.7 provides a check to limit crack width under service level loading. Two design levels are given: Class 1 applies to condi;ons where a wider crack width is acceptable due to reduced concerns of appearance and corrosion. Class 2 applies where reducing crack width is desirable to improve appearance and corrosion resistance. A Class 2 exposure factor will be used for an surfaces exposed to the channel flow. A Class 1 exposure factor will be used elsewhere.

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 WEBB
N
W E
S CASA LOMA BARREL NO. 1

MDP LINE E CONCRETE CHANNEL

CROSSING EXHIBIT
MH DIP
ELEV=1452.77
POTHOLE 02
ELEV=1450.29
POTHOLE 02
ELEV=1450.85
ATTACHMENT 3 - PRELIMINARY LIGHTWEIGHT FILL LIMITS
1470 1460 1450 144010991+25 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+001470 1460 1450 1440 MDP LINE E CONCRETE CHANNEL KLEINFELDER Bright people, Right Solutions. 770 First Ave, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel. (619) 831-4600 Kleinfelder.com NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 100 YR FLOOD ELEVATION -EL 1453.47' 6" THICK CONCRETE CHANNEL PAVING EXISTING GRADEEXISTING CASA LOMA BARREL 1 SIPHON 6" THICK CONCRETE CHANNEL PAVING 9" 5'-0" MAX 9" EDGE OF FOOTING N C BEARING L CROSSING SLAB EXPANSION JOINT C EXISTING CASA LOMA BARREL 1 SIPHON L 40' MAX JOINT SPACING 20' MIN JOINT SPACING NOTE: FOR "SECTION A-A" AND "SECTION B-B" SEE "CROSSING STRUCTURE DETAILS" SHEET PARTIAL PLAN VIEW SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" 31'-4" 28'-4" C BEARING L0.17% 6" EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM ± 1'-4" MIN AND VARIES SEE "SLAB BEARING DETAIL" ON "CROSSING STRUCTURE DETAILS" SHEET 6" THICK CONCRETE CHANNEL PAVING BOTTOM OF FOOTING - EL 1442.07' CROSSING FOOTING SEE "CROSSING FOOTING DETAIL" ON "CROSSING STRUCTURE DETAILS" SHEET ± 6'-0" ± 6'-0" FOOTING PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION C EXISTING CASA LOMA BARREL 1 SIPHON TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS: AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, 8TH EDITION 2017, AND THE CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS, PREFACE DATED APRIL 2019 WITH JUNE 2024 ERRATA CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: EXISTING CONDITIONS: BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES. CONCRETE: SLAB CONCRETE SHALL BE F'C = 5 KSI COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH @ 28 DAYS. FOOTING CONCRETE SHALL BE F'C = REINFORCING STEEL: ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A615 GRADE 60 CONSTRUCTION STAGING: EXCAVATION, FOOTING PLACEMENT AND BACKFILL SHALL BE CONDUCTED CONCURRENTLY AND SYMMETRICALLY ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SIPHON. A MAXIMUM DIFFERENCE OF 1 FOOT IS ALLOWED BETWEEN THE EXCAVATION, CONCRETE AND BACKFILL ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SIPHON. THE PLACEMENT OF THE ADJACENT CONCRETE LINER SHALL OCCUR NO LESS THAN 1 WEEK AFTER THE PLACEMENT OF THE CROSSING SLAB. BACKFILL: BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF MEDIUM WEIGHT FLOWABLE FILL (UNIT WEIGHT OF 85 PCF ±). BACKFILL ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FOOTING SHALL BE PLACED CONCURRENTLY AND SYMETRICALLY SO THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN FILL DEPTH IS NOT GREATER THAN 1 FOOT. S1 CROSSING ELEVATION SCALE: 1"=20'-0" A A B B CROSSING SLAB SEE "CROSSING SLAB DETAIL" ON "CROSSING STRUCTURE DETAILS" SHEET CROSSING SLAB SEE "CROSSING SLAB DETAIL" ON "CROSSING STRUCTURE DETAILS" SHEET 1 1 CROSSING STRUCTURE LAYOUT BEGIN STRUCTURE STA 10993 + 11.00 TOS WP = EL 1451.03' 67'-6" 68'-0" LIMITS OF CROSSING STRUCTURE 203'-0" 67'-6" FOOTING STAGE 1 - SEE NOTE 2 FOOTING STAGE 3 - SEE NOTE 2 FOOTING STAGE 2 - SEE NOTE 2 STA 10993 + 32.04 TOS WP= EL 1449.78' STA 10994 + 89.04 TOS WP= EL 1449.82' END STRUCTURE STA 10995 + 14 TOS WP = EL 1451.30' BOTTOM OF LIGHT WEIGHT FILL SHALL BE 1 FT BELOW EXISTING GRADE LIGHTWEIGHT FILL TYP -SEE NOTE 1 NOTES: 1) LIGHTWEIGHT FILL SHALL BE USED WHERE FILL ABOVE EXISTING GRADE IS REQUIRED WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE CASA LOMA BARREL 1 SIPHON. 2) THE FULL FOOTING SHALL BE PLACED IN EACH STAGE PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION ON THE SUBSEQUENT STAGE. L TOS WP GENERAL NOTES: T. 3 6KSI COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 28 DAYS. @ ATTACHMENT 4 - PRELIMINARY CROSSING PLANS MDP LINE E CONCRETE CHANNEL KLEINFELDER Bright people, Right Solutions. 770 First Ave, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel. (619) 831-4600 Kleinfelder.com NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2'-0"1'-0" #4 @ 12" 2'-0" 3/4" CHAMFER @ #5 @12" #5 @ 12" 6" S2 #6 @ 12" 2'-0" 10'-0" #5 @ 12"
3" TYP CROSSING FOOTING DETAIL SCALE: 3/4"=1'-0" 3/4" CHAMFER, TYP C BEARING L SEE "WATERSTOP DETAIL" CONCRETE CHANNEL PAVING 6" 6" 4" FILLET 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT FILLER EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM 6" 6" X 10" X 1/2" PLAIN ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD CROSSING SLAB6" EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM CROSSING FOOTING SLAB BEARING DETAIL SCALE: 1"=1'-0" #4 x 3'-0" @ 10" #5 @ 8" 9" #5 @ 6" #7 - TOTAL 4 4" FILLET
1'-2" #7 @ 8" #9 @ 6" #5 @ 12"
2" TYP
3" CLR CROSSING SLAB DETAIL SCALE: 3/4"=1'-0" 3/4" CHAMFER, TYP SEE "WATERSTOP DETAIL"6" CROSSING SLAB SECTION A-A SCALE: 1"=1'-0" 3/4" CHAMFER, TYP SEE "WATERSTOP DETAIL" CROSSING SLAB CONCRETE CHANNEL PAVING 6" 4" FILLET SECTION B-B SCALE: 1"=1'-0" 2 1/4" MIN 1/8" MIN THICKNESS 1/8"
MIN SEAL BETWEEN FILLER AND WATERSTOP WATERSTOP, SEE NOTE 1 AND 2 #3 BAR 1/2" MIN ±1/2" 2" #3 BAR
1" BONDING STRIP R=1/16" 1/2" PREMOLDED EXPANSION JOINT FILLER NOTES: 1) HOLES WILL BE PERMITTED IN THE OUTER 1/2" OF THE WEB FOR WIRE, RINGS, ETC. TIE WEB TO #3 REINFORCING BARS @ 12" MAXIMUM INTERVALS TO SUPPORT THE WATERSTOP IN PROPER POSITION DURING CONCRETE PLACEMENT. ALTERNATIVE DETAIL MAY BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. 2) WATERSTOP TO HAVE 5 OR MORE PARS OF RAISED RIBS TO PROVIDE 0.1 SQUARE INCH MINIMUM RIB CROSS-SECTION AREA ON EACH HALF OF THE WATERSTOP. WATERSTOP DETAIL NO SCALE CROSSING STRUCTURE DETAILS 4 12"
4 12" NOTE: FOR LOCATION OF "SECTION A-A" SEE "PARTIAL PLAN VIEW" DETAIL ON "CROSSING STRUCTURE LAYOUT" SHEET NOTE: FOR LOCATION OF "SECTION B-B" SEE "PARTIAL PLAN VIEW" DETAIL ON "CROSSING STRUCTURE LAYOUT" SHEET 9" 6" EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM 6" EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM #5 -TOTAL 5 #5 @ 6" 4'-0" #6 @ 12" #4 6" ATTACHMENT 4 - PRELIMINARY CROSSING PLANS Preliminary Design Calculations for the Line E
Crossing Structure Over Casa Loma Barrel No.1
Siphon 02/14/2025 Line E Storm Drain - San Jacinto, CA
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Project Information 1
2 Design Criteria 3
3 Materials 5
4 Geometry 7
5 Superstructure Design 10

5.1 Typical Sections 11

5.2 Superstructure Loads 13

5.3 Superstructure Design 18

5.4 Diaphragms 67
6 Substructure Design 81

6.1 Footing Sections 82

6.2 Substructure Loads 84

6.3 Footing Design 86

6.3.1 External Stability 87

6.3.2 Stem and Footing Design 110

6.4 Bearing Design 131
7 Seismic Design 134

7.1 Seismic Parameters 135

7.2 Structural Period 137

7.3 Slab Seismic Design 140

7.4 Footing Seismic Design 144

PROJECT

BRIDGE NAME
PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon
1 Project Information

BRIDGE NAME
1 Project: Shea Properties Originator: JRM
770 First Avenue, Suite 400, Project #: 20242328 Date: 11/07/2024 Sand Diego CA 92101 Subject: Project Information
Project Information
Project Discussion:

The San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Project involves the design of approximately 3-miles of storm drain channel in the City of San Jacinto, California. Near the end of this proposed storm drain channel it crosses the existing Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Siphon operated by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD).

The construction of this channel requires the removal of some cover over the existing siphon. MWD requires a relieving slab to be constructed over this siphon if the cover is reduced below 4 feet. In order to construct the proposed channel a crossing over this existing siphon must be designed to support both the channel water loading and channel service vehicles.

Location:

San Jacinto, California
Structure Type:
28’-4” Single span 1’-2” deep reinforced concrete slab supported on spread footings. 2 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon
2 Design Criteria

BRIDGE NAME
3 Project: Shea Properties Originator: JRM
770 First Avenue, Suite 400, Project #: 20242328 Date: 11/07/2024 Sand Diego CA 92101 Subject: Design Criteria
Design Criteria
• Project Design Criteria Memo Dated January 12, 2024
• AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition and the California amendments. Preface Dated April 2019 with June 2024 Errata.
• Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, Version 2.0 Dated April 2019 with October 2019 Interim Revisions (SDC)
• Caltrans Bridge Design Manuals
o Memo to Designers (MTD)
o Bridge Design Aids (BDA)
o Bridge Design Practice (BDP)
o Bridge Design Details (BDD)
o Bridge Design Memos (BDM)
o Structure Technical Policies (STPS)
4 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon
3 Materials

BRIDGE NAME
5 Project: Shea Properties Originator: JRM
770 First Avenue, Suite 400, Project #: 20242328 Date: 11/07/2024 Sand Diego CA 92101 Subject: Materials
Materials
Concrete:

Superstructure:

= 5
Substructure:

= 3.6
Reinforcing Steel:

Grade 60:

= 60
= 29000
6 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon
4 Geometry

BRIDGE NAME
7 770 First Avenue, Suite 400,
Sand Diego CA 92101
Project: Shea Properties
Project #:

Subject:

Originator:JRM
24002328
Date:

Geometry
11/7/2024
8 770 First Avenue, Suite 400,
Sand Diego CA 92101
Project: Shea Properties
Project #:

Subject:

Originator:JRM
24002328
Date:

Geometry
11/7/2024
9 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon
5 Superstructure Design

BRIDGE NAME
10 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

5.1 Typical Sections

BRIDGE NAME
11 770 First Avenue, Suite 400,
Sand Diego CA 92101
Project: Shea Properties
Project #:

Subject:

Originator:JRM
24002328
Date:

Typical Sections
11/7/2024
12 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

5.2 Superstructure Loads

BRIDGE NAME
13 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Design Vehicles
H-20 Design Vehicle
14 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Design Vehicles
Excavator:
15 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Design Vehicles
Bulldozer:
16 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Water Loading
ELHGL 1453.5 ft 100 yr flood hydraulic grade line
ELtp,channel 1455.2 ft Elevation at top of the channel berm ELbtm,channel 1449.8 ft Elevation at bottom of the channel hw,ser 3.7 ft ELHGL - ELbtm,channel Water level for service level load cases hw,str 5.3 ft ELHGL - ELtp,channel Water level for strength level load cases 17 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

5.3 Superstructure Design

BRIDGE NAME
18 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Included in these calculations are checks for:
+Flexure
+Minimum Reinforcement
+Crack Control
+Shear
+Longitudinal Reinforcement (Combined Shear-Flexure)
+Deflection
+Distribution Reinforcement
+Temperature and Shrinkage
Section:

W≔40 ft Max expansion joint spacing
S≔28 ft+4 in=28.33 ft Span length
dcl_brg≔6 in Distance to bearing CL
d≔14 in Slab depth
dhnch≔4 in Haunch depth
Lhnch≔dhnch=0.333 ft Length haunch
Wseat≔1 ft Seat width
Equivalent strip width For Box Culverts, AASHTO 4.6.2.10.2:

E≔96 in +1.44 ―⋅ =
S
ft
in 11.4 ft
b≔E=11.4 ft Section width
19 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Material Properties:
f'c≔5 ksi Nominal Concrete strength
β1≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.85,0.85 0.05 -
⎛
⎜
⎝
――-
f'c
ksi
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.8 AASHTO 2017, 5.6.2.2
Concrete unit weight (AASHTO
2017, Table 3.5.1-1): γc_ur≔max ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.14+0.001⋅――
f'c
ksi
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.145
⎞
⎟
⎠
kip ft-3 145 pcf
AASHTO 2017, EQ 5.4.2.4-1 Ec≔33000⋅ ⋅ ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――
γc_ur
kip⋅ ft-3
⎞
⎟
⎠

1.5 ‾f'‾c ksi0.5 4074 ksi Concrete modulus of elasticity γc≔max⎛
⎝γc_ur+0.005 kip ⋅ ft , =
-3 150 pcf⎞
⎠ 150 pcf
Es≔29000 ksi Steel modulus of elasticity
n≔round =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―
Es
Ec
⎞
⎟
⎠
7 γw≔62.4 pcf
γs≔125 pcf
SAP2000 Model
20 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Slab Demands:
+Live Load Demand:

MH20_IM ≔306 kip⋅ ft Max moment at mid-span of slab
VH20_IM ≔47.0 kip Max shear
Mp≔1.0 Multiple presence factor (1 per design
criteria report)
MLL_IM ≔Mp⋅max⎛
⎝MH20_IM⎞⎠=306 kip⋅ ft
VLL_IM ≔Mp⋅max⎛
⎝VH20_IM⎞⎠=47 kip
Shear Diagram from SAP2000:

Moment Diagram from SAP2000:
21 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+Dead Load Demand:
wDC≔d E γ ⋅ ⋅ c=1.995 klf
Vslab≔d E γ ⋅ ⋅ c⋅ ((0.5 ⋅S))=28.263 kip
Vhnch≔0.5 dhnch ⋅E γ⋅ c⋅Lhnch=0.095 kip
Vend≔dhnch ⋅E γ⋅ c⋅dcl_brg=0.285 kip
VDC≔Vslab+Vhnch+Vend=28.643 kip
MDC≔Vslab ⋅ + + =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―S
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
V ⋅ hnch
⎛
⎜
⎝
――+
Lhnch
3 dcl_brg
⎞
⎟
⎠
V ⋅ end
⎛
⎜
⎝
――
dcl_brg
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠
200.32 kip ⋅ ft
+Water Demand:
hw_ser≔3.7 ft
hw_str≔5.3 ft
ww_ser≔hw_ser ⋅E γ⋅ w =2.632 klf
ww_str≔hw_str ⋅E γ⋅ w =3.77 klf
MWA_ser≔――――=
ww_ser ⋅S
2 8
264.117 kip ⋅ ft
MWA_str≔――――=
ww_str ⋅S
2 8
378.33 kip ⋅ ft
VWA_str≔―――=
ww_str ⋅S
2 53.411 kip
22 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Load Combinations:

MsA≔MLL_IM MDC =+ 506.3 kip ⋅ ft
MsB≔MWA_ser+MDC =464.4 kip⋅ ft
MuA≔1.75⋅MLL_IM +1.25 ⋅MDC =785.9 kip ⋅ ft
MuB≔1.0⋅MWA_str+1.25 ⋅MDC =628.7 kip ⋅ ft
Nu≔0 kip
VuA≔1.75 ⋅VLL_IM +1.25⋅VDC =118.1 kip
VuB≔1.0⋅VWA_str+1.25⋅VDC =89.2 kip
Mu≔max⎛
⎝MuA ,MuB⎞⎠=785.9 kip ⋅ ft
Ms≔max⎛
⎝MsA ,MsB⎞⎠=506.3 kip⋅ ft
Vu≔max⎛
⎝VuA ,VuB⎞⎠=118.1 kip
Resistance Factors:
ϕf≔0.9
ϕc≔0.75
ϕv≔0.9
23 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+In-Plane Flexural Calculations:

Longitudinal Reinforcement:
#9s @ 6":
bsz≔9 Bar size
s≔6 in Bar spacing
nb≔1 Bars per bundle
As≔E⋅――――=
nb Abar ⎛
⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
s

22.8 in2Area of longitudinal reinforcement
fy≔60 ksi Nominal yield stress of
longitudinal reinforcement
dc1≔2 in Cover on longitudinal
reinforcement
ds≔d-⎛
⎝dc1+0.5 dba ⎛⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠=11.375 in Depth to CG of
reinforcement layers.

Concrete Compression Block (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.1.1):
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fy
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

2.94 in AASHTO 2012, 5.7.3.1.1-4
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.0086
fs1≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fs1
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

2.94 in
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.009
fs2≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
fs≔fs2
a≔β1⋅ c=2.35 in Depth of equivalent stress block.
24 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Flexural Resistance Factor (AASHTO 2017, 5.5.4.2 & 5.6.2.1) εcl≔0.002+((0.004 0.002 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-60 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 60 ksi))

0.002
εtl≔0.005+((0.008 0.005 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-75 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 75 ksi))

0.0032
ϕf≔max =
⎛
⎜
⎝
min ,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.75+―――――,

0.15 ⎛
⎝εt-εcl⎞⎠
εtl-εcl

0.9 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.75 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.9 Flexural Resistance (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.2):

Mn≔As⋅ fs⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
ds-―a
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠
1163 kip ⋅ ft
DCM3≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Mu
⎞
⎠
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.751 <1, OK
25 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Minimum Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.3):
d=1.167 ft b=11.4 ft f'c=5 ksi
γ1≔1.6 Flexural Cracking Variability Factor (All other concrete structures) γ2≔0 Prestress Variability Factor (N/A)
γ3≔0.75 Yield:Ultimate Ratio (A706, Gr.60)
Sc≔――=
d ⋅
2 b
6 4469 in3 Gross Section Modulus
Snc≔Sc Full Section is Monolithic
fr≔0.24⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi =

0.5 0.537 ksi
fcpe_btm ≔0 ksi
Mcr≔γ3⋅ ⎛
⎝
⎛
⎝γ1
⋅ fr+γ2⋅ fcpe_btm⎞
⎠
⋅Sc
⎞
⎠=240 kip ⋅ ft
Mu=785.9 kip ⋅ ft
Mr_min≔min⎛
⎝abs ⎛⎝1.33⋅Mu
⎞
⎠
,Mcr
⎞
⎠=240 kip ⋅ ft
ϕf⋅Mn=1046 kip ⋅ ft
DCMinR_neg≔―――=
Mr_min
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.229 <1, OK
26 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Crack Control by Distribution of Reinforcing (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.7) - Negative Flexure:
s1≔s=6 in Spacing of flexure steel
Ms=506.322 kip ⋅ ft
ds=11.375 in
b=136.8 in
n=7
dc≔d d - s=2.625 in
h≔d=1.167 ft
βs≔1+――――=
dc

0.7 ⎛
⎝h d - c
⎞
⎠

1.33 γe≔0.75 Assume Exposure Class 2, corrosion potential for rectangular sections: =0 ――――+ +
-b ⋅ cap yrec
2 2
n A⋅ s1 ⎛
⎝ds1_n-yrec
⎞
⎠ n A⋅ s2 ⎛⎝ds2_n -yrec
⎞
⎠
ao≔―-b―2
bo≔-n A⋅ s As=22.8 in2
co≔n⋅ ⎛
⎝A ⋅ s ds
⎞
⎠
y≔―――――――=
bo-- ‾‾‾-‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ bo
2 4⋅a ⋅ oco
⋅2 ao

4.116 in
Ieff≔――+ =
b y⋅
3 3
n⋅
⎛
⎝A ⋅ s
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
2 ⎞
⎠ 11590 in4
fss≔abs =
⎛
⎜
⎝
n⋅――――
M ⋅ s
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
Ieff
⎞
⎟
⎠

26.64 ksi Stress in flexure steel at service loading
smax≔ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
――――-
700 γ ⋅ e ksi
β ⋅ s fss
2 ――
dc
1 in
⎞
⎟
⎠
in 9.571 in
DCCrC≔――=
s1
smax

0.627 <1, OK
27 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Maximum Shear:

Demands at Section:

Vu=118.053 kip Vertical shear force on section
+ Shear Calculations:

Transverse Steel:

No steel provided
d Calculation: v
fy=60 ksi As=22.8 in2ds=11.375 in
dv1≔0.72⋅ ((d))=10.08 in
dv2≔0.9⋅ ⎛
⎝ds
⎞
⎠=10.24 in
dv≔max⎛
⎝dv1 ,dv2⎞⎠=10.24 in
Vc and Vs calculations (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
f'c=5 ksi
bv≔b=136.8 in
θ≔45 deg
β≔2.0
Vs≔0 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-4)
Vc≔0.0316⋅β⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi ⋅ ⋅ =

0.5 bv dv 198 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-3)
Shear Capacity Calculation (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
ϕVn1≔ϕv⋅0.25⋅ f'c⋅ bv⋅dv=1576 kip
ϕVn2≔ϕv⋅ ⎛
⎝Vs+Vc
⎞
⎠=178 kip
ϕVn ≔min⎛
⎝ϕVn1 ,ϕVn2⎞⎠=178.1 kip
DCR≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Vu
⎞
⎠
ϕVn

0.663 <1, OK
28 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+Longitudinal Reinforcement Calculation:

Longitudinal Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.5):

The span is simply supported, the longitudinal reinforcement equation at the end is modified according to 5.7.3.5-2
Shear/Torsion Component:

Vu=118.053 kip Vs=0 kip Vp≔0 kip
Vs≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――,
abs ⎛
⎝Vu
⎞
⎠
ϕv
Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
0 kip
DV≔cot ((θ)) ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
-
|
|
|
―+
Vu
ϕv
Vp
|
|
|

0.5⋅Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
131 kip
Capacity Check:

As=22.8 in2fy=60 ksi
C≔As⋅ fy=1368 kip
――=
DV
C

0.096 <1, OK
29 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+Deflections:

Effective Moment of Inertia AASHTO LRFD 5.6.3.5.2
Ig≔――=
b d⋅
3 12
⎛
⎝3.128 10 ⋅
4 ⎞
⎠ in4
yt≔0.5⋅d=7 in
fr=536.656 psi
Mcr≔f =⋅ r ―
Ig
yt
199.851 ⋅ kip ft
――=
Ieff
Ig

0.37 Ma≔Ms=506.322 kip ⋅ ft
Icr≔Ieff=11589.551 in4
Ie≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝
⋅ + ,
⎛
⎜
⎝
――
Mcr
Ma
⎞
⎟
⎠
Ig
⎛
⎜
⎝
1-
⎛
⎜
⎝
――
Mcr
Ma
⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠
Icr Ig
⎞
⎟
⎠
⎛
⎝1.936 10 ⋅
4 ⎞
⎠ in4
Imod≔―=
Ie
Ig

0.619
b'sz≔5
s'≔12 in
A's≔E⋅―――=
Abar ⎛
⎝b'sz
⎞
⎠
s'

3.53 in2
δDL≔0.367 in Instantaneous dead load deflections based on effective section properties
δLL≔0.462 in Live load deflections based on effective section properties H-20
δWA_ser≔0.484 in Water load deflections based on effective section properties nmag≔max =
⎛
⎜
⎝
3 1.2 - ,
⎛
⎜
⎝
――
A's
As
⎞
⎟
⎠

1.6 ⎞
⎟
⎠

2.814
δTotal_LT≔max⎛
⎝δLL+nmag ⋅ δDL , δWA_ser+nmag ⋅ δDL⎞⎠=1.517 in
δsettle_Net≔1 in Settlement after placement of foundation and backfill δTotal≔δTotal_LT+δsettle_Net=2.517 in <6 in, OK
30 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Distribution Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 9.7.3.2):

Primary reinforcement is perpendicular to traffic:

Pdist≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎜⎝
―――――,
220
100 ‾‾‾‾‾‾ S⋅ ft-1
%67
⎞
⎟
⎟⎠
%41.33
Adist_req≔Pdist⋅――=
⎛
⎝As
⎞
⎠
E

0.827 ―in ―
2 ft
Use #7 @ 9"
Abar_dist≔Abar ((7))=0.6 in2
sdist≔8 in
Adist≔―――=
Abar_dist
sdist

0.9 ―in ―
2 ft
DCRdist≔―――=
Adist_req
Adist

0.918 <1, OK
31 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Longitudinal
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Temperature and Shrinkage (AASHTO LRFD 2017, 5.10.6):

By inspection the #5@12 T&S in the 12" slab over the 14" fuel line will control, check this case.
dcl_brg=0.5 ft
Lslb≔S+2 ⋅ ⎛
⎝2 ft-dcl_brg⎞⎠=31.333 ft
b0≔min⎛
⎝W L,slb⎞⎠
⋅in =
-1 376 Slab width (inches)
h0≔d⋅in =
-1 14 Slab thickness (inches)
fy0≔60
As_min≔ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――――

1.3⋅ b ⋅ 0 h0
⎛
⎝b0+h0
⎞
⎠
⋅⋅2 fy0
⎞
⎟
⎠
―in ―
2 ft

0.146 ―in ―
2 ft
Transverse reinforcement (#5s @ 12" spacing)
bsz≔5
As_0≔Abar ⎛
⎝bsz
⎞
⎠=0.31 in2
s0≔12 in
As0≔――=
As_0
s0

0.31 ―in ―
2 ft
―――=
As_min
As0

0.472 <1, OK
32 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Included in these calculations are checks for:
+Flexure
+Minimum Reinforcement
+Crack Control
+Shear
+Longitudinal Reinforcement (Combined Shear-Flexure)
+Deflection
Section:

S≔28 ft+4 in=28.33 ft Span length
dcl_brg≔6 in Distance to bearing CL
d≔14 in Slab depth
dhnch≔4 in Haunch depth
Lhnch≔dhnch=4 in Length haunch
Wseat≔1 ft Seat width
Equivalent strip width, per AASHTO Article 4.6.2.10.3, when traffic travels perpendicular to the span the provisions of Article 4.6.2.1 should be used. due to its length it is assumed he slab will be placed in sections creating joints perpendicular to the direction of traffic. To account for this only half the effective width is used per 4.6.2.1.4c.

Ep≔0.5 =
⎛
⎜
⎝
26 in+6.6 ―⋅
S
ft
in
⎞
⎟
⎠

8.875 ft
b≔Ep=8.875 ft Section width
33 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Material Properties:
f'c≔5 ksi Nominal Concrete strength
β1≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.85,0.85 0.05 -
⎛
⎜
⎝
――-
f'c
ksi
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.8 AASHTO 2017, 5.6.2.2
Concrete unit weight (AASHTO
2017, Table 3.5.1-1): γc_ur≔max ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.14+0.001⋅――
f'c
ksi
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.145
⎞
⎟
⎠
kip ft-3 145 pcf
AASHTO 2017, EQ 5.4.2.4-1 Ec≔33000⋅ ⋅ ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――
γc_ur
kip⋅ ft-3
⎞
⎟
⎠

1.5 ‾f'‾c ksi0.5 4074 ksi Concrete modulus of elasticity γc≔max⎛
⎝γc_ur+0.005 kip ⋅ ft , =
-3 150 pcf⎞
⎠ 150 pcf
Es≔29000 ksi Steel modulus of elasticity
γw≔62.4 pcf
γs≔125 pcf
SAP2000 Model
34 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Demands Positive Reinforcement:
+Live Load Demand:

MH20_IM ≔241 kip⋅ ft Max moment at mid-span of slab
VH20_IM ≔37.3 kip Max shear
Mp≔1.0 Multiple presence factor (1 per
design criteria report)
MLL_IM ≔Mp⋅max⎛
⎝MH20_IM⎞⎠=241 kip⋅ ft
VLL_IM ≔Mp⋅max⎛
⎝VH20_IM⎞⎠=37.3 kip
Shear Diagram from SAP2000:

Moment Diagram from SAP2000:
35 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+Dead Load Demand:
wDC≔d E⋅ p⋅γc=1.553 klf
Vslab≔d E⋅ p⋅γc⋅ ((0.5 ⋅S))=22.003 kip
Vhnch≔0.5 dhnch ⋅Ep⋅γc⋅Lhnch=0.074 kip
Vend≔dhnch ⋅Ep⋅γc⋅dcl_brg=0.222 kip
VDC≔Vslab+Vhnch+Vend=22.298 kip
MDC≔Vslab ⋅ + + =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―S
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
V ⋅ hnch
⎛
⎜
⎝
――+
Lhnch
3 dcl_brg
⎞
⎟
⎠
V ⋅ end
⎛
⎜
⎝
――
dcl_brg
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠
155.952 kip ⋅ ft
+Water Demand:
hw_ser≔3.7 ft
hw_str≔5.3 ft
ww_ser≔hw_ser ⋅Ep⋅γw =2.049 klf
ww_str≔hw_str ⋅Ep⋅γw =2.935 klf
MWA_ser≔――――=
ww_ser ⋅S
2 8
205.617 kip ⋅ ft
MWA_str≔――――=
ww_str ⋅S
2 8
294.533 kip ⋅ ft
VWA_str≔―――=
ww_str ⋅S
2 41.581 kip
36 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Load Combinations:

MsA≔MLL_IM MDC =+ 397 kip⋅ ft
MsB≔MWA_ser+MDC =361.6 kip⋅ ft
MuA≔1.75⋅MLL_IM +1.25 ⋅MDC =616.7 kip ⋅ ft
MuB≔1.0⋅MWA_str+1.25 ⋅MDC =489.5 kip ⋅ ft
Nu≔0 kip
VuA≔1.75 ⋅VLL_IM +1.25⋅VDC =93.1 kip
VuB≔1.0⋅VWA_str+1.25⋅VDC =69.5 kip
Mu≔max⎛
⎝MuA ,MuB⎞⎠=616.691 kip ⋅ ft
Ms≔max⎛
⎝MsA ,MsB⎞⎠=396.952 kip⋅ ft
Vu_max≔max⎛
⎝VuA ,VuB⎞⎠=93.148 kip
Resistance Factors:
ϕf≔0.9
ϕc≔0.75
ϕv≔0.9
37 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+In-Plane Flexural Calculations:

Longitudinal Reinforcement:
9s @ 6":
bsz≔9 Bar size
s≔6 in Bar spacing
nb≔1 Bars per bundle
As≔E =⋅ p ――――
nb Abar ⎛
⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
s

17.75 in2Area of longitudinal reinforcement
fy≔60 ksi Nominal yield stress of
longitudinal reinforcement
dc1≔2 in Cover on longitudinal
reinforcement
ds≔d-⎛
⎝dc1+0.5 dba ⎛⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠=11.375 in Depth to CG of
reinforcement layers.

Concrete Compression Block (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.1.1):
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fy
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

2.94 in AASHTO 2012, 5.7.3.1.1-4
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.0086
fs1≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fs1
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

2.94 in
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.009
fs2≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
fs≔fs2
a≔β1⋅ c=2.35 in Depth of equivalent stress block.
38 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Flexural Resistance Factor (AASHTO 2017, 5.5.4.2 & 5.6.2.1) εcl≔0.002+((0.004 0.002 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-60 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 60 ksi))

0.002
εtl≔0.005+((0.008 0.005 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-75 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 75 ksi))

0.0032
ϕf≔max =
⎛
⎜
⎝
min ,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.75+―――――,

0.15 ⎛
⎝εt-εcl⎞⎠
εtl-εcl

0.9 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.75 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.9 Flexural Resistance (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.2):

Mn≔As⋅ fs⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
ds-―a
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠
905 kip ⋅ ft
DCM3≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Mu
⎞
⎠
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.757 <1, OK
39 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Minimum Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.3):
d=1.167 ft b=8.875 ft f'c=5 ksi
γ1≔1.6 Flexural Cracking Variability Factor (other concrete structures) γ2≔0 Prestress Variability Factor (N/A)
γ3≔0.75 Yield:Ultimate Ratio (A706, Gr.75)
Sc≔――=
d ⋅
2 b
6 3479 in3 Gross Section Modulus
Snc≔Sc Full Section is Monolithic
fr≔0.24⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi =

0.5 0.537 ksi
fcpe_btm ≔0 ksi
Mcr≔γ3⋅ ⎛
⎝
⎛
⎝γ1
⋅ fr+γ2⋅ fcpe_btm⎞
⎠
⋅Sc
⎞
⎠=187 kip ⋅ ft
Mu=616.7 kip ⋅ ft
Mr_min≔min⎛
⎝abs ⎛⎝1.33⋅Mu
⎞
⎠
,Mcr
⎞
⎠=187 kip ⋅ ft
ϕf⋅Mn=815 kip ⋅ ft
DCMinR_neg≔―――=
Mr_min
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.229 <1, OK
40 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Crack Control by Distribution of Reinforcing (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.7) - Negative Flexure:
s1≔s=6 in Spacing of flexure steel
Ms=396.952 kip ⋅ ft
ds=11.375 in
b=106.5 in
n≔round =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―
Es
Ec
⎞
⎟
⎠
7 n=7
dc≔d d - s=2.625 in
h≔d=1.167 ft
βs≔1+――――=
dc

0.7 ⎛
⎝h d - c
⎞
⎠

1.33 γe≔1.0 Assume Exposure Class 2, corrosion potential for rectangular sections: =0 ――――+ +
-b ⋅ cap yrec
2 2
n A⋅ s1 ⎛
⎝ds1_n-yrec
⎞
⎠ n A⋅ s2 ⎛⎝ds2_n -yrec
⎞
⎠
ao≔―-b―2
bo≔-n A⋅ s
co≔n⋅ ⎛
⎝A ⋅ s ds
⎞
⎠
y≔―――――――=
bo-- ‾‾‾-‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ bo
2 4⋅a ⋅ oco
⋅2 ao

4.116 in
Ieff≔――+ =
b y⋅
3 3
n⋅
⎛
⎝A ⋅ s
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
2 ⎞
⎠ 9023 in4
fss≔abs =
⎛
⎜
⎝
n⋅――――
M ⋅ s
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
Ieff
⎞
⎟
⎠

26.828 ksi Stress in flexure steel at service loading
smax≔ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
――――-
700 γ ⋅ e ksi
β ⋅ s fss
2 ――
dc
1 in
⎞
⎟
⎠
in 14.373 in
DCCrC≔――=
s1
smax

0.417 <1, OK
41 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Maximum Shear:

Demands at Section:

Vu_max=93.148 kip Vertical shear force on section
+ Shear Calculations:

Transverse Steel:

No steel provided
d Calculation: v
fy=60 ksi As=17.75 in2ds=11.375 in
dv1≔0.72⋅ ((d))=10.08 in
dv2≔0.9⋅ ⎛
⎝ds
⎞
⎠=10.24 in
dv≔max⎛
⎝dv1 ,dv2⎞⎠=10.24 in
Vc and Vs calculations (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
f'c=5 ksi
bv≔b=106.5 in
θ≔45 deg
β≔2.0
Vs≔0 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-4)
Vc≔0.0316⋅β⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi ⋅ ⋅ =

0.5 bv dv 154 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-3)
Shear Capacity Calculation (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
ϕVn1≔ϕv⋅0.25⋅ f'c⋅ bv⋅dv=1227 kip
ϕVn2≔ϕv⋅ ⎛
⎝Vs+Vc
⎞
⎠=139 kip
ϕVn ≔min⎛
⎝ϕVn1 ,ϕVn2⎞⎠=138.7 kip
DCR≔――――=
abs ⎛
⎝Vu_max
⎞
⎠
ϕVn

0.672 <1, OK
42 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Longitudinal Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.5):

The span is simply supported, the longitudinal reinforcement equation at the end is modified according to 5.7.3.5-2
Shear/Torsion Component:

Vu_max=93.148 kip Vs=0 kip Vp≔0 kip
Vs≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝
――――,
abs ⎛
⎝Vu_max
⎞
⎠
ϕv
Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
0 kip
DV≔cot ((θ)) ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
-
|
|
|
―――+
Vu_max
ϕv
Vp
|
|
|
⋅0.5 Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
103 kip
Capacity Check:

As=17.75 in2fy=60 ksi
C≔As⋅ fy=1065 kip
――=
DV
C

0.097 <1, OK
43 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - H20 - Transverse
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+Deflections:

Effective Moment of Inertia AASHTO LRFD 5.6.3.5.2
Ig≔――=
b d⋅
3 12
⎛
⎝2.435 10 ⋅
4 ⎞
⎠ in4
yt≔0.5⋅d=7 in
fr=536.656 psi
Mcr≔f =⋅ r ―
Ig
yt
155.586 ⋅ kip ft
――=
Ieff
Ig

0.37 Ma≔Ms=396.952 kip ⋅ ft
Icr≔Ieff=9022.567 in4
Ie≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝
⋅ + ,
⎛
⎜
⎝
――
Mcr
Ma
⎞
⎟
⎠
Ig
⎛
⎜
⎝
1-
⎛
⎜
⎝
――
Mcr
Ma
⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠
Icr Ig
⎞
⎟
⎠
⎛
⎝1.503 10 ⋅
4 ⎞
⎠ in4
Imod≔―=
Ie
Ig

0.617
b'sz≔5
s'≔12 in
A's≔E =⋅ p ―――
Abar ⎛
⎝b'sz
⎞
⎠
s'

2.75 in2
δDL≔0.367 in Instantaneous dead load deflections based on effective section properties
δLL≔0.540 in Live load deflections based on effective section properties
δWA_ser≔0.484 in Water load deflections based on effective section properties
nmag≔max =
⎛
⎜
⎝
3 1.2 - ,
⎛
⎜
⎝
――
A's
As
⎞
⎟
⎠

1.6 ⎞
⎟
⎠

2.814
δTotal_LT≔max⎛
⎝δLL+nmag ⋅ δDL , δWA_ser+nmag ⋅ δDL⎞⎠=1.573 in
δsettle_Net≔1 in Settlement after placement of foundation and backfill
δTotal≔δTotal_LT+δsettle_Net=2.573 in <6 in, OK
44 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Slab Design - Excavator and Bulldozer
Included in these calculations are checks for:
+Flexure
+Minimum Reinforcement
+Crack Control
+Shear
+Longitudinal Reinforcement (Combined Shear-Flexure)
Analysis:

The excavator and bulldozer vehicles that will be used to service this channel have a axle widths and patch loadings inconsistent with the standard AASHTO design vehicles.

Because of this the equivalent strip width methodolgy used elsewhere in these calculations is not appropriate. To analyze the force effects of these vehicles an shell model is created in SAP2000. This model uses thick shell elements with a 5" mesh size.

The slab is supported by pins at the center of the bearings. Area loads are applied on the slab over the area of the track. The excavator and bulldozer are placed longitudinally and tranversely on the slab as shown on the following sheets. 45 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Section:

S≔ ft 4 in=+28 28.33 ft Span length
dcl_brg≔6 in Distance to bearing CL
d≔14 in Slab depth
dhnch≔4 in Haunch depth
Lhnch≔dhnch=4 in Length haunch
Wseat≔1 ft Seat width
E≔1 ft Design strip width
b≔E=1 ft Section width
46 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Material Properties:
f'c≔5 ksi Nominal Concrete strength
β1≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.85,0.85 0.05 -
⎛
⎜
⎝
――-
f'c
ksi
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.8 AASHTO 2017, 5.6.2.2
Concrete unit weight (AASHTO
2017, Table 3.5.1-1): γc_ur≔max ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.14+0.001⋅――
f'c
ksi
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.145
⎞
⎟
⎠
kip ft-3 145 pcf
AASHTO 2017, EQ 5.4.2.4-1 Ec≔33000⋅ ⋅ ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――
γc_ur
kip⋅ ft-3
⎞
⎟
⎠

1.5 ‾f'‾c ksi0.5 4074 ksi Concrete modulus of elasticity γc≔max⎛
⎝γc_ur+0.005 kip ⋅ ft , =
-3 150 pcf⎞
⎠ 150 pcf
Es≔29000 ksi Steel modulus of elasticity
n≔round =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―
Es
Ec
⎞
⎟
⎠
7 γw≔62.4 pcf
γs≔125 pcf
47 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Vehicle Pressures:

Excavator Track Pressures:

Pex≔72.94 kip
Wtrac≔24 in
Ltrac_ex≔158 in
pex≔―――――=
Pex
Wtrac ⋅2 Ltrac_ex

1.385 ksf
Bulldozer Track Pressures:

Pbd≔48.5 kip
Wtrac=24 in
Ltrac_bd≔116.7 in
pbd≔―――――=
Pbd
2 W ⋅ trac Ltrac_bd

1.247 ksf
48 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Maximum Moment - Excavator Patch Loads:

Calculate the distance from the centerline of bearing to the centerline of track producing the maximum moment for the transverse loading scenerio.

S=28.333 ft
daxle_ex≔8.5 ft
dtrack1≔―――――=
daxle_ex-2 ⋅S
-4

12.042 ft
Excavator - Longitudinal Excavator - Transverse
49 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Maximum Moment - Bulldozer Patch Loads:

Calculate the distance from the centerline of bearing to the centerline of track producing the maximum moment for the transverse loading scenerio.

S=28.333 ft
daxle_bd≔6.33 ft
dtrack1_bd≔―――――=
daxle_bd-2⋅S
-4

12.584 ft
Bulldozer - Longitudinal Bulldozer - Transverse
First Track ~12'-6" from CL Bearing
50 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Maximum Shear - Excavator and Bulldozer Patch Loads:

Excavator - Longitudinal - Max Shear Excavator - Transverse - Max Shear Bulldozer - Longitudinal - Max Shear Bulldozer - Transverse - Max Shear 51 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Excavator - Longitudinal - Moment Excavator - Transverse - Moment Bulldozer - Longitudinal - Moment Bulldozer - Transverse - Moment 52 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Excavator - Longitudinal - Shear Excavator - Transverse - Shear Bulldozer - Longitudinal - Shear Bulldozer - Transverse - Shear 53 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
A shear stress concentration was observed near the bearings in all three shear load cases with the maximum magnitude shown in the longitudinal excavator load case.

To determine a clearer demand a model was refined with 1"x1" mesh in the vicinity of the bearing and with the bearing modelled by a number of springs with a realistic total stiffness based on the bearing design. The stress concentration is located within the end diaphragm so demand is taken at the edge of fillet 10" from the CL of bearing.

Spring Stiffness
εbrg≔ %6.95 Bearing compressive strain (see bearing design) σbrg≔703 psi Bearing compressive stress (see bearing design) Ebrg≔――=
σbrg
εbrg
10115 psi Effective bearing elastic modulus
wbrg≔6 in Bearing width
lbrg≔10 in Bearing length
tbrg≔0.5 in Bearing thickness
Abrg≔wbrg ⋅lbrg=60 in2
Bearing area
kbrg≔――――=
E ⋅ brg Abrg
tbrg
14566 ―kip―ft
Total bearing stiffness
Atrb_spr1≔1 in2Tributary area of spring 1 type (green)
Atrb_spr2≔0.5 in2Tributary area of spring 2 type (magenta) Atrb_spr3≔0.25 in2
Tributary area of spring 3 type (red)
kspr1≔kbrg ⋅―――=
Atrb_spr1
Abrg
242.8 ―kip―ft
Stiffness of spring 1 type (green)
kspr2≔kbrg ⋅―――=
Atrb_spr2
Abrg
121.4 ―kip―ft
Stiffness of spring 3 type (magenta)
kspr3≔kbrg ⋅―――=
Atrb_spr3
Abrg

60.7 ―kip―ft
Stiffness of spring 3 type (red)
54 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Shear near edge bearing in refined model, Load case: Excavator Longitudinal Max Shear 55 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Demands:

IM≔1.33
Excavator Moment Demand:

Mex_L≔28.9 kip⋅ ft
Mex_T≔24.7 kip ⋅ ft
Bulldozer Moment Demand:

Mbd_L≔22.6 kip ⋅ ft
Mbd_T≔20.0 kip⋅ ft
Average shear along the width of the track (By inspection longitudinal Excavator load case controls):

Vex_L≔―――――――――――――――――――=

4.8 ⋅ kip 2 ⋅ (( kip 7.4 kip 9.1 kip +++6.2 9.1 kip))++ 9.1 kip 10 7.75 kip
Base the maximum shear on the
CMPF≔1.0
MLL_IM ≔CMPF ⋅ IM⋅max⎛
⎝Mex_L ,Mex_T ,Mbd_L ,Mbd_T⎞⎠=38.44 kip ⋅ ft
VLL_IM ≔CMPF ⋅ IM V⋅ ex_L=10.31 kip
56 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+Dead Load Demand:
wDC≔d E γ ⋅ ⋅ c=0.175 klf
Vslab≔d E γ ⋅ ⋅ c⋅ ((0.5 ⋅S))=2.479 kip
Vhnch≔0.5 dhnch ⋅E γ⋅ c⋅Lhnch=0.008 kip
Vend≔dhnch ⋅E γ⋅ c⋅dcl_brg=0.025 kip
VDC≔Vslab+Vhnch+Vend=2.513 kip
MDC≔Vslab ⋅ + + =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―S
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
V ⋅ hnch
⎛
⎜
⎝
――+
Lhnch
3 dcl_brg
⎞
⎟
⎠
V ⋅ end
⎛
⎜
⎝
――
dcl_brg
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠

17.572 kip ⋅ ft
+Water Demand:
hw_ser≔4.5 ft
hw_str≔5.75 ft
ww_ser≔hw_ser ⋅E γ⋅ w =0.281 klf
ww_str≔hw_str ⋅E γ⋅ w =0.359 klf
MWA_ser≔――――=
ww_ser ⋅S
2 8

28.178 kip ⋅ ft
MWA_str≔――――=
ww_str ⋅S
2 8

36.005 kip ⋅ ft
VWA_str≔―――=
ww_str ⋅S
2 5.083 kip
57 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Load Combinations:

MsA≔MLL_IM +MDC =56 kip ⋅ ft
MsB≔MWA_ser+MDC =45.7 kip ⋅ ft
MuA≔1.75⋅MLL_IM +1.25 ⋅MDC =89.2 kip ⋅ ft
MuB≔1.0⋅MWA_str+1.25 ⋅MDC =58 kip ⋅ ft
VuA≔1.75 ⋅VLL_IM +1.25⋅VDC =21.2 kip
VuB≔ VWA_str ⋅1.25 VDC =+⋅1.0 8.2 kip
Nu≔0 kip
Ms≔max⎛
⎝MsA ,MsB⎞⎠=56.009 kip⋅ ft
Mu≔max⎛
⎝MuA ,MuB⎞⎠=89.23 kip ⋅ ft
Vu≔max⎛
⎝VuA ,VuB⎞⎠=21.179 kip
Resistance Factors:
ϕf≔0.9
ϕc≔0.75
ϕv≔0.9
58 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+In-Plane Flexural Calculations:

Longitudinal Reinforcement:
9s @ 6":
bsz≔9 Bar size
nb≔1 Number of bars per bundle
s≔6 in
As≔―――― =⋅
nb Abar ⎛
⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
s
b 2 in2Area of longitudinal reinforcement
fy≔60 ksi Nominal yield stress of
longitudinal reinforcement
dc≔2 in Cover on longitudinal
reinforcement
ds≔d-⎛
⎝dc+0.5 dba ⎛⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠=11.375 in Depth to CG of
reinforcement layers.

Concrete Compression Block (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.1.1):
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fy
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

2.94 in AASHTO 2012, 5.7.3.1.1-4
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.009
fs1≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fs1
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

2.94 in
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.009
fs2≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
fs≔fs2
a≔β1⋅ c=2.35 in Depth of equivalent stress block.
59 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Flexural Resistance Factor (AASHTO 2017, 5.5.4.2 & 5.6.2.1) εcl≔0.002+((0.004 0.002 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-60 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 60 ksi))

0.002
εtl≔0.005+((0.008 0.005 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-75 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 75 ksi))

0.0032
ϕf≔max =
⎛
⎜
⎝
min ,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.75+―――――,

0.15 ⎛
⎝εt-εcl⎞⎠
εtl-εcl

0.9 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.75 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.9 Flexural Resistance (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.2):

Mn≔As⋅ fs⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
ds-―a
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠
102 kip ⋅ ft
ϕf⋅Mn=91.79 kip⋅ ft
Mu=89.23 kip ⋅ ft
DCM3≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Mu
⎞
⎠
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.972 <1, OK
60 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Minimum Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.3):
d=1.167 ft b=1 ft f'c=5 ksi
γ1≔1.6 Flexural Cracking Variability Factor (All other concrete structures) γ2≔0 Prestress Variability Factor (N/A)
γ3≔0.80 Yield:Ultimate Ratio (A706, Gr.80)
Sc≔――=
d ⋅
2 b
6 392 in3 Gross Section Modulus
Snc≔Sc Full Section is Monolithic
fr≔0.24⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi =

0.5 0.537 ksi
fcpe_btm ≔0 ksi
Mcr≔γ3⋅ ⎛
⎝
⎛
⎝γ1
⋅ fr+γ2⋅ fcpe_btm⎞
⎠
⋅Sc
⎞
⎠=22 kip⋅ ft
Mu=89.2 kip ⋅ ft
Mr_min≔min⎛
⎝abs ⎛⎝1.33⋅Mu
⎞
⎠
,Mcr
⎞
⎠=22 kip ⋅ ft
ϕf⋅Mn=92 kip ⋅ ft
DCMinR_neg≔―――=
Mr_min
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.244 <1, OK
61 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Crack Control by Distribution of Reinforcing (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.7) - Negative Flexure:
s1≔ ⋅6 in Spacing of flexure steel
Ms=56.009 kip ⋅ ft
ds=11.375 in
b=12 in
n=7
dc≔d d - s=2.625 in
h≔d=1.167 ft
βs≔1+――――=
dc

0.7 ⎛
⎝h d - c
⎞
⎠

1.33 γe≔1 Assume Exposure Class 1, low visibility
for rectangular sections: =0 ――――+ +
-b ⋅ cap yrec
2 2
n A⋅ s1 ⎛
⎝ds1_n-yrec
⎞
⎠ n A⋅ s2 ⎛⎝ds2_n -yrec
⎞
⎠
ao≔―-b―2
bo≔-n A⋅ s
co≔n⋅ ⎛
⎝A ⋅ s ds
⎞
⎠
y≔―――――――=
bo-- ‾‾‾-‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ bo
2 4⋅a ⋅ oco
⋅2 ao

4.116 in
Ieff≔――+ =
b y⋅
3 3
n⋅
⎛
⎝A ⋅ s
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
2 ⎞
⎠ 1017 in4
fss≔abs =
⎛
⎜
⎝
n⋅――――
M ⋅ s
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
Ieff
⎞
⎟
⎠

33.595 ksi Stress in flexure steel at service loading
smax≔ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
――――-
700 γ ⋅ e ksi
β ⋅ s fss
2 ――
dc
1 in
⎞
⎟
⎠
in 10.42 in
DCCrC≔――=
s1
smax

0.576 <1, OK
62 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Maximum Shear:

Demands at Section:

Vu=21.179 kip Vertical shear force on section
+ Shear Calculations:

Transverse Steel:

No steel provided
d Calculation: v
fy=60 ksi As=2 in2ds=11.375 in
dv1≔0.72⋅ ((d))=10.08 in
dv2≔0.9⋅ ⎛
⎝ds
⎞
⎠=10.24 in
dv≔max⎛
⎝dv1 ,dv2⎞⎠=10.24 in
Effective Longitudinal Steel:
sl_v≔5 in
Al_v≔Abar ((5))=0.31 in2 Hooked number #5 bars
lav≔13.5 in Available Development Length
ldl_9≔2.55 ft #9 Development Length
As_Veff≔ ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
――+
Al_v
sl_v
―⋅
As
s
⎛
⎜
⎝
――
lav
ldl_9
⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠
b 2.509 in2
63 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Vc and Vs calculations (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
f'c=5 ksi
bv≔b=12 in
θ≔45 deg
β≔2.0
ag≔1 in Assumed max aggregate size
sxe≔dv⋅――――=

1.38 in
ag+0.63 in

8.667 in
Mu_v≔Vu⋅dv=18.068 kip⋅ ft
――――――――⋅ =
――+
Mu_v
dv

0.5⋅V ⋅ u cot ((θ))
E ⋅ s As_Veff
1000 0.437
θ≔36.3 deg
――――――――⋅ =
――+
Mu_v
dv

0.5⋅V ⋅ u cot ((θ))
E ⋅ s As_Veff
1000 0.489 β≔2.88
Shear Capacity Calculation (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):

Vs≔0 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-4)
Vc≔0.0316⋅β⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi ⋅ ⋅ =

0.5 bv dv 25 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-3)
ϕVn1≔ϕv⋅0.25⋅ f'c⋅ bv⋅dv=138 kip
ϕVn2≔ϕv⋅ ⎛
⎝Vs+Vc
⎞
⎠=22 kip
ϕVn ≔min⎛
⎝ϕVn1 ,ϕVn2⎞⎠=22.5 kip
DCR≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Vu
⎞
⎠
ϕVn

0.941 <1, OK
64 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002324.001A
Subject: Slab Design - Excavator & Bulldozer
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+Longitudinal Reinforcement Calculation:

Longitudinal Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.5):

The span is simply supported, the longitudinal reinforcement equation at the end is modified according to 5.7.3.5-2
Shear/Torsion Component:

Vu=21.179 kip Vs=0 kip Vp≔0 kip
Vs≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――,
abs ⎛
⎝Vu
⎞
⎠
ϕv
Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
0 kip
DV≔cot ((θ)) ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
-
|
|
|
―+
Vu
ϕv
Vp
|
|
|

0.5⋅Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
32 kip
Capacity Check:

As_Veff=2.509 in2fy=60 ksi
C≔As_Veff ⋅ fy=151 kip
――=
DV
C

0.213 <1, OK
65 Project: San Dieguito DT
Project #: 5600400.003A
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Reinforcing Development (AASHTO 2017, 5.10.8.2.1a)
Bar Location: #9 Main Bars
Bar Size #9
Abar 1 in2Area of Bar
db 1.13 in Diameter of Bar
Nbundle 1 Number of Bars in Bundle
Atotal 1 in2
Total Bundle Area
db,eq 1.13 in Equivalent Diameter
fy 60 ksi Rebar Yield Stress
f'c 5 ksi Concrete Ultimate Stress
ldb (ft) 6.05 ft Basic Development Length
λ 1.0 Concrete Density Factor (5.4.2.8)
λrl 1.0 Reinforcement Location factor
λcf 1.0 Coating Factor
λrc 0.40 Confinement Factor
ld 2.42 ft Modified Development Length
cb 4.56 in <- Note this is the average cover withing the fillet ktr 0.00 Transverse Reinforcement Index (0 is conservative) 40 ∗
∗

2.4 ∗
∗
′

∗

66 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

5.4 Diaphragms

BRIDGE NAME
67 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
End Diaphragm Check
Included in these calculations are checks for:
+Flexure
+Minimum Reinforcement
+Crack Control
+Shear
+Longitudinal Reinforcement (Combined
Shear-Flexure)
Section:
d≔18 in Slab depth
b≔11.5 in Section width
sbrg≔5 ft Max bearing spacing
Material Properties:
f'c≔5 ksi Nominal Concrete strength
β1≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.85,0.85 0.05 -
⎛
⎜
⎝
――-
f'c
ksi
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.8 AASHTO 2017, 5.6.2.2
Concrete unit weight (AASHTO
2017, Table 3.5.1-1): γc_ur≔max ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.14+0.001⋅――
f'c
ksi
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.145
⎞
⎟
⎠
kip ft-3 145 pcf
AASHTO 2017, EQ 5.4.2.4-1 Ec≔33000⋅ ⋅ ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――
γc_ur
kip⋅ ft-3
⎞
⎟
⎠

1.5 ‾f'‾c ksi0.5 4074 ksi Concrete modulus of elasticity γc≔max⎛
⎝γc_ur+0.005 kip ⋅ ft , =
-3 150 pcf⎞
⎠ 150 pcf
Es≔29000 ksi Steel modulus of elasticity
n≔round =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―
Es
Ec
⎞
⎟
⎠
7 γw≔62.4 pcf
γs≔125 pcf
68 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
SAP2000 Model:

Moving Loads:

H20 - Longitudinal Load Case: H20 - Transverse Load Case:

Excavator - Longitudinal Load Case: Excavator - Transverse Load Case:

Bulldozer - Longitudinal Load Case: Bulldozer - Transverse Load Case:
the calculation for the patch load magnitudes is located at the end of this section 69 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
Slab Demands:
+Live Load Demand:

MLL_IM_p≔33.1 kip ⋅ ft Max moment at mid-span of slab
MLL_IM_n≔17.7 kip ⋅ ft Max moment at mid-span of slab
VH20_IM ≔34.4 kip Max shear
Mp≔1.0 Multiple presence factor (1 per design
criteria report)
MLL_IM_p≔Mp⋅MLL_IM_p=33.1 ⋅ kip ft
MLL_IM_n≔Mp⋅MLL_IM_n=17.7 kip ⋅ ft
VLL_IM ≔Mp⋅max⎛
⎝VH20_IM⎞⎠=34.4 kip
Shear Diagram from SAP2000:

Moment Diagram from SAP2000:
70 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
+Dead Load Demand:
wDC≔2.725 klf
VDC≔7.95 kip
MDC_p≔5.11 kip ⋅ ft
MDC_n≔6.5 kip ⋅ ft
+Water Demand:
hw_ser≔3.7 ft
hw_str≔5.3 ft
ww_ser≔3.617 klf
VWA_ser≔11.22 kip
MWA_ser_p≔7.21 kip ⋅ ft
MWA_ser_n≔9.17 kip⋅ ft
VWA_str≔――⋅ =
hw_str
hw_ser
VWA_ser 16.072 kip
MWA_str_p≔――⋅ =
hw_str
hw_ser
MWA_ser_p 10.328 kip ⋅ ft
MWA_str_n≔――⋅ =
hw_str
hw_ser
MWA_ser_n 13.135 kip ⋅ ft
71 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
Load Combinations:

MsA_p≔MLL_IM_p MDC_p=+ 38.2 ⋅ kip ft
MsB_p≔MWA_ser_p+MDC_p=12.3 kip ⋅ ft
MsA_n≔MLL_IM_n+MDC_n=24.2 kip ⋅ ft
MsB_n≔MWA_ser_n+MDC_n=15.7 kip⋅ ft
MuA_p≔1.75⋅MLL_IM_p+1.25⋅MDC_p=64.3 kip ⋅ ft
MuB_p≔1.0 ⋅MWA_str_p+1.25 ⋅MDC_p=16.7 kip ⋅ ft
MuA_n≔1.75 ⋅MLL_IM_n+1.25⋅MDC_n=39.1 kip ⋅ ft
MuB_n≔1.0⋅MWA_str_n+1.25⋅MDC_n=21.3 kip ⋅ ft
Nu≔0 kip
VuA≔1.75 ⋅VLL_IM +1.25⋅VDC =70.1 kip
VuB≔1.0⋅VWA_str+1.25⋅VDC =26 kip
Mu_p≔max⎛
⎝MuA_p ,MuB_p⎞⎠=64.3 kip⋅ ft
Ms_p≔max⎛
⎝MsA_p ,MsB_p⎞⎠=38.2 kip ⋅ ft
Mu_n≔max⎛
⎝MuA_n ,MuB_n⎞⎠=39.1 kip ⋅ ft
Ms_n≔max⎛
⎝MsA_n ,MsB_n⎞⎠=24.2 kip⋅ ft
Vu≔max⎛
⎝VuA ,VuB⎞⎠=70.1 kip
Resistance Factors:
ϕf≔0.9
ϕc≔0.75
ϕv≔0.9
72 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
+In-Plane Flexural Calculations:

Longitudinal Reinforcement:
(2) #7s:
bsz≔7 Bar size
nbar≔2 Number of bars
As≔nbar ⋅Abar ⎛
⎝bsz
⎞
⎠=1.2 in2
Area of longitudinal reinforcement
fy≔60 ksi Nominal yield stress of
longitudinal reinforcement
dc1≔2 in+dbn ((5))=2.625 in Cover on longitudinal
reinforcement
ds≔d-⎛
⎝dc1+0.5 dba ⎛⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠=14.875 in Depth to CG of
reinforcement layers.

Concrete Compression Block (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.1.1):
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fy
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

1.84 in AASHTO 2012, 5.7.3.1.1-4
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.02123
fs1≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fs1
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

1.84 in
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.021
fs2≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
fs≔fs2
a≔β1⋅ c=1.47 in Depth of equivalent stress block.
73 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
Flexural Resistance Factor (AASHTO 2017, 5.5.4.2 & 5.6.2.1) εcl≔0.002+((0.004 0.002 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-60 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 60 ksi))

0.002
εtl≔0.005+((0.008 0.005 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-75 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 75 ksi))

0.0032
ϕf≔max =
⎛
⎜
⎝
min ,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.75+―――――,

0.15 ⎛
⎝εt-εcl⎞⎠
εtl-εcl

0.9 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.75 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.9 Flexural Resistance (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.2):

Mn≔As⋅ fs⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
ds-―a
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠
85 kip⋅ ft
DCM3≔――――=
abs ⎛
⎝Mu_p
⎞
⎠
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.842 <1, OK
74 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
Minimum Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.3):
d=1.5 ft b=0.958 ft f'c=5 ksi
γ1≔1.6 Flexural Cracking Variability Factor (All other concrete structures) γ2≔0 Prestress Variability Factor (N/A)
γ3≔0.75 Yield:Ultimate Ratio (A706, Gr.60)
Sc≔――=
d ⋅
2 b
6 621 in3 Gross Section Modulus
Snc≔Sc Full Section is Monolithic
fr≔0.24⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi =

0.5 0.537 ksi
fcpe_btm ≔0 ksi
Mcr≔γ3⋅ ⎛
⎝
⎛
⎝γ1
⋅ fr+γ2⋅ fcpe_btm⎞
⎠
⋅Sc
⎞
⎠=33 kip⋅ ft
Mu_p=64.3 kip ⋅ ft
Mr_min≔min⎛
⎝abs ⎛⎝1.33⋅Mu_p
⎞
⎠
,Mcr
⎞
⎠=33 kip⋅ ft
ϕf⋅Mn=76 kip ⋅ ft
DCMinR_neg≔―――=
Mr_min
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.437 <1, OK
75 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
Crack Control by Distribution of Reinforcing (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.7):
s1≔9 in Spacing of flexure steel
Ms_p=38.21 kip⋅ ft
ds=14.875 in
b=11.5 in
n=7
dc≔d d - s=3.125 in
h≔d=1.5 ft
βs≔1+――――=
dc

0.7 ⎛
⎝h d - c
⎞
⎠

1.3 γe≔1 Assume Exposure Class 2, corrosion potential
for rectangular sections: =0 ――――+ +
-b ⋅ cap yrec
2 2
n A⋅ s1 ⎛
⎝ds1_n-yrec
⎞
⎠ n A⋅ s2 ⎛⎝ds2_n -yrec
⎞
⎠
ao≔―-b―2
bo≔-n A⋅ s As=1.2 in2
co≔n⋅ ⎛
⎝A ⋅ s ds
⎞
⎠
y≔―――――――=
bo-- ‾‾‾-‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ bo
2 4⋅a ⋅ oco
⋅2 ao

3.988 in
Ieff≔――+ =
b y⋅
3 3
n⋅
⎛
⎝A ⋅ s
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
2 ⎞
⎠ 1239 in4
fss≔abs =
⎛
⎜
⎝
n⋅―――――
M ⋅ s_p
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
Ieff
⎞
⎟
⎠

28.208 ksi Stress in flexure steel at service loading
smax≔ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
――――-
700 γ ⋅ e ksi
β ⋅ s fss
2 ――
dc
1 in
⎞
⎟
⎠
in 12.837 in
DCCrC≔――=
s1
smax

0.701 <1, OK
76 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
Maximum Shear:

Demands at Section:

Vu=70.138 kip Vertical shear force on section
+ Shear Calculations:

Transverse Steel:

At≔Abar ((5))=0.31 in2 Nominal Area of Shear Reinforcement s≔6 in Stirrup spacing at section
Legs≔2 Number of stirrup legs
Av≔At⋅Legs=0.62 in2
Area of steel per stirrup
d Calculation: v
fy=60 ksi As=1.2 in2ds=14.875 in
dv1≔0.72⋅ ((d))=12.96 in
dv2≔0.9⋅ ⎛
⎝ds
⎞
⎠=13.39 in
dv≔max⎛
⎝dv1 ,dv2⎞⎠=13.39 in
77 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
Vc and Vs calculations (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
f'c=5 ksi
bv≔b=11.5 in
θ≔45 deg
β≔2.0
Vs≔Av⋅ fy⋅dv⋅―――=
cot ((θ))
s
83 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-4)
Vc≔0.0316⋅β⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi ⋅ ⋅ =

0.5 bv dv 22 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-3)
Shear Capacity Calculation (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
ϕVn1≔ϕv⋅0.25⋅ f'c⋅ bv⋅dv=173 kip
ϕVn2≔ϕv⋅ ⎛
⎝Vs+Vc
⎞
⎠=94 kip
ϕVn ≔min⎛
⎝ϕVn1 ,ϕVn2⎞⎠=94.3 kip
DCR≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Vu
⎞
⎠
ϕVn

0.744 <1, OK
78 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: End Diaphragm Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/05/2024
+Longitudinal Reinforcement Calculation Over Supports:

Longitudinal Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.5):

Flexural Component:

Mu≔max⎛
⎝Vu
⋅dv,Mu_n
⎞
⎠=78.247 kip ⋅ ft
ϕf=0.9
DM ≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Mu
⎞
⎠
ϕ ⋅ f dv
78 kip
Shear/Torsion Component:

Vu=70.138 kip Vs=83 kip Vp≔0 kip
Vs≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――,
abs ⎛
⎝Vu
⎞
⎠
ϕv
Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.5⋅Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
39 kip
Capacity Check:

As=1.2 in2
fy=60 ksi
C≔As⋅ fy=72 kip
――=
DV
C

0.541 <1, OK
79 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Patch Loading for Diaphragm Model:

Max Reactions From Span SAP2000 Model:

VH20_L 38.2 kip
VH20_T 30.3 kip
VEx_L 59.9 kip
VEx_T 65.9 kip
VBd_L 42.8 kip
VBd_T 45.7 kip
Wheel/Track Width:

Wwheel,H20 1.67 ft
Wwheel,Ex 2.00 ft
Wwheel,bd 2.00 ft
Wheel/Track Length
Lwheel,H20 0.83 ft
Ltrack,Ex 13.17 ft
Ltrack,bd 9.73 ft
Patch Load
wH20_L 11.46 klf 0.5*VH20_L/Wwheel,H20
wH20_T_front 7.27 klf 8/40*VH20_T/Lwheel,H20
wH20_T_rear 29.09 klf 32/40*VH20_T/Lwheel,H20
wEx_L 14.98 klf 0.5*VEx_L/Wwheel,Ex
wEx_T 5.01 klf VEx_T/Lwheel,Ex
wBd_L 10.70 klf 0.5*VBd_L/Wwheel,Bd
wBd_T 4.70 klf VBd_T/Lwheel,Bd
80 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon
6 Substructure Design

BRIDGE NAME
81 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

6.1 Footing Sections

BRIDGE NAME
82 770 First Avenue, Suite 400,
Sand Diego CA 92101
Project: Shea Properties
Project #:

Subject:

Originator:JRM
24002328
Date:

Footing Sections
11/7/2024
83 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

6.2 Substructure Loads

BRIDGE NAME
84 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Substructure Loads
γs 85 pcf Backfill unit weight
φf 30 deg Backfill friction angle
ka 0.33 Active earth pressure coefficent
kAE 0.63 Seismic active earth pressure coefficent
μ 0.3 Footing to soil friction coefficient
σa 3 ksf Allowable bearing pressure
σa,t 4 ksf Allowable bearing pressure (transient loads) ppassive 250 psf/ft Allowable passive pressure (2500 psf/ft max) 85 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

6.3 Footing Design

BRIDGE NAME
86 PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

6.3.1 External Stability

BRIDGE NAME
87 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Wall Global Stability Check
Typical Footing Height
Crossing Slab Geometry:

Sslab_clr≔27.33 ft Clear slab span
tslab≔14 in Minimum slab depth
thnch≔4 in Depth of haunch
tend≔9 in Depth slab extension
Foundation Wall Geometry:

Wseat≔12 in Seat width
tft≔24 in Footing thickness
tstem ≔24 in Stem thickness
H≔7.75 ft Wall height
Hbw≔tslab+thnch-tend=9 in Backwall height
Wft≔10 ft Length of footing
tliner≔6 in Liner thickness
dcl_brg≔0.5 ft Distance to centerline of bearing
Ltoe≔0.5 ft Length of footing toe
tbw≔tstem -Wseat=1 ft Backwall thickness
ebrg≔0.5⋅Wft-dcl_brg-Ltoe=4 ft Bearing load eccentricity from footing center 88 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Demand:

Crossing Slab Dead Loads:
γc_slab≔150 pcf Crossing slab concrete unit weight
Cross sectional area of crossing slab:

Aslab≔Sslab_clr ⋅tslab+2 ⎛
⎝0.5 ⋅thnch + + =
2 t ⋅ end tbw W ⋅ seat ⎛
⎝
thnch+tslab⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠ 36.496 ft2
PSS_DL≔γc_slab ⋅ ⎛
⎝0.5 ⋅Aslab⎞⎠=2.737 klf Tributary slab weight
MSS_DL≔PSS_DL ⋅ ebrg=10.949 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment about center of footing
Crossing Slab Water Loads:
γw≔62.4 pcf Water unit weight
hw_ser≔3.7 ft Water depth service loading
pWA_ser≔γw ⋅hw_ser=0.231 ksf Pressure due to service water level Tributary slab water loading:

Lslab_trib≔0.5 Sslab_clr+Wseat +tbw =15.665 ft
PSS_WA_ser≔pWA_ser ⋅Lslab_trib=3.617 klf
Moments about center of footing
MSS_WA_ser≔PSS_WA_ser ⋅ ebrg=14.467 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
89 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Crossing Slab Live Loads:

See calculations at the end of section for the calculation of the distributed live load PSS_LL≔3.53 klf Live load distributed load
MSS_LL≔PSS_LL ⋅ ebrg=14.12 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Live load Moment
Wall Dead Load:
γc≔150 pcf Typical concrete unit weight
Pbw≔γc⋅ ⎛
⎝
tbw⎞
⎠
⋅ ⎛
⎝Hbw⎞⎠=0.113 klf Backwall load
ebw≔0.5 Wft -⎛
⎝Wseat+0.5 tbw +Ltoe⎞⎠=3 ft Backwall eccentricity
Pstem ≔γc⋅ ⎛
⎝
tstem⎞
⎠
⎛
⎝H-⎛⎝
tslab+thnch⎞
⎠-tft⎞⎠=1.275 klf Stem load
estem ≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝0.5 tstem +Ltoe⎞⎠=3.5 ft Stem eccentricity
Pft≔γc⋅ ⎛
⎝
tft⎞
⎠
⎛
⎝Wft⎞⎠=3 klf Footing load
eft≔0.5 Wft-0.5 Wft=0 ft Footing eccentricity
PDC≔Pbw +Pstem +Pft=4.388 klf Dead load
MDC≔Pbw ⋅ ebw +Pstem ⋅ estem +Pft⋅ eft=4.8 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft Dead moment
eDC≔――=
MDC
PDC

1.094 ft Dead load eccentricity
90 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Soil Loading:
γs≔85 pcf Unit weight of soil
ka ≔0.33 Active coefficient of soil
Lheel≔Wft-tstem -Ltoe=7.5 ft Length of heel
pEV≔⎛
⎝H t - liner-tft⎞⎠
⋅γs=0.446 ksf Vertical soil pressure on footing
PEV_heel≔Lheel⋅pEV =3.347 klf Vertical soil load on heel eEV_heel≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝Ltoe+tstem +0.5 Lheel⎞⎠=-1.25 ft Eccentricity of vert heel soil load PEV_toe≔Ltoe ⋅pEV =0.223 klf
eEV_toe≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝0.5 Ltoe⎞⎠=4.75 ft
Moment of Vert soil load on
wall MEV≔PEV_heel⋅ eEV_heel+PEV_toe ⋅ eEV_toe=-3.124 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft PEV≔PEV_heel+PEV_toe=3.57 klf Vertical soil load
Eccentricity of vertical soil
load on heel eEV≔――=
MEV
PEV
-0.875 ft
pEH≔⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠
⋅ka⋅γs=0.203 ksf Maximum hrz soil pressure
PEH≔0.5 ⋅ ⎛ =⋅ ⎝H t - liner⎞
⎠ pEH 0.737 klf Horizontal soil load on wall
eEH≔0.333 ⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠=2.414 ft Eccentricity of hrz soil load
MEH≔PEH ⋅ eEH =1.78 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment of hrz soil load on wall
Liner Surcharge:
pLIN_V≔γc⋅tliner=0.075 ksf Liner vertical surcharge pressure PLIN_V≔pLIN_V ⋅Lheel=0.563 klf Liner vertical surcharge load eLIN_V≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝Ltoe+tstem +0.5 Lheel⎞⎠=-1.25 ft Liner vertical surcharge eccentricity MLIN_V≔PLIN_V ⋅ eLIN_V =-0.703 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment of liner vertical surcharge
pLIN_H≔γc⋅tliner ⋅ka=0.025 ksf Liner hrz. surcharge pressure PLIN_H≔pLIN_H ⋅ ⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠=0.179 klf Liner horizontal surcharge load eLIN_H≔0.5 ⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠=3.625 ft Liner hrz. surcharge eccentricity MLIN_H≔PLIN_H ⋅ eLIN_H =0.65 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment of liner hrz. surcharge
91 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Water Surcharge:
pWA_V_ser≔γw ⋅hw_ser=0.231 ksf Pressure from service water level PWA_V_ser≔Lheel⋅pWA_V_ser=1.732 klf Load due to service water level eWA_V≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝Ltoe+tstem +0.5 Lheel⎞⎠=-1.25 ft Water load eccentricity MWA_V_ser≔PWA_V_ser ⋅ eWA_V =-2.165 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment due to service water load
pWA_H_ser≔γw ⋅hw_ser ⋅ka=0.076 ksf Hrz pressure from service water level PWA_H_ser≔⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠
⋅pWA_H_ser=0.552 klf Hrz load due to service water level eWA_H≔0.5 ⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠=3.625 ft Hrz water load eccentricity
MWA_H_ser≔PWA_H_ser ⋅ eWA_H =2.002 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment due to service hrz water load
Transverse Bearing Load:

Coefficient of friction between
concrete and neoprene μ≔0.2
PSS_DL=2.737 klf
Pbrg_H≔μ P⋅ SS_DL=0.547 klf
ebrg_H≔H t - slab-thnch=6.25 ft
Mbrg_H≔Pbrg_H ⋅ ebrg_H =3.422 ―kip―⋅ ft― ft
92 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
93 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
External Stability Spreadsheet Verification:

Service IB - Water Loading
PserIB_V≔PSS_DL+PSS_WA_ser+PDC +PEV +PLIN_V +PWA_V_ser=16.61 klf MserIB_V≔MSS_DL+MSS_WA_ser+MDC +MEV +MLIN_V +MWA_V_ser=24.22 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft PserIB_H≔PEH +PLIN_H +PWA_H_ser+Pbrg_H =2.02 klf
MserIB_H≔MEH +MLIN_H +MWA_H_ser+Mbrg_H =7.85 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft MserIB≔MserIB_V +MserIB_H =32.08 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Eccentricity Check (AASHTO 11.6.3.3)
e≔―――=
MserIB
PserIB_V

1.932 ft Total eccentricity
emax≔――=
Wft
3 3.333 ft Maximum eccentricity
DCRecc≔――=
e
emax

0.58 <1, OK
94 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Bearing Check (AASHTO 11.6.3.2)
Check allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf according to geotechnical report. Note that since it is an allowable capacity it will be compared to unfactored loading (service).

B'serIB≔Wft-2⋅ e=6.1364 ft Effective bearing width
σserIB≔―――=
PserIB_V
B'serIB

2.7061 ksf Bearing stress
qa≔3 ksf Factored bearing resistance
DCRbearing≔――=
σserIB
qa

0.902 <1, OK
Sliding Check (AASHTO 11.6.3.6 & 10.6.3.4)
Conservatively ignore passive resistance
μ≔0.3 From preliminary foundation report
ϕT≔0.8 AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 CIP Concrete on cohesionless soil Rr_slide≔ϕT ⋅PserIB_V ⋅μ⋅1 ft=3.985 kip
Pu≔PserIB_H ⋅1 ft=2.016 kip
DCRsliding≔―――=
Pu
Rr_slide

0.506 <1, OK
95 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Live Load Bearing Distribution - Typical Footing Depth
Hwall 7.75 ft Wall Height
VH20_L 38.2 kip Max H-20 live load reaction from Longitudinal slab sap model VH20_T 30.3 kip Max H-20 live load reaction from Transverse slab sap model VEx_L 59.9 kip Max Excavator live load reaction from Longitudinal slab sap model VEx_T 65.9 kip Max Excavator live load reaction from Transverse slab sap model VBd_L 42.8 kip Max Bulldozer live load reaction from Longitudinal slab sap model VBd_T 45.7 kip Max Bulldozer live load reaction from Transverse slab sap model Swheel,H20 6.00 ft Transverse H-20 wheel spacing
Swheel,Ex 8.50 ft Transverse Excavator track spacing
Swheel,bd 6.33 ft Transverse Bulldozer track spacing
Wwheel,H20 20.00 in Width of H-20 wheel
Wwheel,Ex 24.00 in Width of Excavator track
Wwheel,bd 24.00 in Width of Bulldozer track
Lwheel,H20 10.00 in Length of H-20 wheel
Ltrack,Ex 158.00 in Length of Excavator track
Ltrack,bd 116.70 in Length of Bulldozer track
96 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Live Load Bearing Distribution - Longitudinal Distribution EH20_L_1W 9.42 ft H20 longitudinal distribution Length for 1 wheel EH20_L_2W 15.42 ft H20 longitudinal distribution Length for 2 wheel wLL_H20_L 2.48 kip/ft Max(VH20_L/(2*EH20_L_1W),VH20_L/(EH20_L_2W)) EEx_L_1W 9.75 ft Excavator longitudinal distribution Length for 1 Track EEx_L_2W 18.25 ft Excavator longitudinal distribution Length for 2Track wLL_Ex_L 3.28 kip/ft Max(VEX_L/(2*EEX_L_1W),VH20_L/(EEX_L_2W)) EBd_L_1W 9.75 ft Bulldozer longitudinal distribution Length for 1 Track EBd_L_2W 16.08 ft Bulldozer longitudinal distribution Length for 2Track wLL_Bd_L 2.66 kip/ft Max(VBD_L/(2*EBD_L_1W),VH20_L/(EBD_L_2W)) Longitudinal Single Wheel Distribution Sketch
Longitudinal 2-Wheel Distribution Sketch
97 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Live Load Bearing Distribution - Transverse Distribution EH20_T 8.58 ft H20 Transverse distribution length
wLL_H20_T 3.53 kip/ft VH20_T/EH20_T
EEx_T 20.92 ft Excavator Transverse distribution Length wLL_Ex_T 3.15 kip/ft VEX_T/EEX_T
EBd_T 17.48 ft Bulldozer Transverse distribution Length wLL_Bd_T 2.62 kip/ft VBD_T/EBD_T
wLL 3.53 kip/ft Maximum live load distributed load
Transverse H20 Distribution Sketch
Transverse Excavator/Bulldozer Distribution Sketch
98 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Wall Global Stability Check
Maximum Footing Height
Crossing Slab Geometry:

Sslab_clr≔27.33 ft Clear slab span
tslab≔14 in Minimum slab depth
thnch≔4 in Depth of haunch
tend≔9 in Depth slab extension
Foundation Wall Geometry:

Wseat≔12 in Seat width
tft≔24 in Footing thickness
tstem ≔24 in Stem thickness
H≔9.25 ft Wall height
Hbw≔tslab+thnch-tend=9 in Backwall height
Wft≔10 ft Length of footing
tliner≔6 in Liner thickness
dcl_brg≔0.5 ft Distance to centerline of bearing
Ltoe≔0.5 ft Length of footing toe
tbw≔tstem -Wseat=1 ft Backwall thickness
ebrg≔0.5⋅Wft-dcl_brg-Ltoe=4 ft Bearing load eccentricity from footing center 99 Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Demand:

Crossing Slab Dead Loads:
γc_slab≔150 pcf Crossing slab concrete unit weight
Cross sectional area of crossing slab:

Aslab≔Sslab_clr ⋅tslab+2 ⎛
⎝0.5 ⋅thnch + + =
2 t ⋅ end tbw W ⋅ seat ⎛
⎝
thnch+tslab⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠ 36.496 ft2
PSS_DL≔γc_slab ⋅ ⎛
⎝0.5 ⋅Aslab⎞⎠=2.737 klf Tributary slab weight
MSS_DL≔PSS_DL ⋅ ebrg=10.949 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment about center of footing
Crossing Slab Water Loads:
γw≔62.4 pcf Water unit weight
hw_ser≔2.2 ft Water depth service loading
pWA_ser≔γw ⋅hw_ser=0.137 ksf Pressure due to service water level Tributary slab water loading:

Lslab_trib≔0.5 Sslab_clr+Wseat +tbw =15.665 ft
PSS_WA_ser≔pWA_ser ⋅Lslab_trib=2.15 klf
Moments about center of footing
MSS_WA_ser≔PSS_WA_ser ⋅ ebrg=8.602 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
100
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Crossing Slab Live Loads:

See calculations at the end of section for the calculation of the distributed live load PSS_LL≔3.03 klf Live load distributed load
MSS_LL≔PSS_LL ⋅ ebrg=12.12 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Live load Moment
Wall Dead Load:
γc≔150 pcf Typical concrete unit weight
Pbw≔γc⋅ ⎛
⎝
tbw⎞
⎠
⋅ ⎛
⎝Hbw⎞⎠=0.113 klf Backwall load
ebw≔0.5 Wft -⎛
⎝Wseat+0.5 tbw +Ltoe⎞⎠=3 ft Backwall eccentricity
Pstem ≔γc⋅ ⎛
⎝
tstem⎞
⎠
⎛
⎝H-⎛⎝
tslab+thnch⎞
⎠-tft⎞⎠=1.725 klf Stem load
estem ≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝0.5 tstem +Ltoe⎞⎠=3.5 ft Stem eccentricity
Pft≔γc⋅ ⎛
⎝
tft⎞
⎠
⎛
⎝Wft⎞⎠=3 klf Footing load
eft≔0.5 Wft-0.5 Wft=0 ft Footing eccentricity
PDC≔Pbw +Pstem +Pft=4.838 klf Dead load
MDC≔Pbw ⋅ ebw +Pstem ⋅ estem +Pft⋅ eft=6.375 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft Dead moment
eDC≔――=
MDC
PDC

1.318 ft Dead load eccentricity
101
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Soil Loading:
γs≔85 pcf Unit weight of soil
ka ≔0.33 Active coefficient of soil
Lheel≔Wft-tstem -Ltoe=7.5 ft Length of heel
pEV≔⎛
⎝H t - liner-tft⎞⎠
⋅γs=0.574 ksf Vertical soil pressure on footing
PEV_heel≔Lheel⋅pEV =4.303 klf Vertical soil load on heel eEV_heel≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝Ltoe+tstem +0.5 Lheel⎞⎠=-1.25 ft Eccentricity of vert heel soil load PEV_toe≔Ltoe ⋅pEV =0.287 klf
eEV_toe≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝0.5 Ltoe⎞⎠=4.75 ft
Moment of Vert soil load on
wall MEV≔PEV_heel⋅ eEV_heel+PEV_toe ⋅ eEV_toe=-4.016 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft PEV≔PEV_heel+PEV_toe=4.59 klf Vertical soil load
Eccentricity of vertical soil
load on heel eEV≔――=
MEV
PEV
-0.875 ft
pEH≔⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠
⋅ka⋅γs=0.245 ksf Maximum hrz soil pressure
PEH≔0.5 ⋅ ⎛ =⋅ ⎝H t - liner⎞
⎠ pEH 1.074 klf Horizontal soil load on wall
eEH≔0.333 ⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠=2.914 ft Eccentricity of hrz soil load
MEH≔PEH ⋅ eEH =3.129 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment of hrz soil load on wall
Liner Surcharge:
pLIN_V≔γc⋅tliner=0.075 ksf Liner vertical surcharge pressure PLIN_V≔pLIN_V ⋅Lheel=0.563 klf Liner vertical surcharge load eLIN_V≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝Ltoe+tstem +0.5 Lheel⎞⎠=-1.25 ft Liner vertical surcharge eccentricity MLIN_V≔PLIN_V ⋅ eLIN_V =-0.703 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment of liner vertical surcharge
pLIN_H≔γc⋅tliner ⋅ka=0.025 ksf Liner hrz. surcharge pressure PLIN_H≔pLIN_H ⋅ ⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠=0.217 klf Liner horizontal surcharge load eLIN_H≔0.5 ⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠=4.375 ft Liner hrz. surcharge eccentricity MLIN_H≔PLIN_H ⋅ eLIN_H =0.947 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment of liner hrz. surcharge
102
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Water Surcharge:
pWA_V_ser≔γw ⋅hw_ser=0.137 ksf Pressure from service water level PWA_V_ser≔Lheel⋅pWA_V_ser=1.03 klf Load due to service water level eWA_V≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝Ltoe+tstem +0.5 Lheel⎞⎠=-1.25 ft Water load eccentricity MWA_V_ser≔PWA_V_ser ⋅ eWA_V =-1.287 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment due to service water load
pWA_H_ser≔γw ⋅hw_ser ⋅ka=0.045 ksf Hrz pressure from service water level PWA_H_ser≔⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠
⋅pWA_H_ser=0.396 klf Hrz load due to service water level eWA_H≔0.5 ⎛
⎝H t - liner⎞⎠=4.375 ft Hrz water load eccentricity
MWA_H_ser≔PWA_H_ser ⋅ eWA_H =1.734 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Moment due to service hrz water load
Transverse Bearing Load:

Coefficient of friction between
concrete and neoprene μ≔0.2
PSS_DL=2.737 klf
Pbrg_H≔μ P⋅ SS_DL=0.547 klf
ebrg_H≔H t - slab-thnch=7.75 ft
Mbrg_H≔Pbrg_H ⋅ ebrg_H =4.243 ―kip―⋅ ft― ft
103
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
104
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
External Stability Spreadsheet Verification:

Service IB - Water Loading
PserIB_V≔PSS_DL+PSS_WA_ser+PDC +PEV +PLIN_V +PWA_V_ser=15.91 klf MserIB_V≔MSS_DL+MSS_WA_ser+MDC +MEV +MLIN_V +MWA_V_ser=19.92 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft PserIB_H≔PEH +PLIN_H +PWA_H_ser+Pbrg_H =2.23 klf
MserIB_H≔MEH +MLIN_H +MWA_H_ser+Mbrg_H =10.05 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft MserIB≔MserIB_V +MserIB_H =29.97 ―kip―⋅ ft―ft
Eccentricity Check (AASHTO 11.6.3.3)
e≔―――=
MserIB
PserIB_V

1.884 ft Total eccentricity
emax≔――=
Wft
3 3.333 ft Maximum eccentricity
DCRecc≔――=
e
emax

0.565 <1, OK
105
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Foundation Global Stability
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/06/2024
Bearing Check (AASHTO 11.6.3.2)
Check allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf according to geotechnical report. Note that since it is an allowable capacity it will be compared to unfactored loading (service).

B'serIB≔Wft-2⋅ e=6.2316 ft Effective bearing width
σserIB≔―――=
PserIB_V
B'serIB

2.5527 ksf Bearing stress
qa≔3 ksf Factored bearing resistance
DCRbearing≔――=
σserIB
qa

0.851 <1, OK
Sliding Check (AASHTO 11.6.3.6 & 10.6.3.4)
Conservatively ignore passive resistance
μ≔0.3 From preliminary foundation report
ϕT≔0.8 AASHTO Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 CIP Concrete on cohesionless soil Rr_slide≔ϕT ⋅PserIB_V ⋅μ⋅1 ft=3.818 kip
Pu≔PserIB_H ⋅1 ft=2.234 kip
DCRsliding≔―――=
Pu
Rr_slide

0.585 <1, OK
106
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Live Load Bearing Distribution - Maximum Footing Depth
Hwall 9.25 ft Wall Height
VH20_L 38.2 kip Max H-20 live load reaction from Longitudinal slab sap model VH20_T 30.3 kip Max H-20 live load reaction from Transverse slab sap model VEx_L 59.9 kip Max Excavator live load reaction from Longitudinal slab sap model VEx_T 65.9 kip Max Excavator live load reaction from Transverse slab sap model VBd_L 42.8 kip Max Bulldozer live load reaction from Longitudinal slab sap model VBd_T 45.7 kip Max Bulldozer live load reaction from Transverse slab sap model Swheel,H20 6.0 ft Transverse H-20 wheel spacing
Swheel,Ex 8.5 ft Transverse Excavator track spacing
Swheel,bd 6.3 ft Transverse Bulldozer track spacing
Wwheel,H20 20.0 in Width of H-20 wheel
Wwheel,Ex 24.0 in Width of Excavator track
Wwheel,bd 24.0 in Width of Bulldozer track
Lwheel,H20 10.0 in Length of H-20 wheel
Ltrack,Ex 158.0 in Length of Excavator track
Ltrack,bd 116.7 in Length of Bulldozer track
107
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Live Load Bearing Distribution - Longitudinal Distribution - Deep Footing EH20_L_1W 10.92 ft H20 longitudinal distribution Length for 1 wheel EH20_L_2W 16.92 ft H20 longitudinal distribution Length for 2 wheel wLL_H20_L 2.26 kip/ft Max(VH20_L/(2*EH20_L_1W),VH20_L/(EH20_L_2W)) EEx_L_1W 11.25 ft Excavator longitudinal distribution Length for 1 Track EEx_L_2W 19.75 ft Excavator longitudinal distribution Length for 2Track wLL_Ex_L 3.03 kip/ft Max(VEX_L/(2*EEX_L_1W),VH20_L/(EEX_L_2W)) EBd_L_1W 11.25 ft Bulldozer longitudinal distribution Length for 1 Track EBd_L_2W 17.58 ft Bulldozer longitudinal distribution Length for 2Track wLL_Bd_L 2.43 kip/ft Max(VBD_L/(2*EBD_L_1W),VH20_L/(EBD_L_2W)) Longitudinal Single Wheel Distribution Sketch
Longitudinal 2-Wheel Distribution Sketch
108
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Live Load Bearing Distribution - Transverse Distribution - Deep Footing EH20_T 10.08 ft H20 Transverse distribution length
wLL_H20_T 3.01 kip/ft VH20_T/EH20_T
EEx_T 22.42 ft Excavator Transverse distribution Length wLL_Ex_T 2.94 kip/ft VEX_T/EEX_T
EBd_T 18.98 ft Bulldozer Transverse distribution Length wLL_Bd_T 2.41 kip/ft VBD_T/EBD_T
wLL 3.03 kip/ft Maximum live load distributed load
Transverse H20 Distribution Sketch
Transverse Excavator/Bulldozer Distribution Sketch
109
PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

6.3.2 Stem and Footing Design

BRIDGE NAME
110
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Stem Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Stem Structural Check
Included in these calculations are checks for:
+Flexure
+Minimum Reinforcement
+Crack Control
+Shear
+Longitudinal Reinforcement (Combined Shear-Flexure)
Section:
b≔1 ft Footing strip width
d≔24 in Footing depth
Material Properties:
f'c≔3.6 ksi Nominal Concrete strength
β1≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.85,0.85 0.05 -
⎛
⎜
⎝
――-
f'c
ksi
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.85 AASHTO 2017, 5.6.2.2
Concrete unit weight (AASHTO
2017, Table 3.5.1-1): γc_ur≔max ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.14+0.001⋅――
f'c
ksi
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.145
⎞
⎟
⎠
kip ft-3 145 pcf
AASHTO 2017, EQ 5.4.2.4-1 Ec≔ ⋅⋅33000 ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――
γc_ur
kip⋅ ft-3
⎞
⎟
⎠

1.5 ‾f'‾c ksi0.5 3457 ksi Concrete modulus of elasticity Es≔29000 ksi Steel modulus of elasticity
n≔round =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―
Es
Ec
⎞
⎟
⎠
8 Resistance Factors:
ϕf≔0.9
ϕc≔0.75
ϕv≔0.9
111
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Stem Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Footing Demands:

Mu≔12.12 kip⋅ ft
Ms≔7.63 kip ⋅ ft
Vu≔3.6 kip
112
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Stem Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
+In-Plane Flexural Calculations:

Longitudinal Reinforcement:
#5s @ 12":
bsz≔5 Bar size
s≔12 in Bar spacing
As≔b ⋅―――=
Abar ⎛
⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
s

0.31 in2
Area of longitudinal reinforcement
fy≔60 ksi Nominal yield stress of
longitudinal reinforcement
dc1≔3 in Cover on longitudinal
reinforcement
ds≔d-⎛
⎝dc1+0.5 dba ⎛⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠=20.655 in Depth to CG of
reinforcement layers.

Concrete Compression Block (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.1.1):
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fy
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

0.6 in AASHTO 2012, 5.7.3.1.1-4
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.10098
fs1≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fs1
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

0.6 in
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.101
fs2≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
fs≔fs2
a≔β1⋅ c=0.51 in Depth of equivalent stress block.
113
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Stem Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Flexural Resistance Factor (AASHTO 2017, 5.5.4.2 & 5.6.2.1) εcl≔0.002+((0.004 0.002 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-60 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 60 ksi))

0.002
εtl≔0.005+((0.008 0.005 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-75 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 75 ksi))

0.0032
ϕf≔max =
⎛
⎜
⎝
min ,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.75+―――――,

0.15 ⎛
⎝εt-εcl⎞⎠
εtl-εcl

0.9 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.75 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.9 Flexural Resistance (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.2):

Mn≔As⋅ fs⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
ds-―a
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠
32 kip⋅ ft
DCM3≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Mu
⎞
⎠
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.426 <1, OK
114
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Stem Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Minimum Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.3):
d=2 ft b=1 ft f'c=3.6 ksi
γ1≔1.6 Flexural Cracking Variability Factor (All other concrete structures) γ2≔0 Prestress Variability Factor (N/A)
γ3≔0.75 Yield:Ultimate Ratio (A706, Gr.60)
Sc≔――=
d ⋅
2 b
6 1152 in3 Gross Section Modulus
Snc≔Sc Full Section is Monolithic
fr≔0.24⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi =

0.5 0.455 ksi
fcpe_btm ≔0 ksi
Mcr≔γ3⋅ ⎛
⎝
⎛
⎝γ1
⋅ fr+γ2⋅ fcpe_btm⎞
⎠
⋅Sc
⎞
⎠=52 kip⋅ ft
Mu=12.1 kip ⋅ ft
Mr_min≔min⎛
⎝abs ⎛⎝1.33⋅Mu
⎞
⎠
,Mcr
⎞
⎠=16 kip ⋅ ft
ϕf⋅Mn=28 kip ⋅ ft
DCMinR_neg≔―――=
Mr_min
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.566 <1, OK
115
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Stem Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Crack Control by Distribution of Reinforcing (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.7):
s1≔s=12 in Spacing of flexure steel
Ms=7.63 kip⋅ ft
ds=20.655 in
b=12 in
n=8
dc≔d d - s=3.345 in
h≔d=2 ft
βs≔1+――――=
dc

0.7 ⎛
⎝h d - c
⎞
⎠

1.231
γe≔1 Assume Exposure Class 1, low visibility
for rectangular sections: =0 ――――+ +
-b ⋅ cap yrec
2 2
n A⋅ s1 ⎛
⎝ds1_n-yrec
⎞
⎠ n A⋅ s2 ⎛⎝ds2_n -yrec
⎞
⎠
ao≔―-b―2
bo≔-n A⋅ s As=0.31 in2
co≔n⋅ ⎛
⎝A ⋅ s ds
⎞
⎠
y≔―――――――=
bo-- ‾‾‾-‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ bo
2 4⋅a ⋅ oco
⋅2 ao

2.723 in
Ieff≔――+ =
b y⋅
3 3
n⋅
⎛
⎝A ⋅ s
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
2 ⎞
⎠ 878 in4
fss≔abs =
⎛
⎜
⎝
n⋅――――
M ⋅ s
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
Ieff
⎞
⎟
⎠

14.957 ksi Stress in flexure steel at service loading
smax≔ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
――――-
700 γ ⋅ e ksi
β ⋅ s fss
2 ――
dc
1 in
⎞
⎟
⎠
in 31.319 in
DCCrC≔――=
s1
smax

0.383 <1, OK
116
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Stem Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Maximum Shear:

Demands at Section:

Vu=3.6 kip Vertical shear force on section
+ Shear Calculations:

Transverse Steel:

No steel provided
d Calculation: v
fy=60 ksi As=0.31 in2ds=20.655 in
dv1≔0.72⋅ ((d))=17.28 in
dv2≔0.9⋅ ⎛
⎝ds
⎞
⎠=18.59 in
dv≔max⎛
⎝dv1 ,dv2⎞⎠=18.59 in
Vc and Vs calculations (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
f'c=3.6 ksi
bv≔b=12 in
θ≔45 deg
β≔2.0
Vs≔0 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-4)
Vc≔0.0316⋅β⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi ⋅ ⋅ =

0.5 bv dv 27 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-3)
Shear Capacity Calculation (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
ϕVn1≔ϕv⋅0.25⋅ f'c⋅ bv⋅dv=181 kip
ϕVn2≔ϕv⋅ ⎛
⎝Vs+Vc
⎞
⎠=24 kip
ϕVn ≔min⎛
⎝ϕVn1 ,ϕVn2⎞⎠=24.1 kip
DCR≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Vu
⎞
⎠
ϕVn

0.15 <1, OK
117
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Stem Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
+Longitudinal Reinforcement Calculation:

Longitudinal Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.5):

Flexural Component:

Mu=12.12 kip ⋅ ft dv=18.59 in ϕf=0.9
DM ≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Mu
⎞
⎠
ϕ ⋅ f dv
9 kip
Shear/Torsion Component:

Vu=3.6 kip Vs=0 kip Vp≔0 kip
Vs≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――,
abs ⎛
⎝Vu
⎞
⎠
ϕv
Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
0 kip
DV≔cot ((θ)) ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
-
|
|
|
―+
Vu
ϕv
Vp
|
|
|

0.5⋅Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
4 kip
Capacity Check:

As=0.31 in2fy=60 ksi
C≔As⋅ fy=19 kip
―――=
DM + DV
C

0.68 <1, OK
118
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Stem Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Stem Longitudinal Top Reinforcement (BDP 1994, 2-143)
Check the longitudinal reinforcement underneath the bearings.

Ru≔67.25 kip
Rperm_fact≔13.2 kip
Tu≔0.2 ⎛
⎝Rperm_fact⎞⎠=2.64 kip
αf≔70 deg
Vu≔Ru⋅ sin⎛
⎝αf
⎞
⎠+Tu
⋅ cos ⎛
⎝αf
⎞
⎠=64.097 kip Shear load along failure plane
Nu≔Tu⋅ sin⎛
⎝αf
⎞
⎠-Ru
⋅ cos ⎛
⎝αf
⎞
⎠=-20.52 kip Load perpendicular to failure
plane (Negative = Compression)
119
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Stem Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
There are #4 @ 6" along the seat,
assume a minimum of three fall within
failure plane under the 10" long bearing
pad
As≔3⋅Abar ((4))=0.6 in2
fy≔60 ksi
AASHTO 2017, 5.7.4.4.

Monolithically placed concrete μ≔1.4
ϕv≔0.9
ld_avail≔6 in
ldh≔0.67 ft
As_eff≔As⋅―――=
ld_avail
ldh

0.448 in2
Av≔――――――――=
―-
Vu
ϕv
max⎛
⎝-μ N⋅ , u 0⎞⎠
f ⋅ y
⎛
⎝μ sin⎛ +⋅ ⎝αf
⎞
⎠ cos ⎛⎝αf
⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠

0.427 in2
An≔max =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――――,
Nu
ϕ ⋅ v fysin⎛
⎝αf
⎞
⎠
0 in2
⎞
⎟
⎠
0 in2
As_req≔Av An=+ 0.43 in2
――=
As_req
As_eff

0.95 <1 OK
120
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Hooked Reinforcing Development (AASHTO 2017, 5.10.8.2.4) Bar Location: #5 Stem Bars
Bar Size #5
Abar 0.31 in2Area of Bar
db 0.63 in Diameter of Bar
Nbundle 1 Number of Bars in Bundle
Atotal 0.31 in2
Total Bundle Area
db,eq 0.63 in Equivalent Diameter
fy 60 ksi Rebar Yield Stress
f'c 3.6 Concrete Ultimate Stress
lhb (ft) 1.04 ft Basic Development Length
λ 1.0 Light Weight Aggregate Factor (1 or 1.3)
λcw 1.0 Coating Factor (1 or 1.2)
λrc 0.8 Confinement Factor (1 or 0.8)
λer 1.0 Excess Reinforcement Factor
ld 0.83 ft Modified Development Length
Note: the excess reinforcement factor (λer) can be appied on a case by case basis. Development length can still not be less than 8db or 6"
38 ∗
60 ∗

′

∗ ∗
λ
121
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Footing Structural Check
Included in these calculations are checks for:
+Flexure
+Minimum Reinforcement
+Crack Control
+Shear
+Longitudinal Reinforcement (Combined Shear-Flexure)
Section:
b≔1 ft Footing strip width
d≔24 in Footing depth
Material Properties:
f'c≔3.6 ksi Nominal Concrete strength
β1≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.85,0.85 0.05 -
⎛
⎜
⎝
――-
f'c
ksi
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.85 AASHTO 2017, 5.6.2.2
Concrete unit weight (AASHTO
2017, Table 3.5.1-1): γc_ur≔max ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.14+0.001⋅――
f'c
ksi
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.145
⎞
⎟
⎠
kip ft-3 145 pcf
AASHTO 2017, EQ 5.4.2.4-1 Ec≔ ⋅⋅33000 ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――
γc_ur
kip⋅ ft-3
⎞
⎟
⎠

1.5 ‾f'‾c ksi0.5 3457 ksi Concrete modulus of elasticity Es≔29000 ksi Steel modulus of elasticity
n≔round =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―
Es
Ec
⎞
⎟
⎠
8 Resistance Factors:
ϕf≔0.9
ϕc≔0.75
ϕv≔0.9
122
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Footing Demands:

By inspection the max footing depth will control.

Mu≔20.14 kip⋅ ft Maximum factored footing moment
Ms≔13.42 kip ⋅ ft Maximum service footing moment
Vu≔6 kip Maximum factored footing shear
123
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
+In-Plane Flexural Calculations:

Longitudinal Reinforcement:
#6s @ 12":
bsz≔6 Bar size
s≔12 in Bar spacing
As≔b ⋅―――=
Abar ⎛
⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
s

0.44 in2
Area of longitudinal reinforcement
fy≔60 ksi Nominal yield stress of
longitudinal reinforcement
dc1≔3 in Cover on longitudinal
reinforcement
ds≔d-⎛
⎝dc1+0.5 dba ⎛⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠=20.56 in Depth to CG of
reinforcement layers.

Concrete Compression Block (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.1.1):
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fy
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

0.85 in AASHTO 2012, 5.7.3.1.1-4
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.06992
fs1≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fs1
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

0.85 in
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.07 fs2≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
fs≔fs2
a≔β1⋅ c=0.72 in Depth of equivalent stress block.
124
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Flexural Resistance Factor (AASHTO 2017, 5.5.4.2 & 5.6.2.1) εcl≔0.002+((0.004 0.002 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-60 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 60 ksi))

0.002
εtl≔0.005+((0.008 0.005 - )) ⋅――――――=
⎛
⎝fy-75 ksi⎞⎠
(( ksi-100 75 ksi))

0.0032
ϕf≔max =
⎛
⎜
⎝
min ,
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.75+―――――,

0.15 ⎛
⎝εt-εcl⎞⎠
εtl-εcl

0.9 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.75 ⎞
⎟
⎠

0.9 Flexural Resistance (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.2):

Mn≔As⋅ fs⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
ds-―a
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠
44 kip⋅ ft
DCM3≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Mu
⎞
⎠
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.504 <1, OK
125
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Minimum Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.3):
d=2 ft b=1 ft f'c=3.6 ksi
γ1≔1.6 Flexural Cracking Variability Factor (All other concrete structures) γ2≔0 Prestress Variability Factor (N/A)
γ3≔0.75 Yield:Ultimate Ratio (A706, Gr.60)
Sc≔――=
d ⋅
2 b
6 1152 in3 Gross Section Modulus
Snc≔Sc Full Section is Monolithic
fr≔0.24⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi =

0.5 0.455 ksi
fcpe_btm ≔0 ksi
Mcr≔γ3⋅ ⎛
⎝
⎛
⎝γ1
⋅ fr+γ2⋅ fcpe_btm⎞
⎠
⋅Sc
⎞
⎠=52 kip⋅ ft
Mu=20.1 kip ⋅ ft
Mr_min≔min⎛
⎝abs ⎛⎝1.33⋅Mu
⎞
⎠
,Mcr
⎞
⎠=27 kip ⋅ ft
ϕf⋅Mn=40 kip ⋅ ft
DCMinR_neg≔―――=
Mr_min
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.67 <1, OK
126
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Crack Control by Distribution of Reinforcing (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.7):
s1≔s=12 in Spacing of flexure steel
Ms=13.42 kip ⋅ ft
ds=20.56 in
b=12 in
n=8
dc≔d d - s=3.44 in
h≔d=2 ft
βs≔1+――――=
dc

0.7 ⎛
⎝h d - c
⎞
⎠

1.239
γe≔1 Assume Exposure Class 1, low visibility
for rectangular sections: =0 ――――+ +
-b ⋅ cap yrec
2 2
n A⋅ s1 ⎛
⎝ds1_n-yrec
⎞
⎠ n A⋅ s2 ⎛⎝ds2_n -yrec
⎞
⎠
ao≔―-b―2
bo≔-n A⋅ s As=0.44 in2
co≔n⋅ ⎛
⎝A ⋅ s ds
⎞
⎠
y≔―――――――=
bo-- ‾‾‾-‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ bo
2 4⋅a ⋅ oco
⋅2 ao

3.192 in
Ieff≔――+ =
b y⋅
3 3
n⋅
⎛
⎝A ⋅ s
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
2 ⎞
⎠ 1192 in4
fss≔abs =
⎛
⎜
⎝
n⋅――――
M ⋅ s
⎛
⎝ds-y⎞⎠
Ieff
⎞
⎟
⎠

18.773 ksi Stress in flexure steel at service loading
smax≔ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
――――-
700 γ ⋅ e ksi
β ⋅ s fss
2 ――
dc
1 in
⎞
⎟
⎠
in 23.214 in
DCCrC≔――=
s1
smax

0.517 <1, OK
127
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
Maximum Shear:

Demands at Section:

Vu=6 kip Vertical shear force on section
+ Shear Calculations:

Transverse Steel:

No steel provided
d Calculation: v
fy=60 ksi As=0.44 in2ds=20.56 in
dv1≔0.72⋅ ((d))=17.28 in
dv2≔0.9⋅ ⎛
⎝ds
⎞
⎠=18.5 in
dv≔max⎛
⎝dv1 ,dv2⎞⎠=18.5 in
Vc and Vs calculations (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
f'c=3.6 ksi
bv≔b=12 in
θ≔45 deg
β≔2.0
Vs≔0 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-4)
Vc≔0.0316⋅β⋅ ‾f'‾c⋅ ksi ⋅ ⋅ =

0.5 bv dv 27 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-3)
Shear Capacity Calculation (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
ϕVn1≔ϕv⋅0.25⋅ f'c⋅ bv⋅dv=180 kip
ϕVn2≔ϕv⋅ ⎛
⎝Vs+Vc
⎞
⎠=24 kip
ϕVn ≔min⎛
⎝ϕVn1 ,ϕVn2⎞⎠=24 kip
DCR≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Vu
⎞
⎠
ϕVn

0.25 <1, OK
128
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Structural Check
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/07/2024
+Longitudinal Reinforcement Calculation:

Longitudinal Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.5):

Flexural Component:

Mu=20.14 kip ⋅ ft dv=18.5 in ϕf=0.9
DM ≔―――=
abs ⎛
⎝Mu
⎞
⎠
ϕ ⋅ f dv
15 kip
Shear/Torsion Component:

Vu=6 kip Vs=0 kip Vp≔0 kip
Vs≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――,
abs ⎛
⎝Vu
⎞
⎠
ϕv
Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
0 kip
DV≔cot ((θ)) ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
-
|
|
|
―+
Vu
ϕv
Vp
|
|
|

0.5⋅Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
7 kip
Capacity Check:

As=0.44 in2fy=60 ksi
C≔As⋅ fy=26 kip
―――=
DM + DV
C

0.8 <1, OK
129
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Nov-24
Hooked Reinforcing Development (AASHTO 2017, 5.10.8.2.4) Bar Location: #6 Footing Bars
Bar Size #6
Abar 0.44 in2Area of Bar
db 0.75 in Diameter of Bar
Nbundle 1 Number of Bars in Bundle
Atotal 0.44 in2
Total Bundle Area
db,eq 0.75 in Equivalent Diameter
fy 60 ksi Rebar Yield Stress
f'c 3.6 Concrete Ultimate Stress
lhb (ft) 1.25 ft Basic Development Length
λ 1.0 Light Weight Aggregate Factor (1 or 1.3)
λcw 1.0 Coating Factor (1 or 1.2)
λrc 0.8 Confinement Factor (1 or 0.8)
λer 1.0 Excess Reinforcement Factor
ld 1.00 ft Modified Development Length
Note: the excess reinforcement factor (λer) can be appied on a case by case basis. Development length can still not be less than 8db or 6"
38 ∗
60 ∗

′

∗ ∗
λ
130
PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

6.4 Bearing Design

BRIDGE NAME
131

ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD DESIGN RC STRUCTURE
Width Length Area
Trial Pad = 6.0 10.0 60.0
Shape Factor = 3.75
Number of Pads = 1
Contributory length RC = 14.2
D.L. Reaction - Service Load = 13.20 13.20
L.L. Reaction - Service Load = 29.00 29.00
Temperature Rise and Fall = 35 deg
Temperature Movement = 0.054 in
P/S Shortening & Shrinkage = 0.00 in
Concrete Shrinkage = 0.01 in
Σ= 0.062 in
Minimum Thickness of Pad = 0.12
Try Pad = 0.5 OK
From Figure 4B Compute the Compressive Strain
Compressive Strain = 6.95% extrapolate figure
Initial Thickness = 0.4653 in OK
Final Thickness After Creep = 0.4566 in
Calculate the Maximum Shear Force at Slippage
Fsmax = 2.64 allowable
Actual Design Shear Force = 1.26 Kips < Fsmax OK
Max Pad Thickness = 2.00 OK
Compressive Stress = 703 < 800 OK
Compressive Stress D.L. = 220 > 200 OK
Steel Reinforced
<- Peak bearing reaction from diaphragm model
excluding impact
132
Diaphragm Live Load Reactions
H20 - Longitudinal
H20 - Transverse
Excavator - Longitudinal
Excavator - Transverse
Bulldozer - Longitudinal
Bulldozer - Transverse
133
PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon
7 Seismic Design

BRIDGE NAME
134
PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

7.1 Seismic Parameters

BRIDGE NAME
135
770 First Avenue, Suite 400,
Sand Diego CA 92101
Project: Shea Properties
Project #:

Subject:

Originator:JRM
24002328
Date:

Seismic Parameters
11/7/2024
From the Geotechnical Report dated 11/7/2024:
136
PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

7.2 Structural Period

BRIDGE NAME
137
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Feb-25
Structure Period Calculation
vs0 400 ft/s2 Shear wave velocity
γ 85 pcf Soil unit weight
g 32.17 ft/s2Acceleration of gravity
G0 422.8 ksf Initial shear modulus (ASCE 41-17, EQ8-4)
ν 0.3 Poison's ratio
Ss 2.138 g See Geotechnical Investigation Report
Fa 1 See Geotechnical Investigation Report
Sxs 2.138 Fa*Ss
G0
/G 0.1 Effective shear modulus ratio (ASCE 41-17, Table 8-2) G 42.27541 ksf Effective shear modulus
B 10 ft Footing width
L 203 ft Footing length
D 7.75 ft Footing depth
d 2 ft Footing thickness
h 6.75 ft
Ky 8.20E+03 kip/ft Translational stiffness
Kxx 4.96E+05 kip*ft/rad Rocking stiffness
Determine structure stiffness according to ASCE 41-17 Section 8.4.2.3 (Method 1). Assume only one footing is effective under seismic loading

∗

138
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
770 First Avenue, Suite 400 By: JRM
San Diego, CA 92101 Date: Feb-25
βy 1.803 Embedment correction factor (Translation)
βxx 1.558 Embedment correction factor (Rotation)
Ky,mod 1.48E+04 kip/ft βy*Ky
Kxx,mod 7.74E+05 kip*ft/rad βxx*Kxx
hp 6.625 ft Distance from btm of footing to center of backwall Kxx,y 1.76E+04 kip/ft (Kxx,mod/hp
2 )
K 8.04E+03 kip/ft 1/(1/Ky,mod+1/Kxx,y)
wslab 5.48 kip*ft Slab weight per foot
W 1111.63 kip Slab seismic
T 0.41 sec 2π*(W/(g*K))0.5
Less than 0.5 sec, OK
139
PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

7.3 Slab Seismic Design

BRIDGE NAME
140
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Slab Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Slab Seismic Design
According Caltrans SDC 2.0 section Article 7.2.2 where peak ground accelerations greater than or equal to 0.6g the superstructure shall be design for vertical ground excitation. According to this article these superstructures shall be designed for a uniform load equal to 25% of the superstructes dead load upward or downward. By inspection the strength load case will control for the downward verticle load. This section checks the top mat of reinforcing to resist this upward seismic force.

Section:

S≔28 ft+4 in=28.33 ft Span length
d≔14 in Slab depth
b≔1 ft Equivalent strip width
Material Properties:
f'c≔5 ksi Nominal Concrete strength
β1≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.85,0.85 0.05 -
⎛
⎜
⎝
――-
f'c
ksi
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.8 AASHTO 2017, 5.6.2.2
γc≔ ⎛
⎝ pcf+145 0.005 kip ⋅ ft , =max
-3 150 pcf⎞
⎠ 150 pcf Concrete modulus of elasticity
Es≔29000 ksi Steel modulus of elasticity
Vertical Earthquake Load:

Vertical excition coefficent
av≔0.25
wEQ_v≔av⋅d b γ ⋅ ⋅ c=0.044 klf Load due to vertical siesmic load MEQ_v≔――――=
wEQ_v ⋅S
2 8

4.39 kip ⋅ ft Moment due to vertical siesmic load
Resistance Factors:
ϕf≔1 SDC 2.0, 3.6
141
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Slab Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+Flexural Calculations:

Longitudinal Reinforcement:
#5s @ 12":
bsz≔5 Bar size
s≔12 in Bar spacing
As≔b ⋅―――=
Abar ⎛
⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
s

Concrete Compression Block (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.1.1):
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fy
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

0.46 in AASHTO 2012, 5.7.3.1.1-4
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.06712
fs1≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fs1
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

0.46 in
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.067
fs2≔min⎛
⎝fy
,Es⋅εt
⎞
⎠=60 ksi
fs≔fs2
a≔β1⋅ c=0.36 in Depth of equivalent stress block.
142
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Slab Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Flexural Resistance (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.2):
ϕf=1
MEQ_v=4.39 kip ⋅ ft
Mn≔As⋅ fs⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
ds-―a
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠
16 kip⋅ ft
DCM3≔――――=
abs ⎛
⎝MEQ_v⎞⎠
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.27 <1, OK
143
PROJECT San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Crossing Over Casa Loma Barrel 1 Siphon

7.4 Footing Seismic Design

BRIDGE NAME
144
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Footing Seismic Design
In a seismic event it is anticipated that the joint between the crossing slab and the footing it is moving towards will close transfering the inertial force from the crossing slab to the footing. This section will check the footings capacity to resist this inertial load Section:

Sslab_clr≔27.33 ft Clear slab span
Hwall≔9.25 ft Max wall height
tstem ≔2 ft Stem thickness
tft≔2 ft Footing thickness
thnch≔4 in Haunch thickness
tend≔9 in Depth slab extension
γc≔150 pcf Concrete unit weight
γs≔85 pcf Soil unit weight
Ltoe≔0.5 ft Length of toe
Wft≔10 ft Width of footing
Wseat≔1 ft Seat width
tliner≔6 in Liner thickness
tslab≔14 in Slab thickness
b≔1 ft Equivalent strip width
tbw≔1 ft Backwall thickness
Hbw≔9 in Backwall height
PGA≔1.062 Peak ground acceleration
145
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
External Stability Checks
The following section will check the external stability of the footing (sliding and bearing checks) to resist the inertial loads of the slab in addition to the the inetials of the footing and the surrounding retained soils.

Vertical Dead Load:
tft≔2 ft Footing thickness
Lheel≔Wft-Ltoe-tstem =7.5 ft Heel Length
Distance to centerline of
bearing dcl_brg≔0.5 ft
Cross sectional area of crossing slab:

Aslab≔Sslab_clr ⋅tslab+2 ⎛
⎝0.5 ⋅thnch + + =
2 t ⋅ end tbw W ⋅ seat ⎛
⎝
thnch+tslab⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠ 36.496 ft2
ebrg≔0.5⋅Wft-dcl_brg-Ltoe=4 ft Bearing eccentricity
PDL_slab≔γc⋅ ⎛
⎝0.5⋅Aslab⎞⎠
⋅ b=2.737 kip Slab weight
MDL_slab≔PDL_slab ⋅ ebrg=10.949 kip⋅ ft Moment due to slab PDL_bw≔γc⋅ ⎛
⎝
tbw⎞
⎠
⋅ ⎛
⎝Hbw⎞⎠
⋅ b=0.113 kip Backwall load
eDL_bw≔ Wft ⎛
⎝Wseat 0.5 tbw ++ Ltoe⎞⎠=-0.5 3 ft Backwall eccentricity MDL_bw≔PDL_bw ⋅ eDL_bw =0.338 kip⋅ ft Moment due to backwall PDL_stm ≔γc⋅tstem ⎛
⎝Hwall-⎛⎝
tslab+thnch⎞
⎠-tft⎞⎠
⋅ b=1.725 kip Stem load
eDL_stm ≔ Wft ⎛
⎝
tstem +0.5 Ltoe⎞
⎠=-0.5 3.5 ft Stem eccentricity
MDL_stm ≔PDL_stm ⋅ eDL_stm =6.038 kip ⋅ ft Moment due to stem PDL_ft≔γc⋅ ⎛
⎝
tft⎞
⎠
⎛
⎝Wft⎞⎠
⋅ b=3 ft⋅ klf Footing load
eDL_ft≔0.5 Wft-0.5 Wft=0 ft Footing eccentricity
PDC≔PDL_slab+PDL_bw +PDL_stm +PDL_ft =7.575 kip Dead load MDC≔MDL_slab+MDL_bw +MDL_stm =17.324 kip⋅ ft Moment due to dead load 146
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Liner Surcharge:
tliner=6 in
γc=150 pcf
PES≔γc⋅tliner ⋅ b L⋅ heel=0.563 kip
eES≔0.5 Lheel-0.5 Wft=-1.25 ft
MES≔PES ⋅ eES=-0.703 kip ⋅ ft
Vertical Soil Load:
γs=85 pcf Unit weight of soil
Lheel≔Wft-tstem -Ltoe=7.5 ft Length of heel
pEV≔⎛
⎝Hwall-tliner-tft⎞⎠
⋅γs=0.574 ksf Vertical soil pressure on footing
PEV_heel≔Lheel⋅pEV ⋅ b=4.303 kip Vertical soil load on heel eEV_heel≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝Ltoe+tstem +0.5 Lheel⎞⎠=-1.25 ft Eccentricity of vert heel soil load PEV_toe≔Ltoe ⋅pEV ⋅ b=0.287 kip
eEV_toe≔0.5 Wft-⎛
⎝0.5 Ltoe⎞⎠=4.75 ft
Moment of Vert soil load on
wall MEV≔PEV_heel⋅ eEV_heel+PEV_toe ⋅ eEV_toe=-4.016 kip ⋅ ft PEV≔PEV_heel+PEV_toe=4.59 kip Vertical soil load
eEV≔――=
MEV
PEV
-0.875 ft Eccentricity of vertical soil load
Pperm ≔PDC +PES+PEV =12.73 kip
Mperm ≔MEV +MDC +MES=12.6 kip ⋅ ft
147
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Horizontal Inertial Load:

PGA=1.062 Peak ground acceleration
kh≔0.5⋅PGA=0.531 Caltrans STP 11.29
Backwall inertial loads:

PIR_bw≔-kh⋅PDL_bw =-0.06 kip
eIR_bw≔Hwall-tliner-0.5⋅Hbw =8.375 ft
MIR_bw≔P =⋅ IR_bw eIR_bw -0.5 kip ⋅ ft
Stem inertial loads:

PIR_stm ≔-kh⋅PDL_stm =-0.916 kip
eIR_stm ≔0.5 ⎛
⎝Hwall-tft-Hbw⎞⎠+tft=5.25 ft
MIR_stm ≔PIR_stm ⋅ eIR_stm =-4.809 kip ⋅ ft
Footing inertial loads:

PIR_ft≔-kh⋅PDL_ft=-1.593 kip
eIR_ft≔0.5⋅tft=1 ft
MIR_ft≔PIR_ft⋅ eIR_ft=-1.593 kip ⋅ ft
Soil inertial loads:

PIR_soil≔-kh⋅PEV =-2.437 kip
eIR_soil≔eIR_stm
MIR_soil≔P ⋅ IR_soil eIR_soil
Slab inertial loads:

PIR_slab≔-2 ⋅PDL_slab ⋅ PGA=-5.814 kip
eIR_slab≔eIR_bw =8.375 ft
MIR_slab≔PIR_slab ⋅ eIR_slab=-48.691 kip ⋅ ft
PIR≔PIR_slab+PIR_stm +PIR_ft+PIR_soil+PIR_bw =-10.82 kip MIR≔MIR_slab+MIR_stm +MIR_ft+MIR_soil+MIR_bw =-68.39 kip ⋅ ft 148
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Active Earth Load:
γs≔85 pcf Unit weight of soil
ka ≔0.33 Active coefficient of soil
tslab≔14 in Liner thickness
pa≔-⎛
⎝Hwall-tslab⎞⎠
⋅ka⋅γs=-0.227 ksf Maximum hrz soil pressure
Pa≔0.5 ⋅ ⎛
⎝Hwall-tslab⎞⎠
⋅pa⋅ b=-0.916 kip Active soil load on wall
Eccentricity of active earth
pressure ea≔――――=
Hwall-tslab
3 2.694 ft
Ma≔Pa⋅ ea=-2.469 kip⋅ ft Active soil moment
Seismic Active Earth Load:
γs=85 pcf Unit weight of soil
kAE≔0.63 Seismic active coefficient of soil
tslab=14 in Liner thickness
pAE≔-⎛
⎝Hwall-tslab⎞⎠
⋅kAE ⋅γs=-0.433 ksf Maximum hrz soil pressure
PAE≔0.5 ⋅ ⎛ ⋅ =⋅ ⎝Hwall-tslab⎞
⎠ pAE b -1.749 kip Seisimc soil load
eAE≔ea=2.694 ft Eccentricity of Seisimc soil load
MAE≔PAE ⋅ eAE =-4.714 kip⋅ ft Seisimc soil moment
Passive Resistance:
ppas≔250 ―psf―ft
ppas_mx≔min⎛
⎝ppas ⋅ ⎛⎝Hwall-tliner⎞⎠
,2500 psf⎞
⎠=2.188 ksf
Rpassive≔0.5 ppas_mx ⋅ ⎛
⎝Hwall-tliner⎞⎠
⋅ b=9.57 kip Passive soil resistance
epas≔――――=
Hwall-tliner
3 2.917 ft Passive resistance eccentricity
Mpas≔Rpassive ⋅ epas=27.913 kip⋅ ft Passive soil moment 149
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Bearing Check:

According to Caltrans STP 11.29:

MEQ1≔MIR +0.5 MAE =-70.746 kip ⋅ ft
MEQ2≔0.5 MIR +MAE =-38.908 kip ⋅ ft
MEQ3≔MIR +Ma=-70.858 kip⋅ ft
MEQ≔min⎛
⎝MEQ1 ,MEQ2 ,MEQ3⎞⎠=-70.858 kip⋅ ft
MEX≔Mperm +Mpas+MEQ =-30.34 kip⋅ ft Combined seismic moment Pperm =12.727 kip Permenant vertical load
e≔――=
MEX
Pperm
-2.384 ft Combined seismic eccentricity
B'≔Wft-||2⋅ e||=5.232 ft Effective footing width
σEX≔――=
Pperm
B' b⋅

2.432 ksf Seismic bearing pressure
Allowable bearing pressure
for transient loading σa_tran≔4 ksf
DCR≔―――=
σEX
σa_tran

0.608 <1, OK
150
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Sliding Check:

Friction Resistance:

Pperm =12.73 kip
Coefficent of friction
μs≔0.3
Rsliding≔μs⋅Pperm =3.82 kip Sliding resistance
Sliding Demand:

PIR =-10.82 kip Pa=-0.916 kip PAE =-1.749 kip
According to Caltrans STP 11.29:

Pseis_1≔PIR +0.5⋅PAE =-11.69 kip
Pseis_2≔0.5 ⋅PIR +PAE =-7.16 kip
Pseis_3≔PIR +Pa=-11.74 kip
Pseis≔min⎛
⎝Pseis_1 ,Pseis_2 ,Pseis_3⎞⎠=-11.74 kip
―――――=
-Pseis
Rpassive+Rsliding

0.877 <1, OK
151
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Stem Check
Check stem capacity to resist the slab inertial loads in addition to the stem inertia loads and active seismic soil loads.

Slab Inertial Load:

PIR_slab=-5.814 kip Slab inertial load
eIR_slab≔Hwall 9 in ―― =---
9 in
2 tft 6.125 ft Center of backwall to top of
footing
MIR_slab≔PIR_slab ⋅ eIR_slab=-35.61 kip⋅ ft Stem moment due to Slab inertial load
Stem Inertial Load:

PIR_stm =-0.916 kip Stem inertial load
eIR_stm ≔0.5 ⋅ ⎛
⎝Hwall-tft⎞⎠=3.625 ft Stem inertial eccentricity
MIR_stm ≔PIR_stm ⋅ eIR_stm =-3.32 kip ⋅ ft Stem inertial moment Active Earth Load:
γs=85 pcf Unit weight of soil
ka =0.33 Active coefficient of soil
tslab=14 in Slab thickness
pa≔⎛ =⋅⋅ ⎝Hwall tslab-- tft⎞
⎠ ka γs 0.171 ksf Maximum hrz soil pressure
Pa≔-0.5⋅ ⎛
⎝Hwall-tslab-tft⎞⎠
⋅pa⋅ b=-0.519 kip Horizontal soil load
ea≔―⋅ =
1 3
⎛
⎝Hwall-tslab-tft⎞⎠ 2.028 ft Eccentricity of soil load
Ma≔Pa⋅ ea=-1.052 kip⋅ ft Moment due to soil load
Seismic Active Earth Load:
kAE =0.63 Seismic active coefficient of soil
pAE≔⎛
⎝Hwall-tslab-tft⎞⎠
⋅kAE ⋅γs=0.326 ksf Maximum hrz soil pressure
PAE≔-0.5⋅ ⎛
⎝Hwall-tslab-tft⎞⎠
⋅pAE ⋅ b=-0.991 kip Horizontal soil load
eAE≔―⋅ =
1 3
⎛
⎝Hwall-tslab-tft⎞⎠ 2.028 ft Eccentricity of soil load
MAE≔PAE ⋅ eAE =-2.009 kip⋅ ft Moment due to soil load
152
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Passive Resistance:
ppas≔250 ―psf―ft
ppas_mx≔min⎛
⎝ppas ⋅ ⎛⎝Hwall-tliner-tft⎞⎠
,2500 psf⎞
⎠=1.69 ksf Maximum hrz soil pressure
Rpassive≔0.5 ppas_mx ⋅ ⎛
⎝Hwall-tliner-tft⎞⎠
⋅ b=5.7 kip Horizontal soil load
epassive≔―⋅ =
1 3
⎛
⎝Hwall-tslab-tft⎞⎠ 2.03 ft Eccentricity of soil load
Mpassive≔Rpassive ⋅ epassive=11.55 kip ⋅ ft Moment due to soil load Stem Demand (Caltrans STP 11.29):

VEQ_1≔PIR_slab+PIR_stm +0.5 PAE +Rpassive=-1.53 kip
MEQ_1≔MIR_slab+MIR_stm +0.5 MAE +Mpassive=-28.39 kip ⋅ ft VEQ_2≔0.5 PIR_slab+0.5 PIR_stm +PAE +Rpassive=1.34 kip
MEQ_2≔0.5 MIR_slab+0.5 MIR_stm +MAE +Mpassive=-9.93 kip ⋅ ft VEQ_3≔PIR_slab+PIR_stm +Pa+Rpassive=-1.55 kip
MEQ_3≔MIR_slab+MIR_stm +Ma+Mpassive=-28.43 kip ⋅ ft
VEQ_stm ≔max⎛
⎝VEQ_1 ,VEQ_3 ,VEQ_3⎞⎠=-1.53 kip
MEQ_stm ≔max⎛
⎝MEQ_1 ,MEQ_3 ,MEQ_3⎞⎠=-28.39 kip ⋅ ft
153
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Stem Structural Check
Included in these calculations are checks for:
+Flexure
+Shear
+Longitudinal Reinforcement (Combined Shear-Flexure)
Demand:

VEQ_stm =-1.53 kip
MEQ_stm =-28.39 kip⋅ ft
Section:
b≔1 ft Footing strip width
d≔24 in Footing depth
Material Properties:
f'c≔3.6 ksi Nominal Concrete strength
f'ce≔min⎛
⎝1.3⋅ f'c
,5 ksi⎞
⎠=⎛
⎝4.68 10 ⋅
3 ⎞
⎠ psi Expected Concrete strength
SDC 2.0, 3.3.6
β1≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝
,0.85 -0.85 0.05
⎛
⎜
⎝
――-
f'c
ksi
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.85 AASHTO 2017, 5.6.2.2
Es≔29000 ksi Steel modulus of elasticity
fy≔60 ksi Nominal reinforcement yield stress
fye≔68 ksi Expected reinforcement yield stress
SDC 2.0, 3.3.3
Resistance Factors (SDC 2.0, 3.6):
ϕf≔1.0
ϕv≔1.0
154
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+In-Plane Flexural Calculations:

Longitudinal Reinforcement:
#5s @ 12":
bsz≔5 Bar size
s≔12 in Bar spacing
As≔b ⋅―――=
Abar ⎛
⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
s

0.31 in2
Area of longitudinal reinforcement
dc1≔3 in Cover on longitudinal
reinforcement
ds≔d-⎛
⎝dc1+0.5 dba ⎛⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠=20.655 in Depth to CG of
reinforcement layers.

Concrete Compression Block (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.1.1):
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fye
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

0.68 in AASHTO 2012, 5.7.3.1.1-4
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.08875
fs1≔min⎛
⎝fye ,Es
⋅εt
⎞
⎠=68 ksi
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fs1
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ ce β1 b

0.52 in
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.116
fs2≔min⎛
⎝fye ,Es
⋅εt
⎞
⎠=68 ksi
fs≔fs2
a≔β1⋅ c=0.44 in Depth of equivalent stress block.

Flexural Resistance (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.2):

Mn≔As⋅ fs⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
ds-―a
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠
36 kip⋅ ft
DCM3≔―――――=
abs ⎛
⎝MEQ_stm⎞⎠
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.791 <1, OK
155
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Maximum Shear:

Demands at Section:

VEQ_stm =-1.53 kip Vertical shear force on section
+ Shear Calculations:

Transverse Steel:

0.5 bv dv 27 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-3)
Shear Capacity Calculation (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
ϕVn1≔ϕv⋅0.25⋅ f'c⋅ bv⋅dv=201 kip
ϕVn2≔ϕv⋅ ⎛
⎝Vs+Vc
⎞
⎠=27 kip
ϕVn ≔min⎛
⎝ϕVn1 ,ϕVn2⎞⎠=26.7 kip
DCR≔―――――=
abs ⎛
⎝VEQ_stm⎞⎠
ϕVn

0.057 <1, OK
156
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+Longitudinal Reinforcement Calculation:

Longitudinal Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.5):

Flexural Component:

MEQ_stm =-28.386 kip ⋅ ftdv=18.59 in ϕf=1
DM ≔―――――=
abs ⎛
⎝MEQ_stm⎞⎠
ϕ ⋅ f dv
18 kip
Shear/Torsion Component:

VEQ_stm =-1.53 kip Vs=0 kip Vp≔0 kip
Vs≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝
―――――,
abs ⎛
⎝VEQ_stm⎞⎠
ϕv
Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
0 kip
DV≔cot ((θ)) ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
-
|
|
|
―――+
VEQ_stm
ϕv
Vp
|
|
|

0.5⋅Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
2 kip
Capacity Check:

As=0.31 in2fy=60 ksi
C≔As⋅ fye=21 kip
―――=
DM + DV
C

0.94 <1, OK
157
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Footing Check
wEX≔-σEX ⋅ b=-2.432 klf
wDC_ft≔γc⋅tft⋅ b=0.3 klf
wEV≔γs⋅ ⎛
⎝Hwall-tft-tliner⎞⎠ b=0.574 klf
wLIN_V≔γc⋅tliner ⋅ b=0.075 klf
w2≔wDC_ft +wEV +wLIN_V =0.949 klf
w1≔w2 wEX =+ -1.484 klf
a≔B'=5.232 ft
Max moment is at face of stem
MEQ_ft≔――――+ =
w ⋅ 2 Lheel
2 2
wEX ⋅B'⋅ ⎛
⎝Lheel-0.5 B'⎞⎠ -35.5 kip ⋅ ft
VEQ_ft≔w2⋅Lheel+wEX ⋅B'=-5.6 kip
158
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Footing Structural Check
Included in these calculations are checks for:
+Flexure
+Shear
+Longitudinal Reinforcement (Combined Shear-Flexure)
Demand:

VEQ_ft=-5.612 kip
MEQ_ft=-35.47 kip ⋅ ft
Section:
b≔1 ft Footing strip width
d≔24 in Footing depth
Material Properties:
f'c≔3.6 ksi Nominal Concrete strength
f'ce≔min⎛
⎝1.3⋅ f'c
,5 ksi⎞
⎠=⎛
⎝4.68 10 ⋅
3 ⎞
⎠ psi Expected Concrete strength
SDC 2.0, 3.3.6
β1≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝

0.85,0.85 0.05 -
⎛
⎜
⎝
――-
f'c
ksi
4 ⎞
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎟
⎠

0.85 AASHTO 2017, 5.6.2.2
Es≔29000 ksi Steel modulus of elasticity
fy≔60 ksi Nominal reinforcement yield stress
fye≔68 ksi Expected reinforcement yield stress
SDC 2.0, 3.3.3
Resistance Factors (SDC 2.0, 3.6):
ϕf≔1.0
ϕv≔1.0
159
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+In-Plane Flexural Calculations:

Longitudinal Reinforcement:
#6s @ 12":
bsz≔6 Bar size
s≔12 in Bar spacing
As≔b ⋅―――=
Abar ⎛
⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
s

0.44 in2
Area of longitudinal reinforcement
dc1≔3 in Cover on longitudinal
reinforcement
ds≔d-⎛
⎝dc1+0.5 dba ⎛⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
⎞
⎠=20.56 in Depth to CG of
reinforcement layers.

Concrete Compression Block (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.1.1):
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fye
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ c β1 b

0.96 in AASHTO 2012, 5.7.3.1.1-4
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.06134
fs1≔min⎛
⎝fye ,Es
⋅εt
⎞
⎠=68 ksi
c≔―――――=
A ⋅ s fs1
⋅0.85 f' ⋅ ⋅ ce β1 b

0.74 in
εt≔⎛
⎝ds-c⎞⎠ ――=

0.003
c

0.081
fs2≔min⎛
⎝fye ,Es
⋅εt
⎞
⎠=68 ksi
fs≔fs2
a≔β1⋅ c=0.63 in Depth of equivalent stress block.

Flexural Resistance (AASHTO 2017, 5.6.3.2):

Mn≔As⋅ fs⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
ds-―a
2 ⎞
⎟
⎠
50 kip⋅ ft
DCM3≔――――=
abs ⎛
⎝MEQ_ft⎞⎠
ϕ ⋅ f Mn

0.703 <1, OK
160
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Maximum Shear:

Demands at Section:

VEQ_ft=-5.612 kip Vertical shear force on section
+ Shear Calculations:

Transverse Steel:

0.5 bv dv 27 kip AASHTO 2017, (5.7.3.3-3)
Shear Capacity Calculation (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.3):
ϕVn1≔ϕv⋅0.25⋅ f'c⋅ bv⋅dv=200 kip
ϕVn2≔ϕv⋅ ⎛
⎝Vs+Vc
⎞
⎠=27 kip
ϕVn ≔min⎛
⎝ϕVn1 ,ϕVn2⎞⎠=26.6 kip
DCR≔――――=
abs ⎛
⎝VEQ_ft⎞⎠
ϕVn

0.211 <1, OK
161
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
+Longitudinal Reinforcement Calculation:

Longitudinal Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.3.5):

Flexural Component:

MEQ_ft=-35.475 kip ⋅ ft dv=18.5 in ϕf=1
DM ≔――――=
abs ⎛
⎝MEQ_ft⎞⎠
ϕ ⋅ f dv
23 kip
Shear/Torsion Component:

VEQ_ft=-5.612 kip Vs=0 kip Vp≔0 kip
Vs≔min =
⎛
⎜
⎝
――――,
abs ⎛
⎝VEQ_ft⎞⎠
ϕv
Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
0 kip
DV≔cot ((θ)) ⋅ =
⎛
⎜
⎝
-
|
|
|
―――+
VEQ_ft
ϕv
Vp
|
|
|
⋅0.5 Vs
⎞
⎟
⎠
6 kip
Capacity Check:

As=0.44 in2fy=60 ksi
C≔As⋅ fye=30 kip
―――=
DM + DV
C

0.96 <1, OK
162
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Backwall Check
In a seismic event it is anticipated that the joint between the crossing slab will close transfering the inertial force from the crossing slab to one of the footings. This force will transfer to the footing through the backwall of the footing. This section will check that the backwall is capable transfering this load
Material Properties:
f'c≔3.6 ksi Nominal Concrete strength
γc≔150 pcf=150 pcf Concrete modulus of elasticity
fy=⎛
⎝6 10 ⋅
4 ⎞
⎠ psi Reinforcing steel stress
Resistance Factors (Caltrans SDC 2.0, 3.6):
ϕf=1
ϕv≔1
Demand:

Aslab≔36.5 ft2
Slab cross section area (from footing design)
Pslab≔2⋅PDL_slab=5.474 kip
PGA=1.062 Peak ground acceleration
PIR_slab≔PGA P⋅ slab=5.814 kip Load due to vertical siesmic load PIR_bw≔PIR_slab=5.814 kip
163
Project: Shea Properties
Project #: 24002328
Subject: Footing Seismc Design
Originator: JRM
Date: 11/04/2024
Interface Shear (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.4):

Miminimum Area of Interface Shear Reinforcement (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.4.2) tbw =1 ft fy=60 ksi
b=1 ft
Acv≔tbw ⋅ b=1 ft2
Avf_min≔―――――=

0.05⋅A ⋅ cv ksi
fy

0.12 in2
use (2) #4s @ 12"
n≔2
s≔12 in
bsz≔4
Avf≔――――⋅ =
n A⋅ bar ⎛
⎝bsz
⎞
⎠
s
b 0.4 in2
Check Interface Shear (AASHTO 2017, 5.7.4.3)
Normal weight concrete placed monolithically:
c≔0.4 ksi Cohesion factor
μ≔1.4 Friction factor
K1≔0.25 Fraction of concrete strength available
K2≔1.5 ksi Limiting interface shear resistance
Pc≔0 kip Compression on interface
Vni_1≔c A⋅ cv+μ⋅ ⎛
⎝Avf ⋅ fy+Pc
⎞
⎠=91.2 kip
Vni_2≔K1⋅ f'c⋅Acv=129.6 kip
Vni_3≔K2⋅Acv=216 kip
Vni≔min⎛
⎝Vni_1 ,Vni_2 ,Vni_3⎞⎠=91.2 kip
DCR≔――――=
ϕ ⋅ v PIR_bw
Vni

0.064 <1, OK
164
764 Ramona Expressway Suite C Perris CA 92571Phone (951) 776-9300Fax (951) 776-0404alabbasi.biz Mamco Inc dba
Shea San Jacinto – Casa Loma Barrel Shallow Foundation Work Plan The Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 will have a shallow foundation constructed per the attached concept. Prior to excavation and construction, the existing line will be located. A vactor truck will slot trench and expose the top of the entire length of the pipeline within the work zone. The work zone will be cleared and grubbed and all vegetation removed and disposed of. The foundation will be constructed in three separate phases per the highlighted plan on the attachment. Each phase will follow the same sequence.

No more than one phase will be excavated to the bottom of the footing at a time. Both sides are to have the same sequence number completed prior to continuing to the next step. Concrete will be placed using a boom pump. No concrete trucks will be permitted to drive within the barrel protection zone.

1. The footings will be excavated from North and South concurrently with two Linkbelt 350x excavators. Excavators will be set away from the barrel and each will have a spotter for guidance. The entire footing will not be excavated all at one time on one side. Both sides will be excavated in equal lifts. The excavation will be 10’ wide and 7.75’ deep.

Excavated materials will be spoiled behind the excavators and away from the barrel.

Spoils will be pushed using a John Deere 644 wheel loader. The temporary excavation will be sloped 1.5:1.

2. The 10’ wide x 2’ high spread footing will be formed and poured first on both sides. The footing will have a 6” starter wall for the next pour.

3. The 5.75’ high footing wall will be formed and poured.

Once sufficient concrete strength has been reached for all footings, the footing will be backfilled with flowable fill to meet the unit weight and strength criteria in the Geotech report.

The top slab over the barrel will be graded using a John Deere 210LE skip loader after which 6” thick polystyrene foam boards will be placed. The top slab will be formed and poured.

ATTACHMENT 6 - PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION WORK PLAN ATTACHMENT 6 - PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION WORK PLAN Phase 1 Phase 3 Phase 2 Pour 1 2
Pour 3 Protected Zone Protected Zone - No equipment heavier than John Deere 210LE Skip Loader to be used. ATTACHMENT 6 - PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION WORK PLAN 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 1 of 1 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
2280 Market Street, Suite 300, Riverside, CA 92501 p | 951.801.3681 f | 951.682.0192 February 13, 2025
Kleinfelder Project No.: 24002328.001A
Mr. Eric Hays
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, California 92506
SUBJECT: DRAFT Geotechnical Investigation Report
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
Dear Mr. Hays:

Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased to present this DRAFT Geotechnical Investigation Report for the San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain project in San Jacinto, California. This report summarizes the findings of our investigation and presents geotechnical design parameters and recommendations for design and construction of the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, comments, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,
KLEINFELDER, INC.

Hector Marquez, PE Eric W. Noel, PE, GE
Project Engineer Sr. Principal Geotechnical Engineer
DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page i of iv February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
KLEINFELDER PROJECT NO. 24002328.001A
FEBRUARY 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder
All Rights Reserved

ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page ii of iv February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
A Report Prepared for:

Mr. Eric Hays
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, California 92506

DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:

Hector Marquez, PE
Project Engineer
Reviewed by:

Eric W. Noel, PE, GE
Sr. Principal Geotechnical Engineer

KLEINFELDER
2280 Market Street, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: 951.801.3681
Fax: 951.682.0192
February 13, 2025
Kleinfelder Project No. 24002328.001A
DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page iii of iv February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..................................................................................... 2 2 BACKGROUND STUDIES .............................................................................................. 3

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................ 3

2.2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE ................................................................................ 3 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................. 4

3.1 UTILITY CLEARANCES ...................................................................................... 4

3.2 FIELD EXPLORATION ........................................................................................ 4

3.3 SOIL BORINGS ................................................................................................... 4

3.4 SAMPLING METHODS FOR SOIL BORINGS ..................................................... 5

3.5 CONE PENETRATION TESTING ........................................................................ 6

3.6 SURFACE WAVE MEASUREMENT TESTING ................................................... 6 4 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................... 7

4.1 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING ................................................................................ 7 5 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 8

5.1 TOPOGRAPGHY AND DRAINAGE ..................................................................... 8

5.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING ......................................................................................... 8

5.3 STATIGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 9

5.3.1 Artificial Fill ............................................................................................... 9

5.3.2 Young Alluvium (axial valley floor deposits [Qya]) .................................... 9

5.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY............................................................................ 10

5.4.1 Faulting .................................................................................................. 10

5.4.2 Seismicity ............................................................................................... 10

5.5 GROUNDWATER .............................................................................................. 11

5.6 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ...................................................................................... 12

5.6.1 Fault Rupture ......................................................................................... 12

5.6.2 Flood Hazard .......................................................................................... 13

5.6.3 Erosion ................................................................................................... 13 6 ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 14

6.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................... 14

6.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 14

6.2.1 Seismic Design Parameters ................................................................... 14

6.3 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT ...................... 15

6.4 MWD PIPELINE CROSSING ............................................................................. 17

6.4.1 Foundations ........................................................................................... 17

6.4.2 MWD Pipeline Settlement ....................................................................... 18

6.4.3 Additional Constructability Considerations .............................................. 20

6.5 EXPANSIVE SOILS ........................................................................................... 20

6.6 CORROSIVITY .................................................................................................. 21

6.7 TEMPORARY SHORING ................................................................................... 21

6.7.1 General .................................................................................................. 21 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page iv of iv February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

6.7.2 Lateral Pressures ................................................................................... 22

6.7.3 Design of Soldier Piles ........................................................................... 22

6.7.4 Lagging .................................................................................................. 23

6.7.5 Deflection ............................................................................................... 23

6.7.6 Monitoring .............................................................................................. 23

6.8 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX DESIGN ....................................................... 24

6.8.1 Design Parameters ................................................................................. 24

6.8.2 Estimated RCB Settlement ..................................................................... 25

6.9 EARTHWORK AND GRADING .......................................................................... 25

6.9.1 Site Preparation ...................................................................................... 25

6.9.2 Stripping and Grubbing ........................................................................... 25

6.9.3 Earthwork ............................................................................................... 26

6.9.4 Temporary Excavations .......................................................................... 26

6.9.5 Unstable Subgrade Conditions ............................................................... 27

6.10 PERMANENT SLOPES ..................................................................................... 28

6.10.1 Fill Slopes ............................................................................................... 28

6.10.2 Cut Slopes .............................................................................................. 29

6.11 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................. 30

6.12 SCOUR CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 30

6.13 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 31

6.13.1 Asphalt Concrete .................................................................................... 31

6.13.2 Portland Cement Concrete ..................................................................... 32 7 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... 34 8 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 36

FIGURES
1 Site Vicinity Map
2 Exploration Location Map
3 Fault Location Map
4 Typical Engineered Fill Slope Detail

APPENDICES
A Field Exploration
B Laboratory Testing
C Surface Wave Measurements Report
D Liquefaction Analysis
E Numerical Analysis of Proposed Crossing
DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 1 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain project in San Jacinto, California. The project location is shown on Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate surface and subsurface conditions in the area of planned improvements and to provide geotechnical recommendations for earthwork, design and construction considerations.

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on subsurface conditions encountered at the locations of our field investigation, laboratory testing, and our evaluation of the data. The provisions and requirements outlined in the Limitations section of this report are also an integral part of the development of our conclusions and recommendations.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that the project involves design of an approximate 3-mile storm drain channel to be constructed in the City of San Jacinto. The new storm drain channel will be constructed near the existing ground surface and the majority of the alignment will consist of an earthen channel with a 65-foot base width, heights up to 10 feet, side slopes inclined at 4:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), and several sloped rip-rap drops along the alignment. In addition, several 6 to 8-cell reinforced concrete box (RCB) culverts with cell widths up to 14 feet and cell heights up to 9 feet are planned at existing or proposed roadways along the alignment. Storm water flow is generally south to north and a training berm is proposed on the south end of the alignment. At the northern portion of the alignment the proposed earthen channel terminates at a proposed confluence basin and the remainder of the alignment converts to a concrete channel with a 145-foot base width, height up to 10 feet, and side slopes inclined at 1.5:1 (H:V).

At the northern end of the proposed concrete channel portion, the proposed alignment crosses an existing Metropolitan Water District (MWD) pipeline (Casa Loma Siphon No. 1). We understand this pipeline is an approximately 14.5-foot diameter reinforced concrete pipe. It is proposed to cross the MWD pipeline with a relieving slab (approximately 14-inch thick concrete slab overlying a 6-inch low density polystyrene foam) supported on shallow footings to minimize adding loads to the existing pipeline. Per MWD requirements, we understand the crossing structure is required when cover over their pipe is less than 4 feet. We understand the crossing structure slab will be approximately 203 feet long and 31 feet wide. Footings will be continuous, approximately 10 feet wide, and approximately 7 to 9 feet deep. DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 2 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this study was to investigate and evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions along the proposed project alignment. Field explorations were performed along the alignment to identify potential geologic hazards and provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the project.

The services performed as part of this investigation were provided in general accordance with our proposal dated June 28, 2023. Specifically, our scope of work includes the following:
 A description of the proposed project including a site vicinity map and a site plan showing the locations of the subsurface explorations;
 A discussion of historical and geologic research pertinent to the proposed project;  A summary of the surficial and subsurface site conditions encountered during our field investigation;
 A discussion of geologic hazards;
 Analysis for liquefaction potential;
 Recommendations for seismic design parameters;
 Analysis for MWD pipeline settlement;
 Recommendations for design and construction of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing;  Recommendations for site preparation, earthwork, temporary slope inclinations, fill placement, and compaction specifications;
 Recommendations for temporary shoring;
 Recommendations for subgrade preparation and support of storm drain channel;  Recommendations for pavement structural sections;
 Preliminary evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site soils; and  Appendices including logs of borings and CPTs, laboratory test results, and surface wave measurement results.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 3 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
2 BACKGROUND STUDIES

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Geologic and geotechnical literature was reviewed including reports, maps, and other documents prepared by the California Geological Survey (CGS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and other agencies. We also reviewed maps and preliminary documents pertaining to previous investigations at the site prepared by Leighton and Associates, Schaefer Dixon Associates, and SoCalGeo.

These reports, maps and other documents are listed in Section 8, References. Pertinent findings and information contained within these maps and reports are discussed within the body of this report.

2.2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
A field reconnaissance of the site was performed prior to initiation of our subsurface investigation program and following our literature review. The purposes of the field reconnaissance were as follows:
 Visit and observe site conditions at proposed exploration locations;  Evaluate equipment accessibility for field investigations;  Document earth materials and geologic conditions present along the alignment and surrounding area; and
 Evaluate features identified during the literature review.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 4 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
3 FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation activities for this project commenced with utility clearance for proposed boring and Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPT) explorations. Following utility clearance, the field investigation included drilling and sampling of 19 hollow-stem auger borings and performing 2 CPTs. Discussions of the field investigation program including utility clearances, exploration methods and sampling methods are provided below.

3.1 UTILITY CLEARANCES
Prior to beginning the field exploration program, Underground Service Alert (USA) was contacted to identify potential conflicts between the planned exploration locations and existing, documented, underground utilities. Ground penetrating radar was also performed for utility clearances at the exploration locations. Furthermore, the boring and CPT locations were hand augured generally to 5 feet below the existing ground surface before commencing work.

3.2 FIELD EXPLORATION
The subsurface exploration program included drilling 19 hollow-stem auger borings, performing 2 CPTs, and performing 2 seismic surface wave measurement arrays along the project alignment for geotechnical characterization purposes. The borings were drilled between September 26, 2023 and September 28, 2023. The CPTs were performed on October 11, 2023.

The seismic surface wave measurement arrays were performed on September 23, 2024 and September 24, 2024.

In general, the borings were located along the storm drain alignment, with adjustments made in the field as needed to avoid access or utility conflicts. The CPT locations and seismic surface wave measurement arrays were performed in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing. The approximate locations of the exploration locations are shown on Figure 2, Exploration Location Map.

3.3 SOIL BORINGS
For this project, 19 soil borings were drilled using truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rigs supplied by 2R Drilling of Chino, California. Hollow-Stem Auger (HSA) drill rigs were equipped with 8-inch outside diameter (O.D.) continuous flight, hollow-stem augers. The auger method was used following the general ASTM guidelines D1452 “Standard Practice for Soil DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 5 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Investigation and Sampling by Hollow-Stem Augers.” The drilling equipment was selected based on anticipated subsurface conditions and vehicle access. The borings were drilled to a depth of approximately 20 feet below ground surface (bgs), with exception to the borings in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing (B-1 and B-2) and at the southern end of the concrete channel portion of the alignment (B-4), which were drilled to approximately 50 feet bgs. Four (4) of the 19 borings were converted to piezometers (Borings B-6, B-9, B-14, and B-15). The remainder of the borings were backfilled with excess soil cuttings upon completion.

Subsurface conditions encountered in the soil borings were logged by an experienced engineer or geologist, under the review and direction of a licensed Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer, who also performed the sampling described below. Soils were logged in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System. The boring logs are presented in Appendix A, Field Exploration.

3.4 SAMPLING METHODS FOR SOIL BORINGS
Disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface materials were obtained from the borings using Standard Penetration test (SPT) samplers and California-type (CAL) samplers, respectively. The SPT sampler has a 1.375-inch inside diameter and a 2.0-inch outside diameter. The CAL sampler has a 2.42-inch inside diameter and a 3.0-inch outside diameter. Samples were collected in accordance with the general guidelines of ASTM D1586 “Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.” Samples were driven 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. SPT and CAL samples were obtained at 5-foot intervals alternating between the SPT and the CAL until reaching the boring target depth. Large bulk samples were also obtained within the upper 5 feet from each boring.

The number of blows required to drive the samplers were recorded for each 6-inch penetration interval. The number of blows required to drive the samplers for the last 12 inches, or the interval achieved where higher resistance was encountered, is referred to as the blow count and is noted on the boring logs. The blow counts recorded on the boring logs are recorded in 6-inch intervals. Where the sample was driven less than 12 inches, the number of blows to drive the sample for each 6-inch segment, or portion thereof, is shown on the logs. For example, 50/4” indicates 50 blows to drive the sampler 4 inches to refusal. After the samplers were withdrawn from the test borings, select samples were carefully removed, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and transported to our laboratory for testing. DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 6 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

3.5 CONE PENETRATION TESTING
Two CPTs were performed in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing because potentially liquefiable soils were anticipated. The CPTs were performed by Kehoe Testing & Engineering, Inc. of Huntington Beach, California using a 30-ton truck rig. The CPTs were advanced to a maximum depth of 100 ft bgs. Upon completion, the CPTs were backfilled with hydrated bentonite chips. The CPT visual plots and data are presented in Appendix A, Field Exploration.

3.6 SURFACE WAVE MEASUREMENT TESTING
Two seismic surface wave measurement arrays were performed in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing to determine shear (S) wave velocity profiles in support of the MWD pipeline settlement analysis. The surface wave measurements were performed by GEOVision of Corona, California. The approximate array locations are shown on Figure 2. A detailed report of the surface wave measurements is presented in Appendix C, Surface Wave Measurements Report.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 7 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
4 LABORATORY TESTING

4.1 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained from the borings following field exploration. Laboratory tests were performed on drive and bulk soil samples to estimate engineering characteristics of the various earth materials encountered. Selected samples from the borings were tested to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties.

The laboratory testing program was formulated with the emphasis on evaluating the density, plasticity, shear strength, and gradation of the soils encountered. Classifications made in the field were modified as appropriate, based on the laboratory test results. The description of the subsurface conditions and classifications presented in the boring logs reflect the changes made as a result of the laboratory tests.

The laboratory index tests, and engineering property tests performed included determination of in-situ moisture content and dry density, wash sieve, sieve & hydrometer analysis, Atterberg limits, direct shear, consolidation testing, expansion index, compaction curve testing, R-Value, and preliminary corrosivity testing including pH, minimum resistivity, sulfate content, and chloride content. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 8 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
5 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 TOPOGRAPGHY AND DRAINAGE
The project is in the San Jacinto Valley in west Riverside County, about 4 miles northwest of the city of San Jacinto, California. The project site is in an area of farmland on the floodplain on the southwest side of the San Jacinto River, which is channelized in the northern San Jacinto Valley and which drains northwest before turning southwest toward Lake Elsinore. The site is on the west side of the valley below the granitic highlands of the Lakeview Mountains to the west and the San Jacinto Mountains to the east.

5.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING
California is divided into eleven natural geomorphic provinces that are recognized based on geology, landscape or landform, topographic relief, and climate. The project is in the Peninsular Ranges province which extends from the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains north of the site southward into lower California, and from the coast eastward to the Colorado Desert (Norris and Webb, 1990).

The Peninsular Ranges are a series of northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys subparallel to major faults branching from the San Andreas fault system. The Peninsular Ranges are divided into three fault-bounded structural blocks comprised of mostly granitic rocks intruding sedimentary rocks and older metamorphic rocks (Norris and Webb, 1990). The project area is near the north end of the middle (Perris) block.

The north end of the Perris block is bounded by active faults: the Sierra Madre fault on the north, the Elsinore fault on the west, and the San Jacinto fault on the east. The site is in the San Jacinto fault zone (SJFZ) at the east edge of the Perris block.

The northwest-striking SJFZ is a major right-lateral strike-slip fault zone in southern California (Onderdonk et al., 2013). The San Jacinto Valley is a pull-apart basin bounded on the northeast by the Claremont strand of the SJFZ and on the southwestern margin of the valley by the Casa Loma fault strand, two of the many fault strands that make up the SJFZ. Northwest of the site, the Casa Loma fault bounds a 1.5-mile-wide extensional step-over at Mystic Lake (a sag pond), and to the southeast the Casa Loma fault is co-linear with the Clark fault, the primary strand of the central SJFZ (Rockwell et al., 2015). The Casa Loma fault intersects the proposed onsite DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 9 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
and confluence basins at the north end of the alignment and the proposed Line E inlet at the south end (USGS, 2006).

The proposed alignment lies east of the Casa Loma fault (USGS, 2006), with the exception of the onsite basin, and is within the structural basin part of the San Jacinto Valley between the Casa Loma and Claremont faults. The thickness of valley sediments within the structural basin between the Casa Loma and Claremont faults may exceed 5000 feet, but valley sediments are much thinner west of the Casa Loma fault, reaching maximum depths of about 900 feet (DWR, 2013).

5.3 STATIGRAPHY
The proposed alignment occupies the floodplain of the San Jacinto River and is underlain by alluvium comprised of sandy fluvial deposits and silty to clayey overbank (flood) deposits.

Geologic mapping by Morton et al. (2001) shows young alluvial deposits east of the Casa Loma fault scarp and slightly older deposits west of the scarp, which was a barrier to flood deposition.

Radiocarbon dates from detrital charcoal samples collected near the alignment for studies of the Casa Loma fault (Schaefer Dixon, 1993; Givler et al., 2022) indicate the fault juxtaposes late Holocene deposits on the east against latest Pleistocene to early Holocene deposits on the west.

Following are brief descriptions of the soil units encountered in our borings. Detailed logs are presented in Appendix A.

5.3.1 Artificial Fill
Artificial fill is present locally along portions of the study area, generally beneath existing roads.

The fill overlies native materials and generally consists of a thin veneer of locally-derived sandy silt and silty sand. The fill soils are considered undocumented and are not shown.

5.3.2 Young Alluvium (axial valley floor deposits [Qya]) Holocene-age sandy fluvial deposits and silty to clayey overbank (flood) deposits associated with the San Jacinto River (Morton et al., 2001). Alluvial soils were encountered in borings B-1 through B-19 and primarily consisted of fine silty sand and sandy silt, with lesser amounts of silt, sand, and clayey sand. Boreholes drilled farther from the river channel encountered slightly finer soils, consistent with floodplain deposition. Relative density ranges from predominantly loose to medium dense and stiff to very stiff. DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 10 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

5.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY

5.4.1 Faulting
The project is in seismically active southern California. The project is within the zone of influence for several faults which are considered active or potentially active. An active fault is a fault that has experienced seismic activity during historic time (since roughly 1800) or exhibits evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (Bryant and Hart, 2007; CGS, 2018).

The definition of “potentially active” varies. A generally accepted definition of “potentially active” is a fault showing evidence of displacement that is older than 11,700 years (Holocene age) and younger than 2.6 million years (Pleistocene age). However, “potentially active” is no longer used as criteria for zoning by the California Geologic Survey (CGS). The terms “sufficiently active” and “well-defined” are now used by the CGS as criteria for zoning faults under the Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Act. A “sufficiently active fault” is a fault that shows evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments and branches, while a “well-defined fault” is a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The definition “inactive” generally implies that a fault has not been active since the beginning of the Pleistocene Epoch (older than 2.6 million years old).

The project site is east of and adjacent to the Casa Loma fault strand of the SJFZ, and the Casa Loma fault intersects the proposed onsite and confluence basins at the north end of the alignment and the proposed Line E inlet at the south end (USGS, 2006). The SJFZ has a geologic slip rate of 12-18 mm/year (Blisniuk et al. 2013; Rockwell et al. 2015). Paleoseismic data along the SJFZ indicate an average recurrence interval of surface-rupturing earthquakes of 185–254 years with moment magnitudes (Mw) ranging from 6.75 to 7.7 and per-event displacements of approximate 1.0 to 4.0 meters (Salisbury et al. 2012; Onderdonk et al. 2013; 2015; Rockwell et al. 2015).

5.4.2 Seismicity
The project is within the zone of influence for several faults which are considered active or potentially active and which are capable of producing seismic shaking at the site that could potentially be damaging to buildings and appurtenant structures. It is anticipated that the project site will periodically experience ground acceleration as the result of moderate to large magnitude earthquakes on faults outside the project area.

A number of earthquakes have occurred within the region of the site (approximately a 50-kilometer, or 31-mile, radius) during historic time (since 1800), including two earthquakes on DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 11 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
the SJFZ (Table 1). The largest of these historic earthquakes was a Mw 6.8 event on the SJFZ centered only 8 miles from the project area which resulted in ground rupture near the proposed Line E inlet at the south end of the project alignment.

Table 1
Historic Earthquakes within 50 km of Site (>Mw 4.9)
Earthquake Name Distance
(miles)
Magnitude
(Mw) Date Latitude Longitude
San Jacinto 8 6.8 4/21/1918 33.750014 -116.883430
North San Jacinto Fault 18 6.3 7/22/1923 33.999690 -117.238216 Elsinore 25 6 5/15/1910 33.749453 -117.450194
Big Bear 26 6.4 6/28/1992 34.175257 -116.867476
North Palm Springs 27 5.6 7/8/1986 33.998575 -116.608877

5.5 GROUNDWATER
Information on groundwater presented in this report is based on information derived from our geotechnical investigation, review of recent data from temporary groundwater observation wells installed in the vicinity of the project (SoCalGeo, 2022), and review of observation well water levels in the database of the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2021).

Groundwater was encountered in several borings drilled during this investigation in the floodplain of the San Jacinto River (Appendix A). Groundwater was measured in the borings when first encountered and then measured again at the completion of the borehole.

Groundwater was encountered in 12 of the 19 borings drilled at depths ranging from approximately 6 feet to 33 feet bgs, with shallow water (6 to 12 feet bgs) encountered near the San Jacinto Reservoir adjacent to the south end of the alignment. There are several ponds or retention basins in the site vicinity, including the San Jacinto Reservoir, which may contribute to shallow water conditions, together with agriculture irrigation. Kleinfelder borings B-6, B-9, B-14, and B-15 were converted to piezometers and groundwater readings were taken following the field exploration, as summarized in the table below.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 12 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 2
Summary of Piezometer Groundwater Measurements
Date
Groundwater Depth (ft bgs)
B-6 B-9 B-14 B-15
Initial Drill Date 18.5 (9/27/2023) 17.5 (9/27/2023) 17.5 (9/26/2023) 18.5 (9/26/2023) 12/20/2023 7.5 14.8 15.8 16.0
We reviewed data from 16 temporary groundwater observation wells that were installed in the vicinity of the project as part of a proposed commercial/industrial development (SoCalGeo, 2022). The wells were installed at various depths, depending on the depth groundwater was encountered, and water level measurements were taken three times between January and March 2022. Groundwater levels in the wells were generally similar to the various depths groundwater was encountered during borehole drilling for the subject project, with the exception of four wells installed in and adjacent to the Casa Loma fault which did not encounter groundwater despite well depths of 61.5 to 66.5 feet bgs. The absence of groundwater along the Casa Loma fault may reflect the presence of recent, Holocene-age alluvium on the east side of the fault scarp but not on the west side (Morton et al., 2001).

There are several groundwater observation wells in the State database (DWR, 2021) showing data for 2021-2023 that are within or adjacent to the project footprint. Nearby wells on both sides of the Casa Loma fault were found to have similar groundwater depths of approximately 200 feet bgs. This observation suggests there is a lower aquifer with similar groundwater levels on both sides of the fault, and an upper (possibly perched) aquifer that is limited to the recent, Holocene-age alluvium that was deposited east of the Casa Loma fault scarp. The proposed project is located east of the fault where shallow groundwater is present.

5.6 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

5.6.1 Fault Rupture
As discussed in Section 5.4.1, the Casa Loma strand of the SJFZ is adjacent to the north and south ends of the proposed drainage alignment, and the mapped trace of the fault (USGS, 2006) intersects the Line E inlet and basin facilities. The AP Fault Zone setback associated with the mapped fault traces (CGS, 2021) impinges on the proposed channel alignment at the south end near Bridge Street and Sanderson Avenue, and at the north end where the alignment crosses Record Road. DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 13 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The AP Fault Zone setback does not appear conservative. Fault trench exploration and mapping performed about one-half mile northwest of the Line E inlet for a proposed residential development (Leighton, 2004) indicates that sections of the Casa Loma fault have numerous splays and that these fault splays effectively widen the fault zone by 250 feet or more.

Consequently, it is our opinion that the risk of surface fault rupture within the project alignment is high. A map presenting the location of the project alignment relative to the nearest faults is provided in Figure 3, Fault Location Map.

5.6.2 Flood Hazard
Based on Flood Hazard Maps available through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) online service (FEMA, 2021), most of the project alignment lies within or adjacent to special flood hazard areas. Flood risk areas subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood) are presented (FEMA zone A or AE). Overall, the risk of flooding along the alignment is considered high. However, we anticipate construction of the proposed storm drain will warrant modifications to the referenced Flood Hazard Map. We anticipate the proposed storm drain improvements will decrease flood risk caused by potential flooding of the San Jacinto Reservoir south of the proposed alignment, however the proposed storm drain improvements would not change the flood risk caused by potential flooding of the San Jacinto River north of the proposed alignment.

5.6.3 Erosion
Erosion and sedimentation are natural processes that occur on slopes, hillsides, and natural drainages. The proposed storm drain alignment site is farmland on the distal margin of floodplain of the San Jacinto River and the risk of erosion is considered low to moderate, whereas the risk of sedimentation is considered moderate because the proposed open drainage channel will act as a sediment sink in the event of a flood. Scour and sedimentation analysis is beyond the scope of this study.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 14 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
6 ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 GENERAL
Based on the results of the field explorations, laboratory testing, and our engineering analyses conducted during this study, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project is geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. The following opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on the properties of the materials encountered in the field explorations, the results of the laboratory testing program, and our engineering analyses performed. Our recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project are presented in the following sections.

6.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

6.2.1 Seismic Design Parameters
According to ACSE/SEI 7-16 (2016), which is incorporated into the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) by reference, sites subject to liquefaction, as discussed below, should be classified as Site Class F, which requires a site response analysis. However, ACSE/SEI 7-16 states that for a short period (less than ½ second) structure on liquefiable soils, Site Class D or E may be used instead of Site Class F to estimate design seismic loading on the structure. The selection of Site Class D or E is based on the assessment of the site soil profile assuming no liquefaction.

We have assumed that the period of the structures will be less than ½ second. The assumption that the structures have a period of less than ½ second should be verified by the project structural engineer.

Based on data obtained from our field explorations, published geologic literature and maps, and on our interpretation of the 2022 CBC criteria, it is our opinion that the project site may be classified as Site Class D, Stiff Soil, according to Section 1613 of 2022 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE/SEI 7-16 (2016). Approximate coordinates for the site are noted below.  Latitude: 33.8208° N
 Longitude: 117.0247° W
In accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis is required for Site Class D sites with an S1 greater than 0.2 g. However, a site-specific ground DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 15 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
motion hazard analysis is not required if the exceptions in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 are taken. In accordance with the 2022 CBC, which adopts Supplement 3 of the ASCE 7-16, the exception would be if the values of the parameters SM1 and SD1 are increased by 50 percent.

The assumption that the exception will be used should be verified by the project structural engineer during final design based on the governing code. Based on the assumption that the exception will be taken in accordance with the governing code, the 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters (non site-specific) for the project site are provided in Table 3.

Table 3
2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters

DESIGN PARAMETER RECOMMENDED VALUE
Site Class D
Ss (g) 2.138
S1 (g) 0.866
Fa 1.0
Fv N/A*
SMS (g) 2.138
SM1 (g) N/A
SDS (g) 1.425
SD1 (g) N/A
PGAM (g) 1.062
*Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 requires a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis be performed for Site Class D sites with S1 values greater than or equal to 0.2g unless exceptions are taken. If exceptions are taken, then a Fv value of 1.7 could be used only to calculate the Ts value.

6.3 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils lose their strength due to the build-up of excess pore water pressure during cyclic loading such as that induced by earthquakes. The primary factors affecting the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit are:
1) intensity and duration of earthquake shaking, 2) soil type and relative density, 3) overburden pressures, and 4) depth to groundwater. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands, and non-plastic silts that are saturated. Silty sands and silts, under certain site conditions, may also be susceptible to liquefaction.

Generalized liquefaction potential zones have been mapped for areas of Riverside County (Riverside County, 2021). The zones are based on generalized criteria for sediment types, DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 16 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
groundwater levels, and ground shaking potential. Based on the screening criteria used to develop the generalized maps, the project alignment is identified as having a moderate potential for liquefaction.

The potential for liquefaction settlement in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing was evaluated using data from the CPTs performed for the project and CPT liquefaction assessment software (Cliq v.3.0.3.4). Although hollow stem auger borings were performed at the locations of potentially liquefiable soils, the blow count data is generally not as reliable as CPT data for liquefaction calculations. Samples collected from the borings and associated laboratory tests were used in verifying the CPT results.

The proposed MWD pipeline crossing area is underlain primarily by sandy silt and silty sand.

The apparent density of the granular soil layers ranged from loose to medium dense. When encountered, groundwater levels in the borings ranged from approximately 6 to 33 feet below the ground surface. A design groundwater level of 5 feet bgs was used in the liquefaction calculations, which corresponds to the anticipated highest groundwater level at the site.

Two important input parameters for the liquefaction analysis are PGA and the earthquake magnitude. According to Chapter 18 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) the PGA used for liquefaction analysis should be consistent with the maximum considered earthquake ground motions. The 2022 CBC states that the peak ground acceleration shall be determined in accordance with Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7-16. We determined the peak ground acceleration for each vault and transition structure location where liquefiable soils were present. The design PGAM used in the liquefaction analysis was 1.06g. In order to estimate the controlling magnitude at the site, the 2014 USGS interactive deaggregation tool was used from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and a dominant earthquake modal magnitude of 8.1 was calculated, utilizing a 2% exceedance probability in 50 years (return period of about 2,475 years) according to the 2022 CBC and ASCE/SEI 7-16.

Our analyses indicated that liquefaction could occur within interbedded sand layers throughout the upper 60 feet bgs. We have used procedures outlined in Moss et al. (2006) for CPT-based liquefaction triggering and estimation of volumetric compaction or settlement. Estimated total liquefaction-induced settlements in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing result in approximately 2 inches based on the CPT results. Based on the results of our field investigations, the subsurface soil conditions in the MWD pipeline crossing area is generally uniform. The CPTs were performed at locations approximately 300 feet from each other and the difference in liquefaction settlement results is less than ¼-inch. Based on these conditions, DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 17 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
differential liquefaction-induced settlement is considered generally negligible in the MWD pipeline crossing area. We have ignored any liquefaction and associated settlements below a depth of 60 feet, as their effects on the surface should be minimal. The results of our liquefaction calculations are included in Appendix C, Liquefaction Analysis.

It should be noted the calculated liquefaction settlement is a free-field settlement independent of existing or proposed improvements. Based on liquefaction analysis results by SoCalGeo (2021), other portions of the site in the vicinity of the proposed storm drain alignment may experience approximately 2 to 6 inches of liquefaction settlement during a design level earthquake event.

6.4 MWD PIPELINE CROSSING

6.4.1 Foundations
Based on the results of our field explorations, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses, the proposed MWD pipeline crossing may be supported on shallow footing foundations.

Recommendations for the design and construction of shallow foundations are presented below.

Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure
Footings embedded at least 5 feet below the lowest adjacent exterior grade may be designed for a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus sustained live loads. The footing dimension and reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer; however, continuous footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. A one-third increase in the above bearing pressure can be used for transient wind or seismic loads.

Estimated Settlements
Based on design initial dead and service loads provided by the structural engineer, we estimate total static settlement of foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented above to be on the order of ½ inch for initial dead loads and grading and 1½ inches when including service and flood loads. Based on the generally granular nature of the subsurface soils, the initial dead load settlement is anticipated to be generally “immediate” (on the order of days to weeks). We understand the construction will be staged such that the initial dead load settlement will have occurred prior to allowing service loads to be imposed. Provided this construction staging is performed, total settlement of footings is DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 18 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
estimated to be up to 1 inch and differential static settlement between similarly loaded footings is estimated to be less than 1 inch over 50 feet.

In addition to the estimated static settlement, as previously discussed, it is estimated that liquefaction-induced settlement of saturated sandy soils due to strong ground shaking during an MCE-level seismic event could be on the order of 2 inches of total settlement, however, based on the generally uniform soil conditions in the MWD crossing area, differential liquefactioninduced settlement is considered generally negligible. We anticipate the liquefaction induced settlement impacts will be relatively similar between the crossing structure and the MWD pipe.

Lateral Resistance
Lateral load resistance may be derived from passive resistance along the vertical sides of the footings, friction acting at the base of the footing, or a combination of the two. An allowable passive resistance of 250 psf per foot of depth may be used for design. Allowable passive resistance values should not exceed 2,500 psf. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.3 between the base of the footings and the on-site soils can be used for sliding resistance using the dead load normal stresses. Friction and passive resistance may be combined without reduction. We recommend that the first foot of soil cover be neglected in the passive resistance calculations if the ground surface is not protected from erosion or disturbance by a slab, pavement, or in a similar manner.

6.4.2 MWD Pipeline Settlement
Construction of the proposed storm drain would involve cuts and fills over the existing MWD pipeline. Grade changes, construction sequencing, flooding, and crossing structure footings could subject the MWD pipeline to change in loads that could cause settlement due to an increase in overburden stress or heave due to a decrease in overburden stress. We understand MWD requires proposed improvements in the vicinity of their pipe to not induce displacements on their pipe of more than ¼-inch per 100 feet. We have performed numerical modeling of the subsurface conditions and proposed structures using the 3-D finite element program PLAXIS 3D. The details and results of these analyses are included in Appendix E. The results of the analysis indicate the proposed improvements will meet MWD’s tolerance provided the key recommendations and assumptions presented below are implemented in the design and construction of the crossing and storm drain.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 19 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix E, Numerical Analysis of Proposed Crossing. The key recommendations and assumptions utilized in the modeling that must be implemented in the design and construction of the crossing and storm drain channel are:
 Excavations will not be completed at a time when MWD has emptied the pipeline (i.e. it is not in-service).
 The crossing structure footings are constructed following the 1/3 sequence of excavation and footing placement.
o Excavation of the subsequent 1/3 shall not progress until the footing for the previous 1/3 is in-place.
o Excavation slopes and benches shall not be flatter than 1.5H:1V.  Excavation and footing construction sequence shall be completed simultaneously on the upstream and downstream sides of the MWD pipeline. Simultaneously shall mean:
o Elevations in excavations on either side shall not be more than 1 ft different. o The concrete footings shall be poured on both sides at the same time.  Excavations shall not be backfilled until the full footing construction sequence is completed.
o Backfill will consist of a medium weight flowable fill material (e.g. LCC) with a unit weight of approximately 85 pcf which does not require high vibration compactor equipment during placement. The medium weight flowable fill should have a friction angle of at least 30 degrees and cohesion of at least 50 psf. o Backfill shall be completed simultaneously on the upstream and downstream sides of the MWD pipeline. Simultaneously shall mean elevations of the backfill on each side shall not be more than 1 ft different.
 Lightweight flowable fill shall be used for embankments within 50 ft from the edge of the MWD pipe. Embankment fill shall consist of lightweight flowable fill material (e.g. LCC) not to exceed a unit weight of 30 pcf and does not require compaction to limit vibration impacts.
 Embankment fill shall be placed such that the elevation difference across (upstream to downstream sides) the MWD pipe is not greater than 1 ft at any time until final grades are established. DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 20 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
 The channel section shall limit the 100-yr flood event to a peak water elevation of 1453.47 ft.

6.4.3 Additional Constructability Considerations
Construction of the proposed MWD pipe crossing and storm drain in the vicinity of the existing MWD pipe while meeting MWD’s requirements is considered feasible provided the key recommendations and assumptions utilized in the modeling provided above are implemented during design and construction. In addition, the following constructability considerations should also be considered based on MWD requirements.
 Vibrations on the MWD pipe should be less than 0.5 inches/second for “continuous” sources based on guidance provided by MWD. Based on Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020), vibratory rollers or similar equipment should not be used within 20 feet of the MWD pipe to meet MWD’s limit.  Any excavation within 2 feet of the MWD pipe should be performed by “hand” equipment as approved by MWD.
 Areas to receive fill that are not specified to require flowable fill as described above may utilize the on-site soil or import soil as structural fill in accordance with Section 6.9.  Appropriate observations and inspections should be completed to ensure that the recommendations and assumptions made during our evaluation are followed during construction. Construction within the MWD right-of-way should conform to the relevant MWD construction standards, observations and inspections.

6.5 EXPANSIVE SOILS
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors, and may cause unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs supported-on-grade, or pavements supported over these materials. Depending on the extent and location below finished subgrade, expansive soils can have a detrimental effect on structures.

In general, the soils encountered at the majority of the borings were silty or granular in nature.

Laboratory testing resulted in Expansion Index values of 34 and 44, indicating a “low” expansion DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 21 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
potential. If import soil materials are used during construction, testing of the final subgrade soils should be performed to further evaluate the expansion potential.

6.6 CORROSIVITY
Selected near-surface soil samples from borings throughout the alignment were tested for potential corrosion to concrete and reinforcing steel. The samples were tested in general accordance with California Standard Test Methods to evaluate pH, minimum electrical resistivity, soluble sulfates, and chlorides content. These tests are only an indicator of soil corrosivity for the samples tested. Other soils found on site may be more, less, or of a similar corrosive nature.

Resistivity values ranged from 299 to 1,763 ohm-cm. Resistivity values less than 1,000 ohm-cm are considered extremely corrosive to buried ferrous metals. Resistivity values between 1,000 to 3,000 to ohm-cm are considered highly corrosive to buried ferrous metals (Roberge, 2006).

The concentrations of soluble sulfates indicate that the subsurface soils represent a Class S0 exposure to sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the soil based on ACI 318-19 Table

19.3.1.1 (ACI, 2019). Therefore, in accordance with ACI Building Code 318-19, no special provisions for selection of cement type are required.

The values obtained from corrosion potential testing are shown in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing. Kleinfelder’s scope of services does not include corrosion engineering and, therefore, a detailed analysis of the corrosion test results is not included. We recommend the review of these results and consultation of a corrosion expert for further evaluation, if necessary.

6.7 TEMPORARY SHORING

6.7.1 General
Temporary shoring may be required where space or other restrictions do not allow a sloped excavation. Design and installation are the responsibility of the contractor. Temporary shoring may consist of a turn-key shoring system, soldier piles and lagging, or other system.

Recommendations for design of temporary shoring are presented below.

The contractor’s shoring design should be provided by a civil engineer registered in the State of California and experienced in the design and construction of shoring under similar conditions.

Once the final excavation and shoring plans are complete, the plans and design should be DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 22 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
reviewed by Kleinfelder for conformance with the design intent and geotechnical recommendations provided herein.

6.7.2 Lateral Pressures
For the design of cantilevered shoring, an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for drained conditions or 82 pcf for undrained conditions may be used for level backfill.

Where the surface of the retained earth slopes up away from the shoring, a greater pressure should be used. Design data can be developed for additional cases when the design conditions are established.

In addition to the recommended earth pressure, any surcharge (live, including traffic, or dead load) located within a 1H:1V plane drawn upward from the base of the shored excavation should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The lateral contribution of a uniform surcharge load located immediately behind the wall may be calculated by multiplying the surcharge by 0.36 for the level backfill condition. Lateral load contributions of surcharges located at a distance behind the shored wall may be provided once the load configurations and layouts are known. As a minimum, a 2-foot equivalent soil surcharge (250 psf) is recommended to account for traffic or nominal construction loads. Stockpiled material should not be placed closer to the edge of an excavation than a distance equal to the depth of the excavation, and never closer than 4 feet from the edge of the excavation.

6.7.3 Design of Soldier Piles
All soldier piles should extend to a sufficient depth below the excavation bottom to provide the required lateral resistance. We recommend the required embedment depths be calculated based on the principles of force and moment equilibrium. For this method, the ultimate passive pressure against soldier piles that extend below the level of excavation may be assumed to be equivalent to a fluid pressure of 250 pcf, with a maximum resistance value of 2,500 psf. To account for arching, the passive resistance may be assumed to act over a width 2.0 times the width of the embedded portion of the pile, provided adjacent piles are spaced at least 3.0 pile diameters, center-to-center.

Drilling of the soldier pile shafts could be accomplished using heavy-duty drilling equipment.

Groundwater may be encountered. The piles may be constructed partly below groundwater and, therefore, caving of the pile shafts should be anticipated and will need to be prevented.

Temporary steel casing may be required to stabilize the sides of the pile shaft. Concrete for piles should be placed immediately after the drilling of the hole is complete. The concrete should DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 23 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
be pumped to the bottom of the drilled shaft using a tremie. Once concrete pumping is initiated, a minimum head of 5 feet of concrete above the bottom of the tremie should be established and maintained throughout the concrete placement to prevent contamination of the concrete by soil inclusions. If steel casing is used, the casing should be removed as the concrete is placed.

To develop full lateral resistance, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and undisturbed materials. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavations may be a lean-mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile that is below the planned excavated level should provide sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding materials.

6.7.4 Lagging
Continuous treated timber lagging and/or steel plates should be used between the soldier piles.

The lagging/steel plates should be installed as the excavation proceeds. If treated timber is used, the lagging may remain in place after backfilling. The lagging should be designed for the recommended earth pressure but limited to a maximum value of 400 psf.

Some caving and running of the upper soils should be anticipated. To reduce the potential for loss of ground and settlement of the soil behind the wall, the contractor should backfill any space between the lagging and the cut slope with clean sand or sand-cement slurry after installation.

6.7.5 Deflection
Shoring adjacent to existing structures or improvements should be designed and constructed to reduce potential movement. The shoring system designer should evaluate potential deflections in their design. If the deflection analysis indicates excessive deflections, positive reinforcements such as tie backs may be needed.

6.7.6 Monitoring
Some deflection of the shored excavation should be anticipated during the planned excavation.

We recommend the project civil engineer perform a survey of all existing utilities and structures adjacent to the shored excavation. The purpose of this survey would be to evaluate the ability of existing utility lines or improvements to withstand horizontal movements associated with a shored excavation and to establish the baseline condition in case of unfounded claims of DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 24 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
damage. If existing improvements are not capable of withstanding anticipated lateral movements, alternative shoring systems may be required.

Horizontal and vertical movements of the shoring system should be monitored by a licensed surveyor. The construction monitoring and performance of the shoring system are ultimately the contractor’s responsibility. However, at a minimum, we recommend that the top of shoring be surveyed prior to excavation and that the top and bottom of the soldier beams be surveyed on a weekly basis until the shoring is not needed. Surveying should consist of measuring movements in vertical and two perpendicular horizontal directions.

6.8 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX DESIGN

6.8.1 Design Parameters
The following geotechnical design recommendations are provided for the design of standard reinforced concrete box (RCB) for use along the entire storm drain project alignment.

Table 4
Standardized RCB Parameters
Soil Description Sandy Silt to Silty Sand
Soil Density 110 pcf
Active Earth Pressure
(Equivalent Fluid Pressure)
40 pcf (Drained)
20 pcf (Undrained***)
35 pcf (Seismic Increment*)
At-Rest Earth Pressure**
(Equivalent Fluid Pressure)
60 pcf (Drained)
30 pcf (Undrained***)
Soil Cohesion 50 psf
Ultimate Passive Resistance 250 pcf
Coefficient of Friction 0.3
Allowable Net Bearing Pressure 2,000 psf
*Retaining structures supporting more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed to support an incremental seismic lateral pressure, which is applied as a triangular pressure distribution with a maximum pressure at the bottom of the retaining structure, similar to the active lateral earth pressure. **For restrained retaining structures (at-rest condition), use the static active earth pressure and seismic increment to check the seismic condition; use at-rest earth pressure only to check the static condition; the larger loading of both cases should be used for the design of restrained retaining structure. ***Retaining structures should be designed with adequate drainage to reduce the potential for a buildup of hydrostatic pressures. For retaining structures where drainage outlets are not feasible, the undrained earth pressures listed above should be used. In addition to the above lateral pressures, walls should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. Hydrostatic pressures should assume a unit weight of 62.4 pcf and extend the full height of the wall.

Hydrostatic pressure is applied as a triangular pressure distribution with a maximum pressure at the bottom of the wall, similar to the active lateral earth pressure. The resultant force may be assumed to at a height of 0.33H above the wall footing, where H is the retaining wall height. DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 25 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

6.8.2 Estimated RCB Settlement
The static settlement of individual RCB’s will vary, depending on the depth of embedment, the plan dimensions of the vaults and the actual loading. We estimate the maximum total static settlement of vaults designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations in this report to be on the order of 1 inch or less. Differential settlement is expected to be less than ½ inch, provided vaults are founded on similar materials. The estimated settlements discussed above do not include potential seismically-induced settlement discussed in Section 6.3.

6.9 EARTHWORK AND GRADING
Grading plans were not available for the project at the time this report was prepared. We anticipate earthwork and grading will be relatively minor. The final grading plans should be reviewed and, if needed, additional recommendations should be provided.

6.9.1 Site Preparation
All site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with applicable codes, safety regulations, and other local, state, or federal specifications. All references to maximum unit weight should be established in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Test Method D1557 and may supersede references cited herein. The earthwork operations should be observed and tested by a representative of Kleinfelder.

6.9.2 Stripping and Grubbing
Prior to general site grading, existing pavement, vegetation, organic topsoil, existing fill soils, and debris shall be stripped and disposed of outside the construction limits. Deeper stripping or grubbing may be required where concentrations of fill debris, organic soils, existing trees, or thick root mats are encountered during site grading. Stripped topsoil (less any debris) may be stockpiled and reused for landscape purposes elsewhere on the project; however, this material should not be incorporated into any engineered fill.

In areas where existing trees will be removed, care should be taken to remove the root-ball, roots exceeding 1 inch in diameter, remaining organics, and to backfill the excavations with compacted engineered fill. We strongly recommend having a representative of Kleinfelder present during tree removal, in areas to receive fill or beneath foundations to observe removal of large roots and subsequent scarification and recompaction. Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations provided below. DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 26 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

6.9.3 Earthwork
At the RCB subgrade and storm drain bottoms, the exposed surface should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Any areas of loose or yielding soils should be over-excavated and re-compacted.

Any soils that cannot be compacted, or are otherwise unsuitable for the planned use, should be excavated and disposed of from the project site and replaced with suitable engineered fill.

All materials to be placed as fill should be free of vegetation, organics, debris, and other deleterious materials. During fill placement, “oversize” material should be placed accordingly.

Oversize material is any material with maximum dimension greater than 3 inches. All oversize material should be exported to an appropriate disposal facility. The larger rock, if any, will require special handling to reduce its size or place as windrows in a rock disposal fill.

All fill placed should be placed in horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557. Engineered fill placed within the upper 12 inches of unpaved access roads or 12 inches below pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction of the maximum dry density obtained by ASTM D1557.

Import materials, if required, should have an Expansion Index (EI) of less than 20 with no more than 30 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve and no particles greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The maximum EI for imported soils may be modified by the project geotechnical engineer depending on its proposed use. Imported fill should be documented to be free of hazardous materials, including petroleum or petroleum byproducts, chemicals and harmful minerals. Kleinfelder should evaluate the proposed imported materials prior to their transportation and use on site.

6.9.4 Temporary Excavations
All excavations must comply with applicable federal, state, and local safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety generally is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. We are providing the information below solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information provided be interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor’s activities. Such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 27 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Temporary cut slopes up to 15 feet high may be sloped back at an inclination of no steeper than

1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) in the existing site soils. Minor sloughing and/or raveling of sandy slopes should be anticipated as they dry out. If signs of slope instability are observed, the inclination recommended above should be decreased until stability of the slope is obtained.

Kleinfelder should be onsite full time to observe the temporary backcuts. Where space for sloped embankments is not available, shoring will be necessary. All applicable excavation safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA requirements, should be met.

Where sloped excavations are used, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded so that vehicles and storage loads do not encroach the tops of excavated slopes within a distance equal to the depth of the excavation. Greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes. Kleinfelder should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be established. If temporary construction slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are recommended along the tops of the slopes to reduce runoff that may enter the excavation and erode the slope faces. Stockpiled material should not be placed closer to the edge of an excavation than a distance equal to the depth of the excavation, and never closer than 4 feet from the edge of the excavation.

Temporary, shallow excavations with vertical side slopes less than 4 feet high should generally be stable, although sloughing may be encountered in the granular deposits. Vertical excavations greater than 4 feet high should not be attempted without appropriate shoring to prevent local instability. All trench excavations should be braced and shored in accordance with good construction practice and all applicable safety ordinances and codes. The contractor should be responsible for the structural design and safety of the temporary shoring system, and we recommend that this design be submitted to Kleinfelder for review to check that our recommendations have been incorporated. For planning purposes, the on-site soils may be considered as a Type C soil, as defined using the current OSHA soil classification.

6.9.5 Unstable Subgrade Conditions
Groundwater may be encountered during site grading. We recommend that a dewatering plan be prepared such that the groundwater is maintained below the storm drain subgrade elevation during construction. Following dewatering, we anticipate pumping subgrade conditions may be encountered, and the subgrade may need to be stabilized. An unstable subgrade could be overexcavated 12 to 24 inches below the subgrade elevation and replaced with an equal amount of ¾- or 1-inch compacted crushed rock wrapped by geotextile fabric. The geotextile fabric should DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 28 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
consist of a woven geotextile, such as Mirafi 600X or equivalent. The final depth of removal will depend upon the conditions observed in the field once over-excavation begins. The geotextile fabric should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Alternate stabilization methods approved by Kleinfelder may also be performed.

6.10 PERMANENT SLOPES
Permanent slopes may be constructed for the proposed project. The following sections provide general recommendations for both fill and cut slopes. Revised recommendations may be needed based on our review of the final project plans.

6.10.1 Fill Slopes
Fill slopes may be inclined up to 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. Where the toe of a fill slope terminates on a natural or cut slope, a keyway is required at the toe of the fill slope. The fill slope keyway should be a minimum width of 15 feet, with a minimum depth of 3 feet into competent natural material and should extend a distance equal to the depth of the keyway beyond the toe of the fill. Benching should be cut into the existing slope to bind the fill to the slope. Benches should be step-like in profile, with each bench not less than four feet in height and established in competent material. Figure 4, Typical Engineered Fill Slope Detail shows a typical section for a fill slope including keyway and benching. For slopes 10 feet high or less, the keyway depth and width may be reduced as presented in Table 5 below.

Table 5
Minimum Keyway Recommendations
Keyway Recommendations for Fill Slopes
Slope Height 5 feet or less > 5 feet to 10 feet > 10 feet Minimum Keyway Depth
1 foot into competent
material
2 feet into competent
material
3 feet into competent
material
Minimum Keyway Width 8 feet * 8 feet 15 feet
* For fill slopes 5 feet or less in height, further evaluation of the keyway width can be made by the Engineer of Record based on field conditions and construction methods employed.

Compressible or other unsuitable soils should be removed from the slope prior to benching.

Competent material is defined as being essentially free of loose soil, heavy fracturing or erosion prone material and is established by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Following DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 29 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
completion of the excavation for the keyway, the project Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the keyway prior to backfilling with certified engineered fill.

Depending on fill slope construction and actual site conditions encountered in the field to be verified by the Geotechnical Engineer or their representative, back drains may be required within the compacted fill to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the fill slope.

Field conditions, such as observed seepage, or the presence of water within the slope may require the use of subdrains to adequately prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the fill slope. In general, fill slopes with design heights less than 10 feet will likely not require subdrains.

When constructing fill slopes, the contractor shall avoid spillage of loose material down the face of the slope during dumping and rolling conditions. Preferably, the incoming load shall be dumped behind the face of the slope and bladed into place. As a preferred method, the slope should be over-built and then trimmed back to expose a compacted core. As an alternative method, after each 4 feet of vertical height has been obtained, the contractor shall compact the outer face of the slope by backing the tamping roller over the top of the slope and thoroughly covering the entire slope surface with overlapping passes of the roller and accepted by geotechnical engineer of record. The foregoing should be repeated after the placement of each 4-foot thickness of fill.

As discussed previously, fill slopes should conform to the requirements of the “Earthwork” section of this report and should contain no particles greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The fill slope surface should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557, or as specified in the project plans and specifications. Surface drainage control, such as berms at the tops of slopes, should be included in the design of fill slopes to direct sheet flow away from the tops of slopes and reduce the potential for slope erosion.

6.10.2 Cut Slopes
In general, cut slopes should be a maximum inclination of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Due to the potential for adverse geologic conditions, cut slopes proposed in formational material should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. We recommend that a qualified geologist be on site during grading of the cut slopes to map the exposed geology for consistency with the conditions presented in this report. Revised recommendations may be needed based on the in-grading mapping. DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 30 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

6.11 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS
In general, the drilling equipment used for our geotechnical investigation was able to reach the target depths at all of the borings, suggesting that the subsurface soils can be excavated with conventional excavation equipment.

6.12 SCOUR CONSIDERATIONS
We understand scour analysis will be performed by others. The near-surface soil generally consisted of sandy silt and silty sand. The sieve analysis results presented in Appendix B can be used to support scour analyses. The grain size representing percent passing 50% (D50) obtained from the sieve analyses of the near-surface soil are summarized in Table 6 below.

Table 6
D50 Results
Boring Number Depth (ft) D50
(mm)
B-1 5 0.072
B-2 5 0.045
B-3 0 – 5 >0.1
B-4 0 – 5 0.14
B-5 5 0.025
B-6 0 – 5 0.040
B-7 0 – 5 0.094
B-8 5 0.052
B-9 5 0.13
B-10 0 – 5 0.067
B-11 0 – 5 0.071
B-12 0 - 5 0.059
B-13 0 – 5 0.10
B-14 0 – 5 0.76
B-15 0 – 5 0.31
B-16 5 0.096
B-17 5 0.097
B-18 0 – 5 0.28
B-19 0 – 5 0.26 DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 31 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

6.13 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

6.13.1 Asphalt Concrete
If proposed access roads will be paved, the required pavement structural sections will depend on the expected wheel loads, volume of traffic, and subgrade soils. The Traffic Indexes (TI’s) assumed should be reviewed by the project Owner, Architect, and/or Civil Engineer to evaluate their suitability for this project. Changes in the TI's will affect the corresponding pavement section. The pavement subgrade should be prepared just prior to placement of the base course.

Positive drainage of the paved areas should be provided since moisture infiltration into the subgrade may decrease the life of pavements. A preliminary asphalt concrete pavement section is provided in Table 7, below.

Table 7
Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
(Design R-value = 50)
Assumed
Traffic Index
(TI)
Minimum Asphalt
Concrete (inches)
Minimum Aggregate
Base
(inches)
5 3.0 4.0
Based on laboratory testing results, a design R-Value of 50 was selected for pavement design.

Since the characteristics of the near-surface soils can change as a result of grading, we recommend that representative subgrade samples be obtained during grading and additional R value tests performed. Should the results of these tests indicate a significant difference, the design pavement section(s) provided above may need to be revised. Pavement sections provided above are contingent on the following recommendations being implemented during construction.
 The upper 12 inches of subgrade below pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
 Subgrade soils should be in a stable, non-pumping condition at the time aggregate base materials are placed and compacted.
 Aggregate base materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
 Adequate drainage (both surface and subsurface) should be provided such that the subgrade soils and aggregate base materials are not allowed to become wet. DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 32 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
 Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class II aggregate base rock or crushed miscellaneous base as specified in the "Standard Specifications for Public Work Construction" ("Greenbook").  The asphalt pavement should be placed in accordance with “Green Book” specifications or the City of San Jacinto requirements, as appropriate. We recommend that the asphalt pavement be placed in a single layer of ½-inch aggregate mix for pavements 4 inches thick or less. If the pavement section is over 4 inches thick, then the asphalt should be placed in at least two layers of mix. The first layer should consist of a base or coarse layer (¾-inch mix). The second layer (i.e., top layer) should consist of a medium or fine layer of ½-inch mix.

6.13.2 Portland Cement Concrete
Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,000 psi. Control joints should be spaced approximately every 10 feet. The concrete pavement section should be placed on at least 18 inches of engineered fill compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density with the upper 12 inches below pavements compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Prior to fill placement, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, uniformly moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. The following table presents our recommendations of Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections.

Table 8
Preliminary PCC Pavement Sections
Assumed
Traffic Index
(TI)
Minimum Concrete Thickness
(inches; using a 28-day
compressive strength of 3,000
psi)
Minimum Concrete Thickness
(inches; using a 28-day
compressive strength of 4,000
psi)
5 6.5 6.0
As an alternative to placing PCC pavements directly over 18 inches of engineered fill, 6 inches of aggregate base material may be added between the PCC and engineered fill to provide additional load distribution, drainage, and an option to reduce the thickness of the recommended PCC. If 6 inches of aggregate base material (compacted to 95% relative compaction) is used between the recommended 18 inches of engineered fill and PCC pavement, the recommended PCC thickness may be reduced by ½ inch. Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class 2 aggregate base or crushed DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 33 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
miscellaneous base as specified in the "Standard Specifications for Public Work Construction" ("Greenbook").

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 34 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
7 LIMITATIONS
Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations, laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed project. It is possible that soil conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil conditions are encountered during construction, which differ from those described herein, we should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed project, including the proposed foundation systems or vault locations, change from that described in this report, our recommendations should also be reviewed and a response issued. References to elevations and locations provided within this report were based upon general information provided for our use. Kleinfelder did not provide surveying services.

Other standards or documents referenced in any given standard cited in this report, or otherwise relied upon by the authors of this report, are only mentioned in the given standard; they are not incorporated into it or "included by reference," as the latter term is used relative to contracts or other matters of law.

We have strived to prepare the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in this report in a manner consistent with the standards of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of this profession practicing under similar conditions in the geographic vicinity and at the time the services were performed. No warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. Information and recommendations presented in this report should not be extrapolated to other areas or be used for other projects without our prior review and response.

This report may be used only by Albert A. Webb Associates and their subcontractors and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than Albert A. Webb Associates and their subcontractors who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use.

Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 35 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Kleinfelder will assume no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any claim, damage, or injury which results from pre-existing hazardous materials being encountered or present on the project site, or from the discovery of such hazardous materials.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 36 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
8 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2019, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19).

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Annual Book of ASTM Standards.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016, Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16) and Supplements 1, 2, and 3.

Blisniuk, K.M., OSKIN, A.S., Riaux, M.E., Rockwell, T.K., Finkel, R.C., and Ryerson, F.J., 2013, Stable, rapid rate of slip since inception of the San Jacinto fault, California, Geophys.

Res. Lett., 40, 4209–4213. doi:10.1002/grl.50819.

Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., 2007. Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, 42p.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A guide for governments agencies, property owners/developers, and geosciences practitioners for assessing fault rupture hazards in California, Special Publication 42, revised 2018.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2021, EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application, accessed 11-29-2023 at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ geohazards /eq-zapp.

Dept. of the Navy, 1986. NAVFAC DM 7.01: Soil Mechanics, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia.

Dept. of the Navy, 1986. NAVFAC DM 7.02: Foundations and Earth Structures, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia.

Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2003, Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater, Update 2003, South Coast Hydrologic Region, San Jacinto Groundwater Basin, Basin No. 8-05, Riverside Co., California.

Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2021, California State Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) online data viewer accessed 11-29-2023,
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#currentconditions. DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 37 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2021, National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) online geospatial database accessed 11-29-2023 at https://www.fema.gov/floodmaps/national-flood-hazard-layer.

GeoLogismiki, 2006, CLiq v.3.0.3.4.

Givler, R., Hartleb, R., Lindvall, S., Thompson, S., Zandieh, A., Kemp, C., Rockwell, T.K., Baune, D., Davidson, J., Taylor, T., Hachem, M., Parra, R., Chau, C., Bell, R., 2022, Geologic Hazard Characterization for Metropolitan Water District’s Replacement of Casa Loma Siphon Barrel No. 1, San Jacinto, California. 39-51. 10.1061/9780784484449.004.

International Code Council, Inc., 2022, California Building Code.

Leighton and Associates, 2004, Fault Investigation, The Villages, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. Unpublished consultant report prepared for: Western Pacific Housing, Inc. by LAA, 41715 Enterprise Circle N., Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590, dated 3-31- 2004.

Morton, D.M., Matti, J.C., Alvarez, Rachel, and Cossette, P.M., 2001, Geologic map of the Lakeview 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside County, California, U.S. Geological Survey, OpenFile Report OF-2001-174, 1:24,000.

Norris, R.M., and Webb R.W., 1990, California Geology, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Onderdonk, N. W., Rockwell, T. K., McGill, S. F., and Marliyani, G. I. (2013). “Evidence for seven surface ruptures in the past 1,600 years on the Claremont fault at Mystic Lake, northern San Jacinto fault zone, California.” Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 103(1), 519–541.

Riverside County (RCIT), 2021, Riverside County, Map My County website https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public Roberge, P., 2006, Corrosion Basics, 2nd ed.

Rockwell, T.K., T.E. Dawson, J. Young-Ben Horton, and G. Seitz, 2015, A 21 event, 4,000-year history of surface ruptures in the Anza Seismic Gap, San Jacinto Fault and implications for long-term earthquake production on a major plate boundary fault. Pure and Applied Geophysics, v. 172, no.5, p.1143-1165. First published online, November 2014. doi:10.1007/s00024-014-0955 z DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 38 of 38 February 13, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Schaefer Dixon Associates, 1993, Geotechnical Investigation, Faulting and Seismicity, Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility, Riverside County, California.

Unpublished consultant report prepared for: Eastern Municipal Water District by SDA, 22 Mauchly, Irvine, CA 92618, dated 11-29-1993.

Salisbury, J. B., Rockwell, T. K.T., Middleton, J., and Hudnut, K.W., 2012, LiDAR and field observations of slip distribution for the most recent surface ruptures along the central San Jacinto fault, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 102, 598–619.

SoCalGeo, 2021, Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development, Southwest of Intersection of Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, California, dated November 1, 2021.

SoCalGeo, 2022, Results of Piezometer Readings, Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development, Southwest of Intersection of Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, California. Unpublished consultant report for: Shea Properties Management Company, Inc. by Southern California Geotechnical, 22885 Savi Ranch Parkway, Suite E, Yorba Linda, CA 92887, dated 3-23-2022.

U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey (2006). Quaternary fault and fold database for United States, accessed 11-29-2023,
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 February 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURES
DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. CAD FILE: C:\Users\DFahrney\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\CADD\24002328\24002328_Line-E_San-Jacinto.dwg N
DRAWN BY:

PROJECT:

CHECKED BY:

REVISED:

DATE:

FIGURE SITE VICINITY MAP 24002328
DMF
HM
10/2023
- 1

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic series, Lakeview and
San Jacinto, California quadrangles dated 2018. PLOTTED: 10/25/2024 11:49 AM BY: dean fahrney LINE E

ALIGNMENT

PROPOSED

ON-SITE
BASIN

PROPOSED

CONFLUENCE
BASIN
DRAFT
ARRAY 1
ARRAY 2 CAD FILE: C:\Users\DFahrney\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\CADD\24002328\24002328_Line-E_San-Jacinto.dwg LAYOUT: 2 PLOTTED: 10/25/2024 12:05 PM BY: dean fahrney The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. N 1,000 500 0 1,000
APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)
FIGURE

DRAWN BY
DATE:

PROJECT:

CHECKED BY
REVISED:

EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
24002328
DMF
HM
10/2023- 2

EXPLANATION
B-19 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
CPT-2 APPROXIMATE CPT LOCATION
REFERENCE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY ALBERT A. WEBB
ASSOCIATES, DATED 08/23/2023

ALTERNATIVE BERM
LOCATION (APPROX.)
CPT-2
CPT-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6 B-7 B-8
B-9
B-10
B-11
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16 B-17 B-18
B-19

APPROXIMATE SEISMIC SURFACE

WAVE ARRAY LOCATION
ARRAY 2
DRAFT
Casa Loma Fault
Casa L
o
ma Fault
Casa Loma Fault
Casa Loma Fault
Casa Loma Fault
%

PROPOSED

CONFLUENCE
BASIN
%

PROPOSED

ON-SITE
BASIN
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

Service Layer Credits:
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Basemap: USGS The National Map
Inset: National Geographic World Map £
LEGEND
Line E Alignment
Recency of Displacement
in years (USGS)
< 150
<15,000
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Trace (CGS)
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone (CGS)
PLOTTED: 10/28/2024 3:31:49 PM, RAlvarez
FIGURE
3 FILE: G:\Client\CityofSanJacinto\24002328\24002328_F3.mxd

FAULT LOCATION MAP
PROJECT:

FILE NAME:

DRAWN:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:
24002328_F3.mxd
RA
HM

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
24002328
10/2024
U.S. Geological Survey, Quaternary fault
and fold database for the United States.

California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo
fault traces and zones, Seismic Hazards Program.

DRAFT
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

TYPICAL ENGINEERED FILL

SLOPE DETAIL

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
24002823 11/2023 HMEN
4 DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 February 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION
DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page A-1 February 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION
Field explorations included a site reconnaissance and subsurface explorations. During the site reconnaissance phase, each proposed boring site was visited to evaluate exploration equipment, accessibility, and general site conditions. The subsurface exploration program included drilling 19 hollow-stem auger borings and performing 2 CPTs.

The borings were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 20 to 50 feet bgs. Truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rigs supplied by 2R Drilling of Chino, California were used for the soil borings. Hollow-Stem Auger (HSA) drill rigs were equipped with 8-inch outside diameter (O.D.) continuous flight, hollow-stem augers.

The CPTs were advanced to a maximum depth of 100 ft bgs. The CPTs were performed by Kehoe Testing & Engineering, Inc. of Huntington Beach, California using a 30-ton truck rig.

Disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface materials were obtained from the borings using Standard Penetration test (SPT) samplers and California-type (CAL) samplers, respectively. The SPT sampler has a 1.375-inch inside diameter and a 2.0-inch outside diameter. The CAL sampler has a 2.42-inch inside diameter and a 3.0-inch outside diameter. Samples were driven 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. SPT and CAL samples were obtained at 5-foot intervals alternating between the SPT and the CAL until reaching the boring target depth. Large bulk samples were also obtained within the upper 5 feet from each boring. The number of blows required to drive the samplers were recorded for each 6-inch penetration interval. The number of blows required to drive the samplers for the last 12 inches, or the interval achieved where higher resistance was encountered, is referred to as the blow count and is noted on the boring logs. Where the sample was driven less than 12 inches, the number of blows to drive the sample for each 6-inch segment, or portion thereof, is shown on the logs. For example, 50/4" indicates 50 blows to drive the sampler 4 inches to refusal. After the samplers were withdrawn from the test borings, select samples were carefully removed, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and transported to AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. for testing.

A legend to the logs is presented as Figure A-1 and A-2. The boring logs are presented as Figure A-3 through A-24. The logs describe the earth materials encountered, indicate the locations of the samples obtained, and show field and laboratory tests performed. The excavations were logged by an engineer from Kleinfelder using methods outlined in the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and general procedures established in ASTM D2488. The DRAFT 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page A-2 February 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. The CPT visual plots and data are also attached in Appendix A following the logs.

DRAFT

GRAPHICS KEY
A-1
FIGURE
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
The report and graphics key are an integral part of these logs. All data and interpretations in this log are subject to the explanations and limitations stated in the report.

Solid lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only, dashed lines are inferred or extrapolated boundaries.

Actual transitions may be gradual or differ from those represented.

No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil or rock conditions between individual sample locations.

Logs represent general soil or rock conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated.

In general, Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488/D2487) designations presented on the logs were based on visual classification in the field and were modified where appropriate based on gradation and index property testing.

Fine grained soils that plot within the hatched area on the Plasticity Chart, and coarse grained soils with between 5% and 12% passing the No. 200 sieve require dual USCS symbols, ie., CL-ML, GW-GM, GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC, GC-GM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SW-SC, SP-SC, SC-SM.

If sampler is not able to be driven at least 6 inches then 50/X indicates number of blows required to drive the identified sampler X inches with a pound hammer falling inches.

REFERENCES

1. American Society for Materials and Testing (ASTM), 2011, ASTM D2487: Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).

SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL

SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND

WELL-GRADED SAND,

WELL-GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL

POORLY GRADED SAND,

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL

WELL-GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

WELL-GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY,

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL
(OR SILTY CLAY AND GRAVEL)

SILTY SAND,

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL
GP-GC
GC-GM

FINE GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more passes
the No. #200 sieve)

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL,

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL,

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND

WELL-GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (OR SILTY CLAY),

WELL-GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL
(OR SILTY CLAY AND GRAVEL)

CLAYEY SAND,

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
COARSE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% retained on No. 200 Sieve)

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND,

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL

LEAN CLAY, LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL

SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid Limit
50 or greater)
NOTE: USE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ON THE LOG TO DEFINE A GRAPHIC THAT MAY NOT BE PROVIDED ON THIS LEGEND.

MH
CH
OH

BULK SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA SAMPLER
(3 in. (76.2 mm.) outer diameter)

STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
(2 in. (50.8 mm.) outer diameter and 1-3/8 in. (34.9 mm.) inner diameter)
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM1
SP-SM
SP-SC
SM
SC
SANDS
WITH
5% TO
12%
FINES

GRAVELS
WITH >
12%
FINES

SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid Limit
less than 50)

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT,

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY (OR SILTY

CLAY), POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND
(OR SILTY CLAY AND SAND)

SILTY GRAVEL,

SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND

CLAYEY GRAVEL,

CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT,

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND
SP
CLEAN
SANDS
WITH
<5%
FINES

ML SILT, SILT WITH SAND, SILT WITH GRAVEL CL

ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC CLAY WITH SAND, ORGANIC CLAY WITH GRAVEL, ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC SILT WITH SAND, ORGANIC SILT WITH GRAVEL

ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC CLAY WITH SAND, ORGANIC CLAY WITH GRAVEL, ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC SILT WITH SAND, ORGANIC SILT WITH GRAVEL CL-ML

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY (OR SILTY

CLAY), WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND

SAND (OR SILT CLAY AND SAND)

SILTY CLAY, SILTY CLAY WITH SAND, SILTY CLAY WITH GRAVEL ELASTIC SILT. ELASTIC SILT WITH SAND, ELASTIC SILT WITH GRAVEL

FAT CLAY, FAT CLAY WITH SAND, FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL
OL
SANDS
WITH >
12%
FINES
CLEAN
GRAVEL
WITH
<5%
FINES

GRAVELS
WITH
5% TO
12%
FINES
SW
SW-SC
SW-SM
SC-SM
GP-GM
GM
GC
GW
GP
GW-GM
GW-GC
SANDS (50% or more of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 Sieve) GRAVELS (More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 Sieve)

DRILLING METHOD/SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHICS
NOTES

GROUND WATER GRAPHICS

OBSERVED SEEPAGE
WATER LEVEL (level where first observed)
WATER LEVEL (additional levels after exploration)
WATER LEVEL (level after stabilizing period)
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_GEO_LEG1_GRAPHICS_KEY_W_USCS] PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:55 PM BY: DEdrees DATE:

CHECKED BY: HM
DRAWN BY: DE
24002328.001A
PROJECT NO.: DRAFT
SPT-N
(# blows / ft)
FIGURE
A-2

SOIL DESCRIPTION KEY
(For additional tables, see ASTM D2488)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California

APPARENT

DENSITY
30 - 50
10 - 30
4 - 10
Secondary
Constituent is
Coarse Grained
Term
of
Use
<5%
With
Modifier
5 to <15%
Secondary
Constituent is
Fine Grained
15%
Trace <15%
15 to <30%
30%
AMOUNT

CRITERIA
<500

0.5 PP <1
1 PP <2
2 PP <4
4 PP
Pocket Pen
(tsf)
PP < 0.25
Medium Stiff

0.25 PP <0.5

SPT - N
(# blows / ft)
medium

SIEVE SIZE

DESCRIPTION
Damp but no
visible water
#40 - #10

0.0029 - 0.017 in. (0.07 - 0.43 mm.)
Passing #200 <0.0029 in. (<0.07 mm.)

DESCRIPTION
3 - 12 in.
3/4 -3 in.
#4 - 3/4 in.
1,000 - 2,000
2,000 - 4,000
4,000 - 8,000
>8,000
<4
Very Dense
Dense
Medium Dense
>50
Loose
Very Loose
Alternating layers of varying material or color with the layers less than 1/4-in. (6 mm) thick, note thickness. Laminated Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay; note thickness. Lensed Boulders
Cobbles
coarse
fine
Gravel
Same color and appearance throughout
Breaks along definite planes of fracture with
little resistance to fracturing.

Homogeneous

DESCRIPTION
Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-in. (6mm) thick, note thickness.

Fissured
Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.

DESCRIPTION
Non-Plastic
Low
Dry
Wet
Visible free water,
usually soil is below
water table

FIELD TEST
Absence of
moisture, dusty,
dry to the touch
Sand
Fines

GRAIN SIZE
>12 in. (304.8 mm.)
3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.)
3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.)

0.19 - 0.75 in. (4.8 - 19 mm.)
#10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19 in. (2 - 4.9 mm.)

0.017 - 0.079 in. (0.43 - 2 mm.)
#200 - #40
Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown. Blocky

CRITERIA
Medium
High

CRITERIA
A 1/8 in. (3 mm) thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

The thread can barely be rolled and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

The thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.
coarse
fine
Moist
Rounded
Subrounded Particles have nearly plane sides but have well-rounded corners and edges.

Angular Particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces.

Subangular
Particles have smoothly curved sides and no edges.

Particles are similar to angular description but have rounded edges.

DESCRIPTION
None
Weak
Crumbles or breaks
with considerable finger
pressure
Moderately
Weakly
Will not crumble or
break with finger
pressure

DESCRIPTION
Strongly

FIELD TEST
Crumbles or breaks
with handling or little
finger pressure
Readily indented by thumb but penetrated only
with great effort
Easily penetrated several inches by fist
Easily penetrated several inches by thumb
Can be penetrated several inches by thumb with
moderate effort
Readily indented by thumbnail
Indented by thumbnail with difficulty

CONSISTENCY VISUAL / MANUAL CRITERIA
<2
>30
Very Soft
Strong
No visible reaction
Some reaction,
with bubbles
forming slowly
Violent reaction,
with bubbles
forming
immediately

DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST
Soft
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (Qu)(psf)
>12 in.

Stratified
500 - 1,000
CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL2, 3
CEMENTATION1

APPARENT DENSITY -
COARSE-GRAINED SOIL2
PLASTICITY1
STRUCTURE1 ANGULARITY1
GRAIN SIZE1
MOISTURE CONTENT1

REACTION WITH
HYDROCHLORIC ACID1
SECONDARY CONSTITUENT1

REFERENCES

1. American Society for Materials and Testing (ASTM), 2017, ASTM D2488: Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual Manual Procedures).

2. Terzaghi, K and Peck, R., 1948, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

3. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 1998, Earth Manual, Part I.
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [_KLF_GEO_LEG2_SOIL_DESC_KEY] PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:56 PM BY: DEdrees DATE:

CHECKED BY: HM
DRAWN BY: DE
24002328.001A
PROJECT NO.: DRAFT
101.7

90.2 81.4

83.7 84.2
100 53
76 Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
stiff, increase in sand content
very stiff
brown, stiff
SILT (ML): low plasticity, olive, moist,
medium stiff
increase in sand content
SILT with Sand (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist, stiff
olive, moist to wet, medium stiff
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive, wet, loose
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

10.2 26.4

40.6 36.7

36.8 BC=3
5 8
BC=5
7 8
BC=3
3 5
BC=1
2 3
BC=3
1 3
BC=4
4 6
BC=1
2 2
38 NP
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Corrosion Test
Direct Shear Test
Consolidation Test
Direct Shear Test
12 NP
1 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-3

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-1
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-1
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.82065°
Longitude: -117.02476°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,450.00
Surface Condition: Sparse Vegetation
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/28/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
1420
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
71 Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive, wet, loose
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, olive, wet,
stiff
olive gray, medium stiff
Clayey SAND (SC): fine sand, medium
plasticity, olive, wet, loose
The boring was terminated at approximately

51.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
28, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
BC=4
5 8
BC=3
5 6
BC=1
3 4
BC=2
3 4
44 18
Groundwater was observed at approximately 29.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 16.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
2 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-4

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-1
PAGE:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/28/2023
Depth (feet)
40 45
50 55
60 65
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1410
1405
1400
1395
1390
1385
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
9 10
11 12
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT

83.0 93.2

92.7 85.1
100 59
80 57
Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, light
brown, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, light
brown, moist, medium stiff, trace mica
stiff
SILT with Sand (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
light brown, moist, medium stiff, trace mica
olive, hard
Sandy Elastic SILT (MH): low plasticity, olive,
moist, medium stiff
medium stiff, fine sand
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist to wet, loose
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

32.3 25.8

27.4 35.3
BC=2
3 3
BC=4
7 7
BC=2
3 8
BC=2
2 3
BC=6
13 17
BC=2
2 3
BC=3
4 3
65 Hand Auger 5' bgs
Expansion Index Test
Direct Shear Test
Direct Shear Test
30 1 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-5

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-2
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-2
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.82004°
Longitude: -117.02428°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,450.00
Surface Condition: Sparse Vegetation
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT

81.3 47
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist to wet, loose
wet, medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

51.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
28, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"

39.3 BC=2
3 6
BC=4
4 11
BC=4
5 6
BC=4
8 10
NP
NP
Consolidation Test
NP
NP
Groundwater was observed at approximately 34.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 33 ft. below ground surface after drilling completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
2 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-6

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-2
PAGE:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT

97.4 95.9

99.8 90.1
100 59
90 Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, dry to moist, trace clay
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, dry to moist, trace clay
light gray, hard
fine to medium sand
SILT (ML): trace fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, moist, hard
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive, moist,
medium dense, trace mica
loose, decrease in sand content
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
27, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

3.3 0.8

6.2 29.1
BC=11
20 21
BC=9
13 20
BC=11
28 28
BC=3
7 9
BC=2
2 7
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Corrosion Test
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-7

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-3
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-3
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81791°
Longitude: -117.02451°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,455.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
108.0
114.3

93.9 100 22
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, light brown,
moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, light brown,
moist
olive gray, medium dense
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, low plasticity,
olive, moist, medium stiff
Clayey SAND (SC): fine sand, low plasticity,
olive, moist, medium dense
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, low to medium
plasticity, olive, moist, medium dense
olive gray
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

8.3 5.5

7.1 BC=10
11 11
BC=9
13 15
BC=4
8 12
BC=1
3 4
BC=4
5 10
BC=2
6 9
BC=6
8 10
NP
45 NP
Hand Auger 5' bgs (very loose)
R-Value Test
Corrosion Test
NP Consolidation Test
15 NP
1 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-8

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-4
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-4
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81654°
Longitude: -117.02420°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,459.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, low to medium
plasticity, olive, moist, medium dense
dark olive gray
increase in fines content
The boring was terminated at approximately

51.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
27, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
BC=3
4 6
BC=4
8 12
BC=4
5 9
BC=7
13 14
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
2 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-9

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-4
PAGE:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
40 45
50 55
60 65
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1420
1415
1410
1405
1400
1395
1390
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
9 10
11 12
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
113.3
111.0
120.4
100 67
Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
brown, moist, trace clay
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
brown, moist, trace clay
olive yellow, moist, very stiff, increase in sand
content
fine sand, olive, moist, trace medium sand
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, light gray, moist,
dense
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, moist, stiff
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, light gray, moist, dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
27, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

14.6 12.4

4.8 BC=7
11 18
BC=7
12 16
BC=11
20 23
BC=4
7 5
BC=14
22 22
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-10

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-5
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-5
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81486°
Longitude: -117.02388°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,463.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1460
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT

91.8 90.0

83.8 95.9
100 69
Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
stiff, increase in sand
fine sand, olive, moist to wet, medium stiff
wet, stiff
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive, wet, loose
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. Monitoring
Well installed to a depth of 21.5
18"
18"
18"
18"
6"

27.5 27.8

34.7 26.6
BC=4
6 8
BC=6
8 9
BC=4
3 3
BC=9
10 10
BC=3
3 3
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Direct Shear Test
Groundwater was observed at approximately 10.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 18.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-11

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-6
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-6
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81644°
Longitude: -117.02061°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,452.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
1420
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
101.2

99.8 100.5
100 46
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist,
trace clay
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist,
trace clay
light gray, medium dense
increase in sand content
olive gray, moist
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, light gray, moist to wet,
dense
wet
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

7.4 3.6

15.2 BC=5
9 13
BC=7
12 14
BC=3
7 13
BC=5
8 12
BC=8
19 28
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Expansion Index Test
Corrosion Test
Groundwater was observed at approximately 21 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 17.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-12

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-7
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-7
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81645°
Longitude: -117.01632°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,457.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/26/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT

90.0 98.1

99.0 100 66
Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
brown, moist, trace medium sand
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
brown, moist, trace medium sand
stiff, increase in sand content
very stiff
light gray
olive, moist to wet, stiff
olive gray, wet
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
27, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

27.8 8.7

3.8 BC=4
5 6
BC=5
9 13
BC=8
11 16
BC=2
4 9
BC=3
5 9
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Groundwater was observed at approximately 15 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 19 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-13

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-8
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-8
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81640°
Longitude: -117.01184°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,459.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
110.2
107.9
111.2
112.3
100 39
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, light
brown, moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, light
brown, moist
fine sand, olive, loose, increase in fines
fine to medium sand, medium dense
fine sand, trace medium sand
olive, moist to wet
fine to medium sand, wet, increase in sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. Monitoring
Well installed to a depth of 21.5
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

14.1 12.1

14.9 12.1
BC=3
7 6
BC=4
6 6
BC=4
9 10
BC=3
9 12
BC=6
5 5
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Groundwater was observed at approximately 15 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 17.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-14

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-9
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-9
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81617°
Longitude: -117.00761°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,463.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1460
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
103.6

91.6 103.1
100 54

2.3 Artificial fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to coarse
sand, light gray, moist, loose
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive, moist,
loose
Sandy SILT (ML): fine to medium sand,
non-plastic, moist, medium stiff
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist,
medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
27, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

2.1 23.7

20.9 BC=5
3 4
BC=2
3 4
BC=3
4 10
BC=1
2 3
BC=7
8 13
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-15

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-10
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-10
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81403°
Longitude: -117.00741°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,467.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1465
1460
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT

80.0 95.4
110.4
102.2
100 52
Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
brown, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
brown, moist
olive gray, stiff, increase in sand content
medium stiff
very stiff
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, light gray, moist, medium
dense
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist,
medium dense
decrease in silt, trace medium sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
28, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

10.7 23.0

8.1 13.4
BC=3
3 5
BC=2
3 4
BC=2
8 15
BC=8
8 16
BC=7
11 13
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Corrosion Test
Direct Shear Test
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-16

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-11
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-11
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81185°
Longitude: -117.00735°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,469.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/28/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1465
1460
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
104.8

98.5 94.5
100 59
Artificial Fil
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, moist
very stiff, increase in sand
olive
light gray, trace medium sand
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, olive gray, moist, medium
dense
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, light
gray, moist, dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
28, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

16.8 16.1

19.2 BC=3
5 10
BC=3
6 9
BC=5
10 16
BC=3
5 7
BC=6
20 30
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-17

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-12
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-12
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80946°
Longitude: -117.00736°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,471.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/28/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1470
1465
1460
1455
1450
1445
1440
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
104.1

84.4 100.9
100 38
34 Artificial Fil
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist
trace medium sand
loose
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine sand, olive,
moist, loose
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist, very stiff
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, olive,
moist, loose, trace coarse sand
fine sand, dark gray, moist, medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

17.8 35.3

22.2 BC=2
3 4
BC=2
2 7
BC=3
5 10
BC=2
2 6
BC=5
5 10
Hand Auger 5' bgs
R-Value Test
Corrosion Test
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-18

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-13
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-13
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80917°
Longitude: -117.00521°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,475.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/26/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1470
1465
1460
1455
1450
1445
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT

81.3 108.7
100.6

93.3 99 6.0
71 Artificial Fill
Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM): fine
to medium sand, light gray, moist
Alluvium
Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM): fine
to medium sand, light gray, moist
SILT with Sand (ML): fine sand, light gray,
moist, medium stiff
olive gray, loose
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
sand, olive gray, moist, medium dense
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
gray, moist, very stiff
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, dark grey, moist,
loose
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, dark grey, moist, medium
dense
wet
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. Monitoring
Well installed to a depth of 21.5
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

37.8 8.6

13.5 26.7
BC=1
2 3
BC=3
3 7
BC=2
4 12
BC=4
5 7
BC=5
6 4
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Groundwater was observed at approximately 21.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 17.5 ft. below ground surface after drilling completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-19

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-14
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-14
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80735°
Longitude: -117.00326°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,477.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/26/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1475
1470
1465
1460
1455
1450
1445
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT

86.1 104.2

93.4 99 25
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, olive
brown, moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, olive
brown, moist
fine sand, olive
loose
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine sand, light
gray, moist, medium dense, trace mica
Clayey SAND (SC): fine sand, low to medium
plasticity, light gray, moist, loose
Silty SAND (SM): light gray, moist, medium
dense
wet
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. Monitoring
Well installed to a depth of 21.5
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

29.1 9.4

25.5 BC=2
3 3
BC=4
7 9
BC=6
10 10
BC=1
2 4
BC=5
7 9
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Corrosion Test
Direct Shear Test
Groundwater was observed at approximately 21.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 18.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-20

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-15
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-15
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80475°
Longitude: -117.00315°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,479.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
108.3

97.5 87.3

99.9 100 39
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, grayish brown,
moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, grayish brown,
moist, loose
olive gray, loose, increase in sand content
olive, moist to wet, decrease in sand content
fine to medium sand, wet
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to coarse sand, light gray, wet, loose
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

3.8 21.1

33.9 25.7
BC=5
5 5
BC=4
4 8
BC=2
2 3
BC=3
4 4
BC=1
2 6
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Groundwater was observed at approximately 10.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 8 ft. below ground surface after drilling completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-21

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-16
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-16
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80256°
Longitude: -117.00315°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,483.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/26/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1480
1475
1470
1465
1460
1455
1450
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT

97.5 80.9

91.9 100 38
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, dark brown,
moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, dark brown,
moist
loose
moist to wet, increase in sand
very loose
wet, medium dense
fine to medium sand, medium dense, trace
coarse sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

27.3 43.1

23.0 BC=1
2 3
BC=5
7 7
BC=2
2 2
BC=3
7 7
BC=3
4 15
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Corrosion Test
Groundwater was observed at approximately 8 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 12.5 ft. below ground surface after drilling completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-22

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-17
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-17
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80223°
Longitude: -117.00116°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,483.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
104.6

83.0 85.3
112.5
100 22
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand,
brown, moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand,
brown, moist
medium dense
fine sand, olive gray, moist to wet
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
gray, wet, soft
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, dark
grey, wet, medium dense
increase in fines
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

16.4 34.8

38.3 20.3
BC=6
7 8
BC=1
2 3
BC=1
1 1
BC=1
7 17
BC=6
10 12
Hand Auger 5' bgs
R-Value Test
Direct Shear Test
Groundwater was observed at approximately 9 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 5.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-23

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-18
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-18
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80212°
Longitude: -116.99922°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,483.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT

93.5 107.7
102.7
Artificial Fill 100 13
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, brown, moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, brown, moist
SILT (ML): low plasticity, olive gray, moist,
medium stiff, trace clay
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, moist, medium dense
trace mica
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist
to wet, medium dense
wet
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

18.4 3.7

19.2 BC=2
3 3
BC=5
10 20
BC=8
17 17
BC=5
7 9
BC=8
15 23
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Groundwater was observed at approximately 21 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 17.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-24

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-19
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-19
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80100°
Longitude: -117.00472°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,491.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/26/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1490
1485
1480
1475
1470
1465
1460
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:59 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
DRAFT
Project: Kleinfelder/ Line E San Jacinto
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 100.14 ft, Date: 10/12/2023 CPT-1
Location:

Cone resistance

HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
Depth (ft)
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction

HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u

HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
Depth (ft)
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio

HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type

HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/12/2023, 10:35:15 AM 1 Project file: C:\Users\stevek\OneDrive - Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Data\Kleinfelder-SanJacinto10-23\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt DRAFT
Project: Kleinfelder/ Line E San Jacinto
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 100.14 ft, Date: 10/12/2023 CPT-2
Location:

Cone resistance

HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
Depth (ft)
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction

HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth (ft)
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u

HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
Depth (ft)
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio

HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Depth (ft)
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type

HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8
Depth (ft)
1 0 0
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/12/2023, 10:35:16 AM 2 Project file: C:\Users\stevek\OneDrive - Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Data\Kleinfelder-SanJacinto10-23\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 February 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page B-1 February 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on drive and bulk soil samples to estimate engineering characteristics of the various earth materials encountered. Testing was performed by Kleinfelder’s Ontario, California lab and AP Engineering & Testing, Inc. (AP) of Pomona, California. The test results are presented herein. Visual classifications presented on the lab plates were performed by AP during their laboratory testing and may differ from those presented on the boring logs provided in Appendix A.

IN-SITU MOISTURE CONTENT AND DRY UNIT WEIGHT
In-situ moisture content and dry unit weight tests were performed on samples that could be recovered in a relatively undisturbed condition. Moisture content was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D2216. Dry unit weight was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D7263. The results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

WASH SIEVE
To provide information on the fines content of the soil layers at the site, wash sieves were performed to determine the percentage passing the #200 sieve. The wash sieves were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1140. The results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Sieve & hydrometer analyses were performed on soil samples to evaluate the gradation of the material and to aid in soil classification. Tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D6913. The results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

ATTERBERG LIMITS (PLASTICITY INDEX)
Plasticity limit and liquid limit testing was performed on soil samples to evaluate behavior conditions at varying water contents. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D4318. The results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B. DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page B-2 February 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

DIRECT SHEAR
Direct shear strength tests were performed by AP on drive samples to evaluate the drained shear strength of the onsite soils. Samples were tested in a near-saturated condition in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3080 (consolidated, drained). The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

CONSOLIDATION TEST
Consolidation testing was performed by AP on selected relatively undisturbed samples by AP Engineering in accordance with ASTM D 2435. The tests were performed on 1.0-inch-high,

2.41-inch diameter samples. After trimming the ends, the sample was placed in a consolidometer and an initial reading was recorded. The sample was saturated during loading, and thereafter, the sample was incrementally loaded. The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index testing was performed on near surface bulk samples to determine the expansion potential of the soil. The testing was performed in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D4829. The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

COMPACTION TESTING (MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY-OPTIMUM MOISTURE) Maximum dry density-optimum moisture tests were performed on select bulk samples of the on-site soils to determine compaction characteristics. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D1557. The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

R-VALUE TESTING
Resistance value (R-value) tests were performed on bulk soil samples obtained to evaluate pavement support characteristics of the near-surface onsite soils. R-value tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D2844. The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page B-3 February 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

CORROSIVITY TESTS
Chemical analyses were performed on samples of the near surface soil by AP to estimate pH, minimum resistivity, soluble sulfate, and chloride contents. The tests were performed in accordance with Caltrans standards. The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

DRAFT
SYMBOL
1 GRAVEL

0.0 0.0

0.0 SAMPLE
NO.

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
BORING
NO.

B-1
B-2
B-4
5 5
0-5

PERCENTAGES
2 2

0.0 NM
DEPTH
(ft.) FINES

52.6 59.1

22.4 SAND

47.4 40.9

77.6 NM

SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Sandy Silt (ML)
Sandy Silt (ML)
Silty Sand (SM)
PI

ATTERBERG LIMITS
LL
NM NM
NM
NM
PL
NM
NM NM
NM

NM NM NM
2 NM Sandy Silt (ML)
1 69.3 Sandy Silt (ML)
5 0-5

0.0 33.3 66.7
B-6
B-5 NM

30.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

CUMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SILT CLAY

COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002823.001A
M.Magaña
11/1/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com 24002328.001A DRAFT
NM

NM NM NM
1 NM Sandy Silt (ML)
1 52.2 Sandy Silt (ML)
0-5
0-5

0.0 45.7 54.3
B-11
B-10 NM

47.8 NM

SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Silty Sand (SM)
Sandy Silt (ML)
Silty Sand (SM)
PI

ATTERBERG LIMITS
LL
NM NM
NM
NM
PL
NM
NM NM
0 NM
DEPTH
(ft.) FINES

46.4 66.1

38.7 SAND

53.6 33.9

61.3 SYMBOL
2 GRAVEL

0.0 0.0

0.0 SAMPLE
NO.

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
BORING
NO.

B-7
B-8
B-9
0-5
5 5

PERCENTAGES
1 2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

CUMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SILT CLAY

COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002823.001A
M.Magaña
11/1/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com 24002328.001A DRAFT
SYMBOL
2 GRAVEL

0.0 0.0

0.0 SAMPLE
NO.

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
BORING
NO.

B-12
B-16
B-17
0-5
5 5

PERCENTAGES
1 2
NM
DEPTH
(ft.) FINES

58.6 38.9

38.4 SAND

41.4 61.1

61.6 NM

SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Sandy Silt (ML)
Silty Sand (SM)
Silty Sand (SM)
PI

ATTERBERG LIMITS
LL
NM NM
NM
NM
PL
NM
NM NM
B-19 1 0-5 0.0 87.5 12.5 NM NM NM Silty Sand (SM)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

CUMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SILT CLAY

COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002823.001A
M.Magaña
11/1/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com DRAFT
NM

NM NM NM
1 NM Silty Sand (SM)
1 22.1 Silty Sand (SM)
0-5
0-5

0.8 74.0 25.2
B-18
B-15 NM

77.4 NM

SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Sandy Silt (ML)
Sity Sand (SM)
Well Graded Sand w/Silt (SWSM)
PI

ATTERBERG LIMITS
LL
NM NM
NM
NM
PL
NM
NM NM

0.5 NM
DEPTH
(ft.) FINES

58.7 38.4

6.0 SAND

40.9 61.6

93.2 SYMBOL
1 GRAVEL

0.4 0.0

0.8 SAMPLE
NO.

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
BORING
NO.

B-3
B-13
B-14
0-5
0-5
0-5

PERCENTAGES
1 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

CUMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
24002328.001A FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com Silty Sand (SM)
24002328.001A
11/3/2023
M.Magaña
11/1/2023
M.Magaña
DRAFT
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318 9 7
50 20
30 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Elastic Silt (MH)
SYMBOL
44 26 18
65 35 30

N/A N/A N/A
25 B-1 12
B-1 6
B-1 8
B-2
B-2

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
Silt (ML)
Non Plastic
38 26 12

N/A N/A N/A

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LL PL PI BORING
NO.

SAMPLE
NO. DEPTH (ft)
35 Non Plastic
MH or OH
ML or OL
CH or OH
CL-ML
CL or OL
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
PROJECT NO.:

TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

FIGURE
0 PROJECT NO.: 24002328.001A
TESTED BY: J.Calderon
DATE: 10/26/2023
CHECKED BY: M.Magaña
DATE: 11/2/2023
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California PLASTICITY TESTING KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Ave, Bldg G | Ontario, CA | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com NP NP NP Silt with Sand (ML) Sandy Elastic Silt (MH) NP NP NP *NP= Non Plastic
Silty Sand (SM) Clayey Sand (SC)
DRAFT
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
Non Plastic
Non Plastic

N/A N/A N/A

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LL PL PI BORING
NO.

SAMPLE
NO. DEPTH (ft)
Non Plastic
SYMBOL
45 30 15

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A
30 B-4 5
B-2 11
B-4 2
B-4
15 45
5 Sandy Silt (ML)
8 Non Plastic
MH or OH
ML or OL
CH or OH
CL-ML
CL or OL
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
PROJECT NO.:

TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.: 24002328.001A FIGURE
TESTED BY: J.Calderon
DATE: 10/26/2023
CHECKED BY: M.Magaña
DATE: 11/2/2023
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California PLASTICITY TESTING KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Ave, Bldg G | Ontario, CA | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Silty Sand (SM) Silty Sand (SM) Silty Sand (SM) *NP= Non Plastic
DRAFT
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: ST Date: 10/27/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐1 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 3 Depth (ft): 7.5
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

Soil Description: Silty Sand
Test Condition: Inundated Shear Type: Regular
Wet
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Dry
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Initial
Moisture
Content (%)
Final
Moisture
Content (%)
Initial Degree
Saturation
(%)
Final Degree
Saturation
(%)
Normal
Stress
(ksf)
Peak
Shear
Stress (ksf)
Ultimate
Shear
Stress (ksf)
1 0.804 0.624
2 1.452 1.212
4 2.580 2.272

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
114.0 90.2 26.4 29.8 82 93
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=200 psf; ɸ=30˚
Ultimate: C=100 psf; ɸ=29˚
Normal Stress:

DRAFT
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: DK Date: 10/30/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐1 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 7 Depth (ft): 25
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

Soil Description: Sandy Silt
Test Condition: Inundated Shear Type: Regular
Wet
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Dry
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Initial
Moisture
Content (%)
Final
Moisture
Content (%)
Initial Degree
Saturation
(%)
Final Degree
Saturation
(%)
Normal
Stress
(ksf)
Peak
Shear
Stress (ksf)
Ultimate
Shear
Stress (ksf)
1 0.677 0.607
2 1.140 1.020
4 2.157 2.126

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
115.1 84.2 36.8 37.3 99 100
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=200 psf; ɸ=26˚
Ultimate: C=100 psf; ɸ=26˚
Normal Stress:

DRAFT
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: ST Date: 10/27/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐2 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 4 Depth (ft): 10
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
118.2 92.7 27.4 30.3
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=150 psf; ɸ=29˚
Ultimate: C=100 psf; ɸ=28˚
Normal Stress:

DRAFT
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: DK Date: 10/30/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐2 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 8 Depth (ft): 30
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
115.1 85.1 35.3 36.1 97 99
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=100 psf; ɸ=31˚
Ultimate: C=100 psf; ɸ=29˚
Normal Stress:

DRAFT
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: ST Date: 10/27/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐6 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 2 Depth (ft): 5
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
117.0 91.8 27.5 29.5
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=300 psf; ɸ=28˚
Ultimate: C=150 psf; ɸ=28˚
Normal Stress:

DRAFT
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: ST Date: 10/27/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐11 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 2 Depth (ft): 5
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

88.5 80.0 10.7 37.6 26 92

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=150 psf; ɸ=31˚
Ultimate: C=150 psf; ɸ=28˚
Normal Stress:

DRAFT
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: DK Date: 10/30/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐15 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 2 Depth (ft): 5
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
111.1 86.1 29.1 33.3 82 94
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=150 psf; ɸ=28˚
Ultimate: C=150 psf; ɸ=27˚
Normal Stress:

DRAFT
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: DK Date: 10/30/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐18 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 2 Depth (ft): 5
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
121.7 104.6 16.4 22.0 72 97
0 1
2 3
4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=150 psf; ɸ=34˚
Ultimate: C=100 psf; ɸ=29˚
Normal Stress:

DRAFT
Boring No. : B-1 Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 83.7
Sample No.: 5 Initial Moisture Content (%): 36.7
Depth (feet): 15 Final Moisture Content (%): 36.6
Sample Type: Mod Cal Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7
Soil Description: Sandy Silt Initial Void Ratio: 1.01
Remarks: Swell= 0.01% upon inundation
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Project No.: 24002328.001A
Date:

AP No: 23-1050 Sheet No: 1

CONSOLIDATION CURVE
ASTM D 2435 10/26/2023
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 0.1 1 10 100
CONSOLIDATION (Percent of Sample Thickness)
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
At Field Moisture
DRAFT
After Saturation
Boring No. : B-2 Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 81.3
Sample No.: 10 Initial Moisture Content (%): 39.3
Depth (feet): 40 Final Moisture Content (%): 39.4
Sample Type: Mod Cal Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7
Soil Description: Sandy Silt Initial Void Ratio: 1.07
Remarks: Swell= 0.06% upon inundation
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Project No.: 24002328.001A
Date:

AP No: 23-1050 Sheet No: 1

CONSOLIDATION CURVE
ASTM D 2435 10/26/2023
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 0.1 1 10 100
CONSOLIDATION (Percent of Sample Thickness)
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
At Field Moisture
DRAFT
After Saturation
Boring No. : B-4 Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 108.0
Sample No.: 2 Initial Moisture Content (%): 8.3
Depth (feet): 5 Final Moisture Content (%): 19.4
Sample Type: Mod Cal Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7
Soil Description: Silty Sand Initial Void Ratio: 0.56
Remarks: Collapse= 0.14% upon inundation
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Project No.: 24002328.001A
Date:

AP No: 23-1050 Sheet No: 1

CONSOLIDATION CURVE
ASTM D 2435 10/26/2023
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 0.1 1 10 100
CONSOLIDATION (Percent of Sample Thickness)
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
At Field Moisture
DRAFT
After Saturation

PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4829
24002328.001A
Low30.9% 0.0342 3413.0% 100.2

INITIAL COMPACTED

MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
(%) (PCF)

EXPANSION
(%) (IN)

INDEX POTENTIAL

FINAL VOLUMETRIC

MOISTURE SWELL

EXPANSION

LOCATION
B-2, #1
DEPTH
(FT)
0-5
0-5B-7, #1 107.910.0% 0.044024.6% 44
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
PROJECT NO.
11/2/2023
DATE

EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
FIGURE

EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS

SAMPLE SAMPLE
Low
Expansion Index 2.7.2022
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
DRAFT
Boring No.: B-3
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Sandy Silt (ML)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na = not applicable
Uncorrected Corrected
109.6 na
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

16.3 Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

2.65 2.60
Compaction Curve
Compaction Curve, Corrected
KLEINFELDER - 620 S. Magnolia Ave, Building G | Ontario, CA | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com DRAFT
Boring No.: B-6
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Sandy Silt (ML)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na = not applicable
Uncorrected Corrected
110.2 na
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

12.8 Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

2.65 2.60
Compaction Curve
Compaction Curve, Corrected
KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com DRAFT
Boring No.: B-9
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Silty Sand (SM)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

9.1 Uncorrected Corrected
122.3 na
na = not applicable
Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

2.65 2.60
Compaction Curve
Compaction Curve, Corrected
KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com DRAFT
Boring No.: B-12
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Sandy Silt (ML)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na = not applicable
Uncorrected Corrected
114.5 na
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

14.1 Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

2.65 2.60
Compaction Curve
Compaction Curve, Corrected
KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com DRAFT
Boring No.: B-15
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Silty Sand (SM)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

8.8 Uncorrected Corrected
128 na
na = not applicable
Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

2.65 2.60
Compaction Curve
Compaction Curve, Corrected
KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com DRAFT
Boring No.: B-19
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Silty Sand (SM)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

10.4 Uncorrected Corrected
121.7 na
na = not applicable
Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

Sample No.:

Depth:

Material Description:

Test Procedure: ASTM D2844
B-4
Exudation Pressure (psi)
Resistance Value
R - VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE
1 13.5
Silty Sand (SM)
C
113.2

14.4 112.1
0-5

90.9 110.0
74 66
Specimen No. B
Moisture at Test (%)
Dry Unit Weight at Test (pcf)
Expansion Pressure (psf)
72 73
155.9
237.2
A

12.6 112.0
207.8
673.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 R-Value
Exudation Pressure (psi)

R-VALUE
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
J.Calderon
10/31/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com DRAFT
Boring No.:

Sample No.:

Depth:

Material Description:

Test Procedure: ASTM D2844
B-13
Exudation Pressure (psi)
Resistance Value
R - VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE
1 12.4
Silty Sand (SM)
C
112.2

13.3 113.6
0-5

60.6 101.6
73 62
Specimen No. B
Moisture at Test (%)
Dry Unit Weight at Test (pcf)
Expansion Pressure (psf)
71 68
155.9
441.6
A

11.6 113.7
186.2
730.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 R-Value
Exudation Pressure (psi)

R-VALUE
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
J.Calderon
10/31/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com DRAFT
Boring No.:

Sample No.:

Depth:

Material Description:

Test Procedure: ASTM D2844
B-18
Exudation Pressure (psi)
Resistance Value
R - VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE
1 11.2
Silty Sand (SM)
C
121.5

11.7 122.7
0-5

60.6 130.4
81 70
Specimen No. B
Moisture at Test (%)
Dry Unit Weight at Test (pcf)
Expansion Pressure (psf)
78 77
155.9
356.8
A

10.8 123.3
186.2
687.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 R-Value
Exudation Pressure (psi)

R-VALUE
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
J.Calderon
10/31/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com DRAFT

CORROSION TEST RESULTS
Client Name: Kleinfelder AP Job No.: 23-1050
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Date: 10/30/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A
Boring Sample Depth Soil pH Sulfate Content Chloride Content No. No. (feet) Description (ppm) (ppm)
B-1 1 0-5 Sandy Silt w/
trace clay

10.3 467 142
B-3 1 0-5 Sandy Silt 8.2 445 243
B-4 1 0-5 Silty Sand w/
trace clay 10.5 85 63
B-7 1 0-5 Sandy Silt w/
trace clay

8.2 563 758
B-11 1 0-5 Sandy Silt w/
trace clay 8.9 553 424
B-13 1 0-5 Sandy Silt 9.0 39 31
B-15 1 0-5 Silty Sand w/
gravel 9.7 79 69
B-17 1 0-5 Sandy Silt w/
trace clay

8.6 672 785

NOTES: Resistivity Test and pH: California Test Method 643 Sulfate Content : California Test Method 417
Chloride Content : California Test Method 422
ND = Not Detectable
NA = Not Sufficient Sample
NR = Not Requested
1,027
3,076
299
333
1,763
336
421
Minimum
(ohm-cm)
521
Resistivity
DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 February 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX C

SURFACE WAVE MEASUREMENTS REPORT
DRAFT
REPORT

SURFACE WAVE MEASUREMENTS
SHEA PROPERTIES – LINE E

MWD CROSSING

SAN JACINTO, CA
GEOVision Project No. 24356
Prepared for
Kleinfelder
849 West Leroy Drive, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84123-2964
Prepared by
GEOVision, Inc.
1124 Olympic Drive
Corona, California 92881
(951) 549-1234
Report 24356-01
September 30, 2024 DRAFT
Report 24356-01 i September 30, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 2 OVERVIEW OF SURFACE WAVE TECHNIQUES ...................................................... 2

2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 SURFACE WAVE TECHNIQUES.............................................................................................. 2

2.2.1 MASW Technique........................................................................................................ 2

2.2.2 Array Microtremor Technique.................................................................................... 3

2.3 SURFACE WAVE DISPERSION CURVE MODELING................................................................. 4 3 FIELD PROCEDURES........................................................................................................ 5 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS................................................................................... 6 5 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 7 6 CERTIFICATION................................................................................................................ 8 TABLES......................................................................................................................................... 9 FIGURES..................................................................................................................................... 17

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 PROJECT TEST LOCATIONS ................................................................................................ 9 TABLE 2 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 120........................................................................... 10 TABLE 3 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 240........................................................................... 10 TABLE 4 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 360........................................................................... 11 TABLE 5 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 480........................................................................... 11 TABLE 6 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 600........................................................................... 12 TABLE 7 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 720........................................................................... 12 TABLE 8 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 840........................................................................... 13 TABLE 9 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 120........................................................................... 13 TABLE 10 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 240......................................................................... 14 TABLE 11 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 360......................................................................... 14 TABLE 12 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 480......................................................................... 15 TABLE 13 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 600......................................................................... 15 TABLE 14 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 720......................................................................... 16 TABLE 15 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 840......................................................................... 16

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP ...................................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 2 SURFACE WAVE MODELS FOR ARRAY 1 ........................................................................ 19 FIGURE 3 SURFACE WAVE MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 .......................................................................... 20 FIGURE 4 SUMMARY VELOCITY MODELS ARRAYS 1 & 2............................................................... 21 DRAFT
Report 24356-01 1 September 30, 2024
1 INTRODUCTION
In-situ seismic measurements using active- and passive-source surface wave techniques were performed along two transects in San Jacinto, California. The purpose of this investigation was to provide a shear (S) wave velocity profile to a depth of 100 feet at 5 (or more) test locations per transect. The active-source surface wave technique utilized during this investigation consisted of the multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW) method. The passive-source surface wave technique consisted of the linear array microtremor method. The locations of the active- and passive-source surface wave arrays are shown on Figure 1 and Table 1.

At many sites, active surface wave techniques (MASW) with the utilization of portable energy sources, such as hammers and weight drops, are sufficient to obtain S-wave velocity soundings to 100 ft depths. At sites with high ambient noise levels and/or very soft soils, these energy sources may not be sufficient to image to this depth and a larger energy source, such as a bulldozer, is necessary. Alternatively, passive surface wave techniques, such as the array microtremor technique can be used to extend the depth of investigation at sites that have adequate ambient noise conditions.

This report contains the results of the active and passive surface wave measurements conducted at the site. An overview of the surface wave methods is given in Section 2. Field and data reduction procedures are discussed in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. Data modeling is presented in Section 5 and results are discussed in Section 6. References and our professional certification are provided in Sections 7 and 8, respectively.

DRAFT
Report 24356-01 2 September 30, 2024
2 Overview of Surface Wave Techniques

2.1 Introduction
Active- and passive-source (ambient vibration) surface wave techniques are routinely utilized for site characterization. Active surface wave techniques include the spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) and multi-channel array surface wave (MASW) methods. Passive surface wave techniques include the horizontal over vertical spectral ratio (HVSR) technique and the array and refraction microtremor methods.

The basis of surface wave methods is the dispersive characteristic of Rayleigh and Love waves when propagating in a layered medium. Surface waves of different wavelengths () or frequencies (f) sample different depth. As a result of the variance in the shear stiffness of the distinct layers, waves with different wavelengths propagate at different phase velocities; hence, dispersion. A surface wave dispersion curve is the variation of VR or VL with  or f. The Rayleigh wave phase velocity (VR) depends primarily on the material properties (VS, mass density, and Poisson’s ratio or compression wave velocity) over a depth of approximately one wavelength. The Love wave phase velocity (VL) depends primarily on VS and mass density.

Rayleigh and Love wave propagation are also affected by damping or seismic quality factor (Q).

Rayleigh wave techniques are utilized to measure vertically polarized S-waves (SV-wave); whereas Love wave techniques are utilized to measure horizontally polarized S-waves (SHwave).

2.2 Surface Wave Techniques
The MASW and array microtremor techniques were utilized during this investigation and are discussed below.

2.2.1 MASW Technique
A description of the MASW method is given by Park, 1999a and 1999b and Foti, 2000. Ground motions are typically recorded by 24 or more geophones spaced 1 to 3 m apart along a linear array and connected to a seismograph. Energy sources for shallow investigations include various sized hammers and vehicle mounted weight drops. When applying the MASW technique to develop a one-dimensional (1-D) VS model, it is preferable to use multiple-source offsets from both ends of the array. The most commonly applied MASW technique is the Rayleigh-wave based MASW method, which we refer to as MASRW to distinguish from Love-wave based MASW (MASLW). MASRW and MASLW acquisition can easily be combined with P- and Swave seismic refraction acquisition, respectively. MASRW data are generally recorded using a vertical source and vertical geophone but may also be recorded using a horizontal geophone with radial (in-line) orientation. MASLW data are recorded using transversely orientated horizontal source and transverse horizontal geophone.

A wavefield transform is applied to the time-history data to convert the seismic record from time-offset space to frequency-wavenumber (f-k) space in which the fundamental or higher surface-wave modes can be easily identified as energy maxima and picked. Frequency and/or wavenumber can easily be mapped to phase velocity, slowness, or wavelength using the following properties: k = 2π/,  = v/f. Common wave-field transforms include: the f-k transform, slant-stack transform, frequency domain beamformer, and phase-shift transform. The DRAFT Report 24356-01 3 September 30, 2024
minimum wavelength that can be recovered from MASW data set without spatial aliasing is equal to the minimum receiver spacing. Occasionally, SASW analysis procedures are used to extract surface wave dispersion data, from fixed receiver pairs, at smaller wavelengths than can be recovered by wavefield transformation. Multiple source offsets, and limiting minimum and maximum wavelengths, are required to construct a dispersion curve bandwidth necessary to develop a robust VS model (Yoon and Rix, 2009; Li and Rosenblad, 2011).

Although the clear majority of MASW surveys record Rayleigh waves, it has been shown that Love wave techniques can be more effective in some environments, particularly shallow rock sites and sites with a highly attenuative, low velocity surface layer (Xia, et al., 2012; GEOVision, 2012). Rayleigh wave techniques, however, are generally more effective at sites where velocity gradually increases with depth because larger energy sources are readily available for the generation of Rayleigh waves. Rayleigh wave techniques are also more applicable to sites with high velocity layers and/or velocity inversions because the presence of such structures is more apparent in the Rayleigh wave dispersion curves than in Love wave dispersion curves.

Rayleigh wave techniques are preferable at sites with a high velocity surface layer because Love waves do not theoretically exist in such environments. Joint inversion of Rayleigh and Love wave data may yield more accurate VS models in anisotropic materials.

2.2.2 Array Microtremor Technique
A detailed discussion of the array microtremor method can be found in Okada, 2003. Unlike active source techniques, the array microtremor technique (also referred to as passive surface wave method) records ambient noise and ground motions emanating from ocean wave activity, wind noise, traffic, industrial activity, construction, etc. The technique uses 4 or more receivers aligned in a 2-dimensional array. Triangle, circle, semi-circle, and “L” shaped arrays are commonly used, although any 2-dimensional arrangement of receivers can be used. For investigations of the upper 100 m, receivers typically consist of 1 to 4.5 Hz geophones. For deeper investigations, 5 to 120 s seismometers are generally utilized.

The surface wave dispersion curve is typically estimated from array microtremor data using various f-k methods such as beamforming (Lacoss, et al., 1969), and maximum-likelihood (Capon, 1969), and the spatial-autocorrelation (SPAC) method. The SPAC method was originally based on work by Aki (1957) and has since been extended and modified (Ling and Okada, 1993 and Ohori et al., 2002) to permit the use of noncircular arrays, and is now collectively referred to as extended spatial autocorrelation (ESPAC or ESAC). SPAC methods are expected to perform better when noise sources are azimuthally well-distributed (e.g., in a large urban area). The minimum wavelength surface wave that can be extracted from an array microtremor dataset acquired utilizing a symmetric array is typically set equal to the minimum receiver spacing. The maximum wavelength is often set equal to twice the maximum receiver separation for SPAC analysis.

DRAFT
Report 24356-01 4 September 30, 2024

2.3 Surface Wave Dispersion Curve Modeling
The dispersion curves generated from the active and passive surface wave soundings are generally combined and modeled using iterative forward and inverse modeling routines. The final model profile is assumed to represent actual site conditions. The theoretical model used to interpret the dispersion curve assumes horizontally layered, laterally invariant, homogeneousisotropic material. Although these conditions are seldom strictly met at a site, the results of active and/or passive surface wave testing provide a good “global” estimate of the material properties along the array. The results may be more representative of the site than a borehole “point” estimate.

MASRW and/or passive surface-wave modeling may involve modeling of the fundamental mode, some form of effective mode, or multiple individual modes (multi-mode). The fundamental mode assumption is generally applicable to modeling Rayleigh-wave dispersion data collected at normally dispersive sites, providing there are not abrupt increases in velocity or steep velocity gradients. Effective-mode or multi-mode approaches are often required for irregularly dispersive sites and sites with steep velocity gradients at shallow depth. If active and passive surface wave data are combined or MASRW data are combined from multiple seismic records with different source offsets and receiver gathers, then effective-mode computations are limited to algorithms that assume far-field plane Rayleigh wave propagation. Local search (e.g., linearized matrix inversion methods) or global search methods (neighborhood algorithm; Monte Carlo approaches such as simulated annealing, generic algorithms) are typically used to solve the inverse problem.

The maximum wavelength (max) recovered from a surface wave data set is typically used to estimate depth of investigation although a sensitivity analysis of the VS models would be a more robust means to estimate depth of investigation. For normally dispersive velocity profiles with a gradual increase in VS with depth, the maximum depth of investigation is on the order of max/2 for both Rayleigh and Love wave dispersion data. For velocity profiles with an abrupt increase in VS at depth, the maximum depth of investigation is on the order of max/3 for Rayleigh wave dispersion data but less than max/3 for Love wave dispersion data. The depth of investigation can be highly variable for sites with complex velocity structure (including high velocity layers).

As with all surface geophysical methods, the inversion of surface wave dispersion data does not yield a unique VS model and multiple possible solutions may equally fit the experimental data. Based on experience at other sites, the shear wave velocity models (VS and layer thicknesses) determined by surface wave testing are within 20% of the velocities and layer thicknesses that would be determined by other seismic methods (Brown, 1998). The average velocity of the upper 30 m (VS30), however, is much more accurate, often to better than 5%, because it is not sensitive to the layering in the model. VS30 does not appear to suffer from the non-uniqueness inherent in VS models derived from surface wave dispersion curves (Martin et al., 2006, Comina et al., 2011). Therefore, VS30 is more accurately estimated from the inversion of surface wave dispersion data than the resulting VS models.

DRAFT
Report 24356-01 5 September 30, 2024
3 FIELD PROCEDURES
Surface wave data were collected along two transects, whose locations were provided by Kleinfelder and confirmed by a company representative. The locations of the transects are shown in Figure 1 and coordinates of the array centers (corresponding to the modeled Vs profiles) and endpoints are provided in Table 1. Two types of surface wave data were acquired at each site: an active-source surface wave array to characterize near-surface velocity structure and a passivesource surface wave array to characterize deeper velocity structure.

The surface wave equipment consisted of four Geometrics Geode signal enhancement seismographs, 4.5 Hz vertical geophones, and seismic cables. The geophone array consisted of 96 live geophones with a nominal spacing of 10 feet, for a total array length of 950 feet. Active MASW sources included 4 lb. and 20 lb. sledgehammers, and a 240 lb. accelerated weight drop (AWD).

Shot points were located between 30 and 300 feet from the end geophone locations and at regular intervals in the interior of the array. At least twenty-four active source locations were occupied with the 4-lb hammer and either the AWD or the 20-lb sledgehammer. Data from the active source impacts were averaged in the field to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. In total this resulted in 48 source locations, and ~720 hammer blows for the project. Ambient noise measurements were made along the passive array for 60 minutes (Array 1) and 53 minutes (Array 2) with a 2 MS sample rate. The field geometry and associated files names were documented in field notes. All field data were saved to hard disk and backed up daily on a remote server.

DRAFT
Report 24356-01 6 September 30, 2024
4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The MASW data were reduced using the software Seismic Pro Surface V10 developed by Geogiga, SeisImager Pick win (Geometrics, Inc.), and multiple in-house utilities for various data extraction and formatting tasks. Because each transect was acquired in a “fully-live” configuration of 96 active receivers, common-midpoint cross-correlation gathers (CMPCC) were generated that organized the common receiver pairs for every shot gather. This allowed for 2-D smooth-model inversion modeling. The surface wave data were modeled using the fundamental mode routine in SeisImager Waves. Data inputs into the modeling software include layer thickness, S-wave velocity, P-wave velocity or Poisson’s ratio, and mass density. P-wave velocity and mass density only have a very small influence (i.e., less than 10%) on the S-wave velocity model generated from a surface wave dispersion curve. However, realistic assumptions for P-wave velocity, which is significantly impacted by the location of the saturated zone, and mass density will slightly improve the accuracy of the S-wave velocity model.

During the modeling process an initial velocity model was generated based on provided preliminary CPT summaries. Kleinfelder provided estimates of water table depth (30 feet for Array 1; 16 feet for Array 2), wet and dry unit weights (85 and 115 lbs. per cubic foot, respectively), and Poisson’s ratio (0.33). These inputs were used in the initial modeling phase. A first-pass inverse modeling routine was performed, and the results were compared to general characteristics of the dispersion curves. Layer thicknesses were adjusted, and the inversion process repeated until a VS model was developed with low RMS error between the observed and calculated dispersion curves. Once an acceptable VS model was developed, layer thicknesses were again adjusted, and the inversion process repeated to compare VS models with similar RMS error to examine non-uniqueness.

Using the 2-D inversion routine in SeisImager WaveEQ, a 1-D shear-wave velocity profile was generated every 120-feet along each of the two transects shown in Figure 1. The modeled VS profiles for each transect are presented as Figures 2-3. The resolution decreases gradually with depth due to the loss of sensitivity of the dispersion curve to changes in VS at greater depth. The VS profile used to match the field data is provided in tabular form in English units as Tables 2-

15. The reported inferred values for P-wave velocity, Poisson’s Ratio, and density were calculated based on the shear-wave velocity model results – not direct measurements or lab tests.

The initial stage of the modeling process included input parameters provided by Kleinfelder, but these tabulated results show some variation, particularly with respect to density values. The “inferred density” values are based on the relationship between shear-wave velocity and density as described by Boore (2015).

DRAFT
Report 24356-01 7 September 30, 2024
5 REFERENCES
Aki K, 1957, Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves, with special reference to microtremors. Bull. Earthq. Inst. Univ. Tokyo, Vol. 35, p 415–457.

Bettig B, Bard PY, Scherbaum F, Riepl J, Cotton F, Cornou C and Hatzfeld D, 2001, Analysis of dense array noise measurements using the modified spatial auto-correlation method (SPAC): application to the Grenoble area, Bollettino di Geofisica Teoricaed Applicata, Vol 42, p 281–304.

Boore D., 2015, Notes on relating density to velocity for use in site amplification calculations, retrieved from https://daveboore.com/daves_notes.html September 27, 2024 Brown L, 1998, Comparison of VS profiles from SASW and borehole measurements at strong motion sites in Southern California, Master’s thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

Capon J, 1969, High-resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis, Proc. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Vol. 57, no. 8, p 1408–1418.

Comina C, Foti S, Boiero D, and Socco LV, 2011, Reliability of VS,30 evaluation from surface-wave tests, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., p 579–586.

Dunkin J W, 1965, Computation of modal solutions in layered, elastic media at high frequencies, Foti S, 2000, Multistation Methods for Geotechnical Characterization using Surface Waves, Ph.D.

Dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.

GEOVision, Inc (2012): EPRI (2004, 2006) ground-motion model (GMM) review project: Shear wave velocity measurements at seismic recording stations, http://www.epri.com/abstracts/ Pages/ProductAbstract. aspx?ProductId=000000003002000719.

Lacoss R, Kelly E and Toksöz M, 1969, Estimation of seismic noise structure using arrays, Geophysics, v. 34, pp. 21-38.

Li J and Rosenblad B, 2011, Experimental study of near-field effects in multichannel array-based surface wave velocity measurements, Near Surface Geophysics, Vol. 9, 357-366.

Ling S and Okada H, 1993, An extended use of the spatial correlation technique for the estimation of geological structure using microtremors, Proc. the 89th Conference Society of Exploration Geophysicists Japan (SEGJ), pp. 44–48 (in Japanese).

Martin A, Shawver J and Diehl J, 2006, Combined use of Active and Passive Surface Wave Techniques for Cost Effective UBC/IBC Site Classification, Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, California, Paper No. 1013.

Ohori M, Nobata A, and Wakamatsu K, 2002, A comparison of ESAC and FK methods of estimating phase velocity using arbitrarily shaped microtremor arrays, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., v. 92, no. 6, p. 2323–2332.

Okada H, 2003, The Microtremor Survey Method, Society of Exploration Geophysics Geophysical Monograph Series, Number 12, 135p.

Park C, Miller R and Xia J, 1999a, Multimodal analysis of high frequency surface waves, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems ’99, 115-121.

Park C, Miller R and Xia, J, 1999b, Multichannel analysis of surface waves, Geophysics, Vol 64, No. 3, 800-808.

Xia J, Xu Y, Luo Y, Miller R, Cakir R and Zeng C, 2012, Advantages of using Multichannel analysis of Love waves (MALW) to estimate near-surface shear-wave velocity, Surveys in Geophysics, 841– 860.

Yoon S and Rix G, 2009, Near-field effects on Array-based surface wave methods with active sources, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, no. 3, 399-406. DRAFT Report 24356-01 8 September 30, 2024
6 CERTIFICATION
All geophysical data, analysis, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations in this document have been prepared under the supervision of and reviewed by a GEOVision California Professional Geophysicist.

Prepared by

9/30/2024
JB Shawver Date
California Professional Geophysicist, P.Gp. 1058
GEOVision Geophysical Services
This geophysical investigation was conducted under the supervision of a California Professional Geophysicist using industry-standard methods and equipment. A high degree of professionalism was maintained during the project from the field investigation and data acquisition, through data processing interpretation and reporting. Original field data files, field notes and observations, and other pertinent information are maintained in the project files and are available for the client to review for a period of at least one year.

A professional geophysicist’s certification of interpreted geophysical conditions comprises a declaration of his/her professional judgment. It does not constitute a warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, nor does it relieve any other party of its responsibility to abide by contract documents, applicable codes, standards, r
DRAFT
egulations or ordinances.

Report 24356-01 9 September 30, 2024
TABLES
Feature Easting Northing
Manhole 6326353 2242976
Array 1 Start 6326100 2243098
Array 1 End 6327045 2243018
Array 1+120 6326220 2243088
Array 1+240 6326339 2243079
Array 1+360 6326459 2243070
Array 1+480 6326579 2243059
Array 1+600 6326698 2243050
Array 1+720 6326818 2243040
Array 1+840 6326937 2243028
Array 2 Start 6326109 2242956
Array 2 End 6327051 2242867
Array 2+120 6326228 2242946
Array 2+240 6326350 2242936
Array 2+360 6326467 2242927
Array 2+480 6326586 2242918
Array 2+600 6326705 2242907
Array 2+720 6326823 2242893
Array 2+840 6326944 2242879
Coordinates are NAD83, California State
Plane Zone 6, US feet
Table
DRAFT
1 Project Test Locations
Report 24356-01 10 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
Poisson's
Ratio
Inferred
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 434 868 0.33 105

6.5 8.5 458 915 0.33 105

15.0 15.0 544 1089 0.33 110

30.0 6.5 600 4898 0.49 112

36.5 13.5 672 4978 0.49 114

50.0 15.0 771 5088 0.49 116

65.0 35.0 805 5126 0.49 118
100.0 15.0 927 5262 0.48 120
115.0 Half Space 1186 5548 0.48 122
Table 2 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 120
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 7.0 431 862 0.33 105

7.0 8.0 463 926 0.33 105

15.0 13.5 547 1094 0.33 110

28.5 6.5 601 1201 0.33 112

35.0 13.0 671 4977 0.49 114

48.0 15.0 767 5084 0.49 116

63.0 37.0 800 5120 0.49 118
100.0 20.0 923 5257 0.48 120
120.0 Half Space 1181 5543 0.48 122
Table 3 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 240
DRAFT
Report 24356-01 11 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 428 855 0.33 105

6.5 8.0 454 908 0.33 105

14.5 15.0 548 1096 0.33 110

29.5 6.5 608 1216 0.33 112

36.0 13.0 679 4986 0.49 115

49.0 15.0 768 5084 0.49 116

64.0 31.5 797 5117 0.49 118

95.5 44.5 922 5256 0.48 119
140.0 Half Space 1179 5541 0.48 122
Table 4 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 360
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 428 857 0.33 105

6.5 8.5 454 909 0.33 105

15.0 14.0 550 1100 0.33 110

29.0 7.5 616 1232 0.33 112

36.5 10.5 690 4998 0.49 115

47.0 18.0 771 5088 0.49 117

65.0 33.0 796 5116 0.49 118

98.0 42.0 924 5258 0.48 119
140.0 Half Space 1181 5543 0.48 122
Table 5 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 480
DRAFT
Report 24356-01 12 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.0 413 827 0.33 102

6.0 8.5 459 918 0.33 105

14.5 13.0 548 1096 0.33 110

27.5 10.5 628 1255 0.33 114

38.0 13.5 704 5014 0.49 115

51.5 15.5 778 5096 0.49 118

67.0 31.0 797 5117 0.49 118

98.0 42.0 925 5259 0.48 120
140.0 Half Space 1184 5546 0.48 122
Table 6 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 600
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 413 826 0.33 102

6.5 8.5 460 919 0.33 105

15.0 11.5 546 1092 0.33 110

26.5 13.5 633 1266 0.33 114

40.0 11.0 712 5022 0.49 115

51.0 15.0 784 5103 0.49 118

66.0 34.0 800 5120 0.49 118
100.0 20.0 928 5262 0.48 120
120.0 Half Space 1189 5552 0.48 122
Table 7 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 720
DRAFT
Report 24356-01 13 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 413 827 0.33 102

6.5 8.5 458 916 0.33 105

15.0 11.0 537 1074 0.33 110

26.0 11.0 619 1239 0.33 112

37.0 13.5 706 5016 0.49 115

50.5 15.0 779 5097 0.49 118

68.0 32.5 797 5117 0.49 118
100.5 20.0 927 5262 0.48 120
120.5 Half Space 1190 5554 0.48 122
Table 8 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 840
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 443 887 0.33 85

6.5 9.5 469 938 0.33 85

16.0 12.0 550 4843 0.49 110

28.0 11.0 599 4897 0.49 112

39.0 12.0 723 5035 0.49 115

51.0 13.5 811 5132 0.49 118

64.0 35.5 832 5156 0.49 119

99.5 26.0 960 5298 0.48 120
125.5 Half Space 1206 5571 0.48 122
Table 9 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 120
DRAFT
Report 24356-01 14 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 8.0 417 834 0.33 85

8.0 8.0 469 938 0.33 85

16.0 9.0 536 4828 0.49 110

25.0 13.0 586 4883 0.49 112

38.0 12.0 718 5029 0.49 115

50.0 15.0 806 5127 0.49 118

65.0 34.8 828 5151 0.49 119

99.8 35.2 959 5297 0.48 120
135.0 Half Space 1207 5572 0.48 122
Table 10 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 240
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 8.0 415 829 0.33 85

8.0 8.0 471 942 0.33 85

16.0 12.5 538 4829 0.49 110

28.5 8.5 583 4879 0.49 112

37.0 14.0 715 5026 0.49 115

51.0 14.0 802 5123 0.49 116

68.0 32.0 823 5146 0.49 118
100.0 40.0 957 5294 0.48 120
140.0 Half Space 1209 5574 0.48 122
Table 11 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 360
DRAFT
Report 24356-01 15 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 8.5 415 831 0.33 85

8.5 7.5 472 943 0.33 85

16.0 9.0 515 4804 0.49 108

25.0 11.5 560 4854 0.49 110

36.5 11.5 702 5012 0.49 115

48.0 17.5 798 5118 0.49 118

68.0 31.0 821 5143 0.49 118

99.0 41.0 958 5296 0.48 120
140.0 Half Space 1209 5575 0.48 122
Table 12 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 480
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 8.0 413 826 0.33 85

8.0 8.0 467 934 0.33 85

16.0 9.0 502 4789 0.49 108

25.0 11.5 565 4859 0.49 110

36.5 13.5 707 5017 0.49 115

50.0 15.0 803 5124 0.49 118

69.0 30.5 820 5143 0.49 118

99.5 40.5 958 5296 0.48 120
140.0 Half Space 1211 5577 0.48 122
Table 13 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 600
DRAFT
Report 24356-01 16 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 7.0 405 811 0.33 85

7.0 9.0 466 931 0.33 85

16.0 9.0 489 4775 0.49 108

25.0 12.0 559 4853 0.49 110

37.0 13.5 701 5010 0.49 115

50.5 15.0 802 5123 0.49 118

69.0 31.5 819 5141 0.49 118
100.5 39.5 960 5298 0.48 120
140.0 Half Space 1210 5575 0.48 122
Table 14 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 720
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 8.0 405 810 0.33 85

8.0 8.0 475 951 0.33 85

16.0 9.0 478 4763 0.49 108

25.0 9.5 544 4836 0.49 110

34.5 15.5 686 4994 0.49 115

50.0 16.5 796 5115 0.49 118

68.0 31.0 815 5137 0.49 118

99.0 36.0 960 5298 0.48 120
135.0 Half Space 1211 5576 0.48 122
Table 15 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 840
DRAFT
Report 24356-01 17 September 30, 2024

FIGURES
DRAFT
Notes:

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Base map source: Nearmap (8-2024)
Seismic Surface Wave Array
MH Manhole
Sounding Location
Approximate Location of Client Borehole
! Approximate Location of Client CPT

PREPARED FOR
KLEINFELDER, INC.

SITE LOCATED NEAR MWD CROSSING

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 1

SITE MAP
9/30/2024
24356
J Shawver
T Rodriguez
J Shawver
GV 24356
Date:

GV Project:

Developed by:

Drawn by:

Approved by:

File Name:
!
!
MH Array 2
Array 1
1+120 1+240 1+360
1+480
1+600
1+720
1+840
2+120 2+240 2+360
2+480
2+600
2+720
2+840
CPT-1
CPT-2
B-1
B-2
2243500 2243000 22425002243500 2243000 2242500
6326000 6326500 6327000
6326000 6326500 6327000
±
0 50 100 200 300
US Survey Feet
GEOVision Report 24356-01 Page 18 09/30/2024
DRAFT
File Name:

Approved by:

Drawn by:

Developed by:

GV Project:

Date:
24356_f2.srf
JBS
JBS
JBS
24356
09/30/24 SHEA MWD CROSSING

SAN JACINTO, CA

PREPARED FOR

KLEINFELDER
FIGURE 2
ARRAY 1 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PLOTS
Note: 2x vertical exaggeration on cross-section
Array1+120Array1+24
0 Array1+36
0 Array1+
4 8
0 Array1+
6 0
0 Array1+
720
Array1+
8 4
0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along Profile (feet)
125
100
75 50
25 0
Depth (feet)
125
100
75 50
25 0
400500600700800900100011001200
Shear Wave Velocity (feet per second)
GEOVision Report 24356-01 Page 19 09/30/2024
DRAFT
File Name:

Approved by:

Drawn by:

Developed by:

GV Project:

Date:
24356_f3.srf
JBS
JBS
JBS
24356
09/30/24 SHEA MWD CROSSING

SAN JACINTO, CA

PREPARED FOR

KLEINFELDER
FIGURE 3
ARRAY 2 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PLOTS
Note: 2x vertical exaggeration on cross-section
Array2+120Array2+24
0 Array2+36
0 Array2+
4 8
0 Array2+
6 0
0 Array2+
720
Array2+
8 4
0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along Profile (feet)
125
100
75 50
25 0
Depth (feet)
125
100
75 50
25 0
400500600700800900100011001200
Shear Wave Velocity (feet per second)
GEOVision Report 24356-01 Page 20 09/30/2024
DRAFT
File Name:

Approved by:

Drawn by:

Developed by:

GV Project:

Date:
24356_f4.srf
JBS
JBS
JBS
24356
09/27/24 SHEA MWD CROSSING

SAN JACINTO, CA

PREPARED FOR

KLEINFELDER
FIGURE 4
ARRAYS 1 & 2 SUMMARY VELOCITY
GEOVision Report 24356-01 Page 21 09/30/2024
DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 February 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX D

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
DRAFT

L I Q UE F A C T I O N A N A L Y S I S R EP O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Moss et al. (2006)
Moss et al. (2006)
Based on Ic value

8.10 1.06
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Location : San Jacinto, CA Kleinfelder
CPT file : CPT-1

16.50 ft

5.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
Yes

60.00 ft
Method based
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/30/2023, 4:10:16 PM Project file: C:\Users\HMarquez\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\Documents\Projects\San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain\Analysis\Liquefaction\San Jacinto Line E_CPT-1 and CPT-2_HM.clq 1 DRAFT
This software is licensed to: Kleinfelder CPT name: CPT-1 L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/30/2023, 4:10:16 PM 2Project file: C:\Users\HMarquez\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\Documents\Projects\San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain\Analysis\Liquefaction\San Jacinto Line E_CPT-1 and CPT-2_HM.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

Moss et al. (2006)Moss et al. (2006)Based on Ic value8.101.0616.50 ft Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:

5.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands only
Yes

L I Q UE F A C T I O N A N A L Y S I S R EP O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Moss et al. (2006)
Moss et al. (2006)
Based on Ic value

8.10 1.06
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Location : San Jacinto, CA Kleinfelder
CPT file : CPT-2

16.50 ft

5.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
Yes

60.00 ft
Method based
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/30/2023, 4:10:17 PM Project file: C:\Users\HMarquez\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\Documents\Projects\San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain\Analysis\Liquefaction\San Jacinto Line E_CPT-1 and CPT-2_HM.clq 3 DRAFT
This software is licensed to: Kleinfelder CPT name: CPT-2 L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/30/2023, 4:10:17 PM 4Project file: C:\Users\HMarquez\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\Documents\Projects\San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain\Analysis\Liquefaction\San Jacinto Line E_CPT-1 and CPT-2_HM.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

Moss et al. (2006)Moss et al. (2006)Based on Ic value8.101.0616.50 ft Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:

5.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands only
Yes

60.00 ft
F.S. color scheme LPI color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High riskLow risk
DRAFT
Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance, NCEER (1998) Calculation of soil resistance against liquefaction is performed according to the Robertson & Wride (1998) procedure. The procedure used in the software, slightly differs from the one originally published in NCEER-97-0022 (Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils). The revised procedure is presented below in the form of a flowchart1:
1 "Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground", G. Zhang, P.K. Robertson, and R.W.I. Brachman CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 5 DRAFT
Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance (all soils), Robertson (2010) Calculation of soil resistance against liquefaction is performed according to the Robertson & Wride (1998) procedure. This procedure used in the software, slightly differs from the one originally published in NCEER-97-0022 (Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils). The revised procedure is presented below in the form of a flowchart1:
1 P.K. Robertson, 2009. “Performance based earthquake design using the CPT”, Keynote Lecture, International Conference on Performance-based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering – from case history to practice, IS-Tokyo, June 2009 CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 6 DRAFT
Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance, Idriss & Boulanger (2008) CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 7 DRAFT
Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance (sandy soils), Moss et al. (2006) CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 8 DRAFT
Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance, Boulanger & Idriss(2014) CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 9 DRAFT
Procedure for the evaluation of liquefaction-induced lateral spreading displacements 1 Flow chart illustrating major steps in estimating liquefaction-induced lateral spreading displacements using the proposed approach 1 Figure 1
1 Equation [3]
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 10 1 "Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground", G. Zhang, P.K. Robertson, and R.W.I. Brachman DRAFT
Procedure for the estimation of seismic induced settlements in dry sands Robertson, P.K. and Lisheng, S., 2010, “Estimation of seismic compression in dry soils using the CPT” FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RECENT ADVANCES IN GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS, Symposium in honor of professor I. M. Idriss, San Diego, CA
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 11 DRAFT
Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) calculation procedure Graphical presentation of the LPI calculation procedure Calculation of the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) is used to interpret the liquefaction assessment calculations in terms of severity over depth. The calculation procedure is based on the methology developed by Iwasaki (1982) and is adopted by AFPS.

To estimate the severity of liquefaction extent at a given site, LPI is calculated based on the following equation:

LPI =
where:

FL = 1 - F.S. when F.S. less than 1
FL = 0 when F.S. greater than 1
z depth of measurment in meters
Values of LPI range between zero (0) when no test point is characterized as liquefiable and 100 when all points are characterized as susceptible to liquefaction. Iwasaki proposed four (4) discrete categories based on the numeric value of LPI:
⦁ LPI = 0 : Liquefaction risk is very low
⦁ 0 < LPI <= 5 : Liquefaction risk is low
⦁ 5 < LPI <= 15 : Liquefaction risk is high
⦁ LPI > 15 : Liquefaction risk is very high
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 12 DRAFT
Shear-Induced Building Settlement (Ds) calculation procedure The shear-induced building settlement (Ds) due to liquefaction below the building can be estimated using the relationship developed by Bray and Macedo (2017):
where Ds is in the units of mm, c1= -8.35 and c2= 0.072 for LBS ≤ 16, and c1= -7.48 and c2= 0.014 otherwise. Q is the building contact pressure in units of kPa, HL is the cumulative thickness of the liquefiable layers in the units of m, B is the building width in the units of m, CAVdp is a standardized version of the cumulative absolute velocity in the units of g-s, Sa1 is 5%-damped pseudo-acceleration response spectral value at a period of 1 s in the units of g, and ε is a normal random variable with zero mean and 0.50 standard deviation in Ln units. The liquefaction-induced building settlement index (LBS) is:
than Df, which is the embedment depth of the foundation, and W = 1.0 otherwise. The shear strain parameter (ε_shear) is the liquefaction-induced free-field shear strain (in %) estimated using Zhang et al. (2004). It is calculated based on the estimated Dr of the liquefied soil layer and the calculated safety factor against liquefaction triggering (FSL).

CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 13 DRAFT
References
⦁ Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M 1997. Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice, E & FN Spon Routledge, 352 p, ISBN 0-7514-0393-8.
⦁ Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2007. Evaluation of Cyclic Softening in Silts and Clays. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering June, Vol. 133, No. 6 pp 641-652 ⦁ Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2014. CPT AND SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING PROCEDURES. DEPARTMENT OF

CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS ⦁ Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2007, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Available at no cost at http://www.geologismiki.gr/
⦁ Robertson, P.K. 1990. Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27 (1), 151-8. ⦁ Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 1998. Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation based on the CPT Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1998, Vol. 35, August.
⦁ Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, October, pp 817-833
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and CPT, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 861-871 ⦁ Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, 364-368
⦁ Iwasaki, T., 1986, Soil liquefaction studies in Japan: state-of-the-art, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2-70
⦁ Papathanassiou G., 2008, LPI-based approach for calibrating the severity of liquefaction-induced failures and for assessing the probability of liquefaction surface evidence, Eng. Geol. 96:94–104 ⦁ P.K. Robertson, 2009, Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests - a unified approach., Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 46, No. 11, pp 1337-1355
⦁ P.K. Robertson, 2009. “Performance based earthquake design using the CPT”, Keynote Lecture, International Conference on Performance-based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering - from case history to practice, IS-Tokyo, June 2009 ⦁ Robertson, P.K. and Lisheng, S., 2010, “Estimation of seismic compression in dry soils using the CPT” FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RECENT ADVANCES IN GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS, Symposium in honor of professor I. M. Idriss, SAN diego, CA
⦁ R. E. S. Moss, R. B. Seed, R. E. Kayen, J. P. Stewart, A. Der Kiureghian, K. O. Cetin, CPT-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In Situ Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 8, August 1, 2006
⦁ I. M. Idriss and R. W. Boulanger, 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute MNO-12
⦁ Jonathan D. Bray & Jorge Macedo, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, Simplified procedure for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul 201 CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 14 DRAFT
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 February 13, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX E

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CROSSING
DRAFT
24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 1 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 A P P E N D I X E :

T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M
February 13, 2025
Kleinfelder Project No.: 24002328.001A
Mr. Eric Hays
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, California 92506
Subject: DRAFT Technical Memorandum: Numerical Analysis of Proposed Crossing San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California
Dear Mr. Hays:

Kleinfelder is pleased to present this DRAFT Technical Memorandum detailing the 3D Numerical Analysis for the proposed crossing of the San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain over the Metropolitan Water District’s (MWD) Casa Loma Barrel No. 1. This memorandum is presented as an appendix to this geotechnical report for the subject project. The geotechnical report discusses Kleinfelder’s field investigation, laboratory testing, geologic setting and hazards (including faulting and seismicity), ground water discussion, and engineering conclusions and recommendations for various aspects of the project.

We understand that MWD requirements for induced displacement of the Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 are very stringent at ¼-inch per 100 ft tolerances. Given the importance of the Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 and MWD requirements, Kleinfelder has completed numerical modeling of the subsurface conditions and structures using the 3-D finite element program PLAXIS 3D Version 20.04.00.790 published by Bentley. This memorandum includes the results of our calculations, results, and recommendations regarding the proposed MWD Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 crossing structure and associated embankments for the floodcontrol structures. Discussed in this memorandum are:
• Project Description
• Preliminary Crossing Structure
• Subsurface Conditions & Soil Parameters
• Soil Constitutive Models
• Structural Components & Other Materials
• Model Construction, Boundary Conditions & Meshing
• Loading Conditions
• Model Staging
• Evaluation of Results
• Conclusions and Recommendations
This memorandum is subject to the limitations contained in our geotechnical report. DRAFT 24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 2 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand the project involves the design of an approximate 3-mile storm drain channel to be constructed in the City of San Jacinto. The new storm drain channel will be constructed near the existing ground surface and the majority of the alignment consists of earth embankment channels and several reinforced concrete box culverts. Storm water flow is generally south to north and in the northern portion of the alignment the proposed channel terminates at a proposed confluence basin.

In the vicinity of the MWD pipeline (Casa Loma Barrel No. 1), the channel transitions to a concrete channel with an approximate 160-ft base width with side slopes inclined about 15 to 17:1 (H:V). At the proposed crossing, the proposed channel and embankment cross-section is approximately 560-ft wide. A preliminary plan including contours of the proposed embankments and channel and a cross-section at the MWD pipeline crossing, dated 10/15/24 were provided by Albert A Webb Associates (Webb), shown in in Attachment A as Figure E1. CAD files and data used to construct these plans were also provided by Webb and utilized to construct surfaces for the 3D modeling.

Due to the low cover present over the MWD pipeline, the proposed construction also includes a bridge structure to facilitate possible equipment and vehicle loads, using a transfer slab on supporting foundations to limit induced displacement and stresses in the MWD pipeline. Two preliminary options were considered for the crossing structure: Option 1 - Shallow Spread Footings, and Option 2 – Deep Foundations consisting of cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) shafts. Kleinfelder is the structural engineer for this proposed crossing structure and provided the structural loading and was consulted in selection and modeling of the structural elements, as discussed in later sections of this memorandum.

PRELIMINARY CROSSING STRUCTURE
Two options were evaluated to support the proposed crossing structure: 1) a shallow foundation option and 2) a deep foundation option. Preliminary modeling of both solutions was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed construction. However, after preliminary modeling showed that the controlling induced displacement of the pipeline was primarily controlled by the embankment fills and flood loading, the pile option did not appear to be necessary for the crossing. In addition, difficult construction conditions, economic feasibility and other considerations have moved the preferred solution towards the shallow foundation option. As such, this memorandum focuses on the shallow foundation model development and results.

Additional discussion of the two options and selection considerations can be found in this geotechnical report and our separate structural report (Kleinfelder, 2024).

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS & SOIL PARAMETERS
We reviewed the geotechnical borings, laboratory test data, and other geotechnical analyses completed by Kleinfelder for the project for relevant information to define the mechanical behavior, including correlations to stiffness and strength characteristics. The various correlations and select laboratory test results were plotted in depth profiles to evaluate and select the relevant parameters for the proposed soil constitutive models. Plots of the profiles are provided in Figures E2 to E5. Based on elevation data provided by Webb, the approximate average ground surface in the vicinity is about EL. 1449.5 ft. For the purposes of plotting the soil parameters versus elevation, we have used a ground surface of EL. 1450 ft. DRAFT 24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 3 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 Groundwater levels appear to vary significantly throughout the region with potential for different regimes due to faulting and other geologic conditions, see the discussion in our geotechnical report. In the area of the proposed crossing, the groundwater elevations noted in our borings range from approximately

34.5 ft to 16.5 ft below ground surface. For the purposes of our analyses, we have assumed that the groundwater depth of 16.5 ft or EL. 1433.5 ft.

The soils logged in the borings near the proposed crossing and indicated by the soil behavior type CPT soil behavior type are predominantly silty sand to sandy silt with some interbedded silt and clay soils. Due to the non-plastic to low plasticity and interbedded deposition we expect that the soils will exhibit drained behavior and that if excess pore-pressures are produced they will likely dissipate within the time frame of the expected loading conditions. As such the model behavior of the soils is defined as drained and the effects of excess pore-pressure neglected.

After discussions with MWD, additional geophysical testing was conducted to measure the shear-wave velocity (VS) and therefore, the stiffness of the subsurface conditions. The report from GEOVision detailing the data collection and processing is Appendix C of this geotechnical report. The average VS profiles of the two arrays, one conducted north and one south of the MWD pipeline are shown on the soil property figures. The elastic modulus (E) calculated from the shear-wave velocity data using the relationship 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜌𝑉𝑆
2 , where Gmax is the maximum or low-shear strain (< 10-4to 10-3 %) shear modulus and ρ is the soil mass density and Poisson’s ratio derived from the soil strength. Additionally, to adjusted Gmax from low shear strains (< 10-4to 10-3 %) to strain magnitudes expected in the modeling (~0.1 to 1%), the VS was divided by a factor of either 2 or 3 to calculate an implied G and subsequent E moduli and provide a reference for the values used in the constitutive models. Plots of these implied elastic modulus are shown on Figures E4a and E4b.

SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
The constitutive models define the stress-strain behavior of the soil. The primary characteristics considered when selecting the soil constitutive model, included the ability of the constitutive model to:

1. provide a reasonable fit to the expected stress-strain behavior.

2. capture the depth/stress dependent stiffness characteristics evidenced by the in-situ and VS data.

3. provide both unload and reload moduli.

Within PLAXIS, there are several constitutive models available. However, two were considered as part of this study: 1) the linear-elastic perfectly plastic (Mohr-Coulomb) model and 2) the hardening soil (Hardening) model. Each model requires several inputs that define the behavior, with the primary being the soil strength parameters (c = cohesion, φ = friction angle) and stiffness parameters (varies dependent on the model). Both models were considered for use in the 3D model.

The Mohr-Coulomb model presents the simpler model stiffness inputs with the stiffness behavior defined by the elastic modulus (E) and Poisson’s Ratio (ν). As the elastic modulus does change with shear strain, care must be taken in selected this parameter for the appropriate stress/strain levels expected in the modeling. An option to vary the stiffness with depth/elevation is provided in PLAXIS and was utilized to better match the observed variation in stiffness with depth. One drawback of the Mohr-Coulomb model as implemented in PLAXIS, is that the definition of an unload/reload modulus is not allowed. The MohrCoulomb was utilized for the embankment fills, geofoam, and concrete volumes as discussed further below. DRAFT
24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 4 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 The Hardening model is also a Mohr-Coulomb model, in that the strength behavior is governed by Mohr-Coulomb strength envelope. However, the model is different in that it incorporates hardening plasticity (e.g. decreasing stiffness with plastic straining) (Shanz 1998). This allows for the modeling of non-linear stress-strain behavior that is observed in soil laboratory testing, often called “hyperbolic soil” behavior and implemented by Duncan and Chang (1970). Shanz et. al. (1998 and 1999) built on the Duncan and Chang (1970) framework to make the required input parameters more easily defined and related to conventional geotechnical engineering properties, as well as more technical aspects that we would refer the reader to either the PLAXIS, FLAC, or source papers for more information. Specific to this study, the hardening model allows for a stress dependent stiffness definition and the non-linear hyperbolic stress-strain behavior observed in the laboratory testing. The implementation of this model also allows for the definition of an unload/reload modulus making the model well suited for excavation analyses. The Hardening model is used for the naturally deposited Sandy SILT to Silty SAND soils observed in the geotechnical investigation.

As a summary of the similarities and differences between the Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening model:

Model Aspect Mohr-Coulomb Hardening
Strength Envelope Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
Stiffness Dependency Yes, through depth. Yes, through stress.

Stress-Strain Behavior Perfectly Elastic, Perfectly Plastic Hyperbolic, Perfectly Plastic Unload/Reload Modulus No Yes
Table E1 shows the input various input parameters selected for the models. As the goal of this study is to evaluate the induced displacements in the MWD pipeline, particular care was taken when selecting the various input parameters related to the stiffness of the soil models. Figure E6 is included to help show how the Hardening model input stiffness parameters relate to the stress-strain behavior. The stressdependent E50 stiffness computed per Eq. 151 of the PLAXIS manual is plotted on Figure E4a. The initial modulus (Ei) shown on Figure E6 is also plotted on Figure E4a for comparison purposes computation per Eq. 136 of the PLAXIS manual. The stress-dependent elastic unload/reload modulus (Eur) is likewise computed per Eq. 139 of the PLAXIS manual and plotted on Figure E4b. For comparison with the VS data, the E50 represents an approximate dividing factor of 3.5 to the measured VS data. Likewise, the Ei and Eur for comparison are an approximate dividing factor of 2.65 to the measured VS data.

Table E1: Soil Constitutive Model Parameters for Silty SAND to Sandy SILT Soils Parameter Description Hardening
E50ref (ksf) Reference Secant Elastic Modulus at 50% of Strength Failure 180
Eoedref (ksf) Reference Oedometer Modulus at 50% of Strength Failure 200 Eur
ref (ksf) Reference Unload/Reload Modulus at 50% of Strength Failure 600
m Power for Stress Dependency of Stiffness 0.8
Pref (psf) Reference Stress for Stiffness (Used Atmospheric Pressure) 2116 K0
nc At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient for Normal
Consolidation (Based on the Design Friction Angle) 0.5
Rf Failure Ratio (Ratio of qa / qf in Figure E6) 0.9
νur Poisson’s Ratio for Unload/Reload Modulus 0.2
ν Poisson’s Ratio (Based on the Design Friction Angle) 0.33 γunsat (pcf) Dry Unit Weight 85 DRAFT
24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 5 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 Parameter Description Hardening
γsat (pcf) Saturated Unit Weight 115
c (psf) Cohesion 50
φ (deg) Friction Angle 30
ψ (deg) Dilatancy Angle 0
σt (psf) Tensile Strength 0
Laboratory testing conducted on select soil samples were digitized and imported into PLAXIS for use in the soil test module, which simulates common types of laboratory tests in the finite element framework, to assist with the calibration of the soil constitutive model parameters and stress-strain behavior. Figures E7 to E9 show the results of the laboratory direct simple shear tests with the Hardening model. For reference, the equivalent elastic modulus calculated from the VS /2 data is included on the figures.

The final selected parameters were selected to present a reasonable match to the shape and behavior of the laboratory testing, but the soil stiffnesses relied upon the correlations and Vs measurements as the soil samples used for laboratory testing were taken from thick-walled SPT samplers and were likely subjected to sample disturbance than would particularly affect the small stiffness behavior during laboratory testing. Otherwise, the soil parameters selected present a reasonable match to the laboratory testing based on our professional experience and judgment.

STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS & OTHER MATERIALS
The structural components modeled included the MWD pipeline and proposed crossing structure shallow footings, both of which are concrete. In discussion with MWD and Kleinfelder’s structural engineering team, we understand that the compressive strength of the concrete to be 3000 psi and 3600 psi for each component, respectively. The compressive strengths are not directly used as inputs to the selected linearelastic constitutive models and instead used to calculate the elastic modulus (EC) following Eq. 19.2.2.1.b of ACI 318-19. To account for possible cracking, a 50% reduction was applied to the calculated EC. Other necessary inputs include, Poisson’s ratio was taken as 0.2, and unit weight taken as 150 pcf. Sensitivity analyses were performed for the concrete constitutive model parameters and no significant effect on the model results were found, likely due to the much larger relative stiffness of the concrete compared to the soils.

The thickness and dimensions of the MWD pipeline and proposed concrete footings were provided by information from Webb and Kleinfelder’s structural team. The preliminary cross section of the MWD pipe and proposed shallow foundation concept used to construction the PLAXIS model are shown in Figure E10. The MWD pipeline was modeled as “plate” or shell elements with virtual thickness of 1 ft and necessary simplification to a circular section was made to model the pipeline. The MWD pipeline invert was placed at EL. 1432.85. The concrete footings were modeled using volume elements like the soil materials. The modeling including 1.5H:1V excavation extents anticipated during construction to install the footings. We understand that some minor revisions to the footing shape and possible excavation extents (i.e. using soil forming to reduce the excavation) will be incorporated into the final design to facilitate construction formwork and reduce the need for lateral bracing that may impact the MWD pipeline. Details and discussion of the structural analysis can be found in Kleinfelder’s structural report (Kleinfelder, 2024). The proposed changes have been discussed with the project team and are not expected to impact the results of the PLAXIS modeling as 1) only small changes are expected to the footing DRAFT 24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 6 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 loads and footing concrete volumes, and 2) the model results controlling the displacement are drive by the embankment fills and the 100-yr flood loads (discussed further in later sections).

Interface elements were included in the model to control the normal and shear behavior between the concrete footing and the adjacent soils, which allows for non-rigid connections between these elements.

The interface parameters automatically derived based on the adjacent material with a manual input factor to reduce the shear strength of the soil, which should be determined based on the interfacing materials.

Interface friction angles for fine sandy silt (non-plastic silt) presented in the NAVFAC (1982a) range from 17 to 19 degrees. Using an interface friction angle of 18 degrees and 30 degrees soil friction angle, this results in a reduction factor from the soil strength to soil-concrete interface strength of 0.56. This factor was applied for all soil materials.

In addition to the structural elements, the modeling utilized volume elements to represent the various embankment fills and other materials proposed materials needed to maintain the induced displacement criterion for the MWD pipeline. These consist of geofoam proposed to be placed below the crossing structure slab, lightweight flowable fill, consisting of lightweight cellular concrete, proposed as the primary fill material within the specified distance from the MWD pipeline alignment, and structural fill, consisting of soil material, for the remaining areas outside the crossing and assumed to consist of properly placed and compaction soils similar to the on-site soils. The Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model was selected for these materials as 1) significant unload/reload behavior is not expected (e.g. excavations) in these materials and 2) in-situ and laboratory testing was not available to confirm the stress-dependent behavior, nor that non-linear behavior exhibited by the Hardening model would be appropriate for these materials, and 3) the primary purpose of the fill volumes is to more accurately represent the added weight and resultant stresses on the model.

The selected input parameters from available literature are presented in Table E2.

Table E2: Fill Material Constitutive Model Parameters
Parameter Description Structural Fill
(Soil Material)
Lightweight
Flowable Fill (LCC)
1 EPS Geofoam
(Underslab Fill)
2 E (ksf) Elastic Modulus 500 2140 216
ν
Poisson’s Ratio (Based on the
Design Friction Angle) 0.33 0.3 0.15
γunsat (pcf) Dry Unit Weight 127.5 30 2.4
γsat (pcf) Saturated Unit Weight 127.5 30 2.4
c (psf) Cohesion 50 5 1080
φ (deg) Friction Angle 30 34 0
ψ (deg) Dilatancy Angle 0
σt (psf) Tensile Strength 0

1. LCC = Lightweight Cellular Concrete, parameters estimated from Legatski (1994) and Tiwari, et. al. (2017)

2. Parameters taken as EPS-39 Geofoam.

MODEL CONSTRUCTION, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS & MESHING
Model boundary conditions for static analyses were not altered from the default PLAXIS conditions, which consist of fixed displacements in all directions for the bottom of the model, fixed displacements normal to the lateral extents, and the surface of the model is free in all directions. The horizontal boundaries were DRAFT 24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 7 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 set such that along the pipeline (the approximate model x-direction) the model extended about 55 ft beyond the extents of the proposed fills. Roughly perpendicular to the pipeline (the approximate model y-direction) the model was extended to about 70 ft from the closet distance to the centerline of the pipe alignment. Based on our review of the induced displacements and stresses due to the fills and loads, the model boundary conditions appear to be at a sufficient distance to have not significantly influenced the model results in the vicinity of the pipeline (the area of interest).

Geometric objects were constructed in PLAXIS to represent the embankment fills, pipeline, footings, and excavations. The embankment point cloud data was provided in AutoCAD files provided by Webb. The point cloud data was imported using the related feature in PLAXIS, which discretizes the data into a triangular irregular network (TIN) to provide an elevation surface. This surface was then laid on the average approximate ground surface within the model boundaries to generate the fill volumes for the embankments and channel alignment. The use of the average approximate ground surface was a necessary simplification because of issues with the merging of the existing and proposed surfaces caused by floating point precision of intersecting planes. Based on our review of the existing elevation data, we expect that this necessary simplification should have overall minor impact on the results of the modeling as the existing surface was relatively flat, particularly in the area around the pipeline, and by using the average, the relative ± elevation differences should be roughly offsetting. Other geometric objects were constructed in the model using the simpler polygonal tools in PLAXIS to match the proposed structural footing and excavation dimensions and elevations and existing pipeline alignment.

Meshing of the model was completed using PLAXIS’s internal meshing routines and control parameters prescribed such that elements around areas of interest (e.g. the footings, excavations, and pipeline), were approximately 2 ft in size. Elements away from the areas of interest were gradually increased in size by the PLAXIS routines to allow for more efficient computations. Figure E11 shows a plan view of the model mesh. The meshed geometry was evaluated to ensure the meshing routines produced reasonably sized and shaped elements. Some small and elongated elements were generated but were deemed acceptable as they were generally located towards the model boundaries and edges of the fills and not expected to significantly impact the results.

LOADING CONDITIONS
Several loading conditions were considered during our evaluation and were provided by Kleinfelder’s structural team, including:
• Water Load in the Pipe (Initializing Condition)
• Dead Loads of the Bridge Slab
• Water Load on the Bridge Slab & Modeled Channel
• Live Loads of Equipment on the Bridge Slab
We understand from discussion with MWD that this portion of the pipeline alignment the water inside the pipe is gravity flowing. Therefore, the water load was included in the model to better reflect the actual conditions. The water load was incorporated as a volume material with the parameters shown in Table E3 to better represent the weight and stress distribution to the model. An interface was included between the pipe and the elements to eliminate rigid connections between the water and pipe elements.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 8 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 Table E3: Water Constitutive Model Parameters
Parameter Description Water
K (ksf) Bulk Modulus 43,170
ν
Poisson’s Ratio (Based on the
Design Friction Angle) 0.499
γ (pcf) Unit Weight 62.4
Su (psf) Shear Strength1 5
σt (psf) Tensile Strength 0

1. A minimal amount of shear strength was given to the water material to allow the model to converge.

More detailed discussion of the loads applied by the proposed crossing structure can be found in Kleinfelder’s structural report (Kleinfelder, 2024). We note that minor differences in the applied slab dead load (~3%) shown in our structural report due to the slight changes in the footing geometry, extending the crossing slab. However, we don’t anticipate that these will present significant changes to the PLAXIS model results as the worst-case displacement conditions are controlled by the embankment placement and 100-yr flood loading. The 100-yr flood elevation has not changed and due to the inclusion of the surface load, the overall model loading in this condition would not change. Table E4 shows the loading conditions applied to the PLAXIS model. Based on the rough profile dimensions and elevations show on Figure E1, we anticipate that the anticipated 100-yr flood load and embankment loads using light weight fill will add stresses at the existing ground surface in the range 200 to 300 psf. These loading conditions were incorporated into our model staging discussed further below.

Table E4: Footing Loads from Transfer Slab
Loading
Condition Description Applied Load
Dead Dead Load of Slab 2.65 k/ft
Water1 100-yr Flood Load on Slab 3.5 k/ft
Live Load Excavator Transverse2,3 5.54 k/ft
Excavator Longitudinal2,4 36.47 k

1. The 100-yr flood load was also included as surface load applied across the proposed channel formed by the embankments. The surface load utilized PLAXIS features to apply a 62.4 pcf vertical load increment from the reference elevation of 1453.47 ft (the provided 100-yr flood elevation) at the MWD alignment.

2. When the live loads were applied, they were only applied to the upstream crossing structure footing.

3. Transverse load was applied of a 13.17 ft length and placed in three locations along the bridge (left side, centered, and right side), as provided by the structural team.

4. Longitudinal load was applied as a point load at three locations along the bridge (left side, centered, and right side), as provided by the structural team.

MODEL STAGING
Once the constitutive models for the various components were defined and the geometries created, the model staging and sequencing were developed in PLAXIS. Construction staging was utilized in PLAXIS to initiate existing stresses and strains within the model, including the existing MWD pipeline. This was followed by staging of excavations, footing sequencing, backfilling, and various loading conditions. The construction staging followed these steps:
• Step 0: Initial Phase - This step is used to initiate stresses into the model and displacements/strains are reset following this step.
o 0.a: PLAXIS K0 Routine & Gravity Loading DRAFT
24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 9 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 o 0.b: Activation of MWD Pipe – the MWD pipe is “wished” into place and external interface is activated.
o 0.c: Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe – the water is “wished” into place and interface activated.
• Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings – This represents construction sequencing used to limit the uplift of the MWD pipe. The crossing structure is divided into 1/3 sections and excavation and placing of the footings is done on both side of the pipe simultaneously to limit lateral displacements of the MWD pipe. See the conclusions and recommendations section for more discussion.
o 1.a: Excavate Center 1/3
o 1.b: Construct Center 1/3 Footing
o 1.c: Excavate Left 1/3
o 1.d: Construct Left 1/3 Footing
o 1.e: Excavate Right 1/3
o 1.f: Construct Right 1/3 Footing
• Step 2: Backfill Footings – This represents the backfilling of the constructed footings. The crossing structure will be backfilled with medium weight flowable fill/LCC to limit induced vibrations that may impact the MWD pipeline. The structural design of the backfill requires that the LCC has similar unit weight and strengthsto the existing soils for overturning and confinement. Therefore, the model sequencing backfills with the existing soil.
• Step 3: Place Channel Embankments – This represents the fill placement to construct the channel embankments.
• Step 4: Apply Dead Loads from Slab – This represents the construction of the transfer slab. • Step 5: Apply Various Loads – This represents the various loading conditions applied to the footings by the loads on the transfer slab and the 100-yr flood load. We note that these loading conditions are not expected to occur at the same time and are therefore branches in the analysis tree.
o 5.a: 100-yr Flood Load
▪ 5.a.1: Remove 100-yr Flood Load
o 5.b: Transverse Excavator on Left
o 5.c: Transverse Excavator on Center
o 5.d: Transverse Excavator on Right
o 5.e: Longitudinal Excavator on Left
o 5.f: Longitudinal Excavator on Center
o 5.g: Longitudinal Excavator on Right
Figures E12 to E30 show a view of the model for each of these steps.

EVALUATION OF RESULTS
Based on discussions with MWD, we understand that the following results are desired to evaluate the impact of the proposed construction on the MWD pipeline:
• Vertical Displacement Profiles
• Lateral Displacements
• Longitudinal Stress Profiles (Extreme Fiber)
• Hoop Stress Profiles (Extreme Fiber) DRAFT
24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 10 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 The requested results are presented for select load cases in the figures outlined in Table E5.

Table E5: Summary of Profile Results
Modeling Stage Results Shown Figure #
Step 1: Full Length
Excavation
Vertical Displacement
(Crown & Invert) E31
Step 1a-f: Staged
Excavations
Vertical Displacement
(Invert Comparison)
E32
Vertical Displacement
(Crown & Invert at Each Stage)
E33 to E38
Lateral Displacement
(Spring Lines at Each Stage) E39
Step 3: Place Channel
Embankments
Vertical Displacement – Full
Weight vs Light Weight
Comparison
(Crown & Invert)
E40
Lateral Displacement
(Spring Lines) E41
Step 4-5a.1: 100-yr Flood
Loading
Vertical Displacement
(Crown Comparison)
E42
Vertical Displacement
(Crown & Invert)
E43 to E45
Lateral Displacement
(Spring Lines) E46
Step 5.b to 5.g: Various
Equipment Load Cases
Vertical Displacement
(Crown Comparison) E47
PLAXIS Pipe Axis and Stress
Derivation N/A E48
Step 1.e, 3, 5.a
Longitudinal Stress
(Crown) E49 to E51
Longitudinal Stress
(Invert) E52 to E54
Hoop Stress
(Crown) E55 to E57
Hoop Stress
(Invert) E58 to E60
Hoop Stress
(Downstream Spring Line)
E61 to E63
Hoop Stress
(Upstream Spring Line)
E64 to E66
DRAFT
24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 11 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 Excavations for Footings
Initial construction sequencing considered the potential that footing excavations may be made on one side of the pipe then the other. Modeling results of this scenario showed that the lateral induced displacement from excavating on one side then the other exceeded the allowed tolerances before combining with the potential uplift. Therefore, during conversations with the design team and contractors the limitation of simultaneous excavation was discussed and determined that simultaneous excavation would be possible and not overly burdensome to the construction effort and additional refinements and results for the “unbalance excavation” scenario are not included.

Figure E31 shows the vertical displacement results for the full-length excavation. The results indicate that the Hardening model exceeds the ¼ inch per 100-ft differential tolerance. As such, additional consideration was given to sequencing the excavation and construction of the footing into 1/3 lengths where a portion of the footing is excavated then constructed before additional excavation is completed.

Figure E32 shows the results of the 1/3-staging sequence for the pipe invert, which shows the higher vertical displacements. The full-length excavation is shown for reference.

Figures E33 to E38 show the results of the vertical displacement results for the staged excavations (Step 1a to 1f, respectively). The results are shown for the crown and invert to evaluate the potential squashing of the pipe. Again, the full-length excavation is shown for reference. Vertical displacement results after backfilling of the footing show that the uplift of the pipe is reversed and the displacements nearly return to zero, showing some pipe settlement due to the added footing weight.

Figure E39 shows the resulting lateral displacement profiles at the pipe spring lines for each construction sequencing step. The results from the full-length excavation are shown for reference. We note that only minor changes were observed between the excavation and footing placement, so many of the profiles are overlapped. Maximum estimated lateral displacements are on the order of 0.07 inches.

Full Weight vs Light Weight Fill
Initial considerations for the proposed embankments revolved around the embankment material. Figure E40 shows the vertical displacement results using full weight fill, consisting of soil structural fill as defined in our geotechnical report, for the full extents of the model domain at both the pipe invert and crown.

Maximum predicted displacements are on the order of 5/8 to 3/4 inches with differentials over a 100 ft span of up to about 5/8 inch, which exceed the acceptable tolerances. Therefore, lightweight flowable fill will be required in the proximity of the MWD pipeline.

Based on the induced displacements of the full weight fill, the lightweight material’s unit weight was selected to be 30 pcf. We anticipate that the most readily available material is a lightweight cellular concrete (LCC) and developed the constitutive model parameters based on this material, as discussed previously. We selected a distance of 50 feet from the edge of the MWD pipe alignment as the area in which the LCC will be required. This was a combination of engineering judgement and to provide adequate distance such that vibratory compaction equipment needed to place and compact structural fill would present minimal impact to the pipe. Figure E40 also shows the vertical displacement results using the lightweight fill, which met the ¼-inch over 100 ft criteria.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 12 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 Figure E41 shows the lateral displacement results at the pipe spring lines using the full weight and light weight fill.

Dead, Live & 100-yr Flood Loads
Figure E42 shows the progression from Step 3 with the lightweight fill to Step 5.a.1, which follows the possible loading sequence of a 100-yr flood load being applied after construction of the crossing structure.

For clarity, these figures are shown just for the pipe crown, which shows more displacement (dashed lines in Figure E40). The peak displacement induced by the 100-yr flood load is about 0.4 inches. The unloading phase indicates that no permanent displacement of the pipe is expected after the 100-yr flood loading.

This is likely due to the low stresses added stresses during the peak flood load, about 250 psf based on the bridge and flood elevations. This load added stress results in only small strain development in the soil constitutive models, where the loading modulus of the Hardening model is closer to the initial elastic modulus (Ei) in Figure E4a. Inspection of the Ei in Figure E4a and the unload/reload modulus (Eur) in Figure E4b indicates that these moduli are similar for most of the profile depth. Therefore, it appears that the results seen in Figure E42 are in-line with the expected model behavior.

Figures E43 to E45 show the results for both the invert and crown in Steps 4, 5.a, and 5.a.1, respectively, to evaluate the pipe squashing. Figure E46 shows the results lateral displacements for the various steps during the 100-yr flood sequence at the pipe spring lines.

Figures E47 show the vertical displacement results for the remaining equipment load cases, including Steps 3 and 4 for reference at the pipe crown. We note that the induced vertical displacements from the equipment loads are very similar to the slab dead load and each other and are overlapping on the presented plots. Additionally, the displacements are much less than the peak displacement exhibited by the 100-yr flood load. Therefore, for simplicity we have not included the lateral displacement or pipe crown vs invert results.

The displacement results show that the ¼-inch over 100 ft criteria are met, provided the assumptions regarding the proposed materials, extents, and sequencing are met.

Stress Profiles
We understand that MWD wishes to evaluate the predicted stresses from the explicit modeling of the pipe. The results provided by PLAXIS for shell elements are the axial, shear, and bending moment forces per unit length along three local axes. The local axes of the pipe shell element correspond with Axis 1 – Longitudinal, Axis 2 – Hoop, Axis 3 – Perpendicular to the Shell. Figure E48a shows these local axes from the model. These results were used in conjunction with the element thickness to calculate the various requested stresses in the pipe following bending stress equations, shown in Figure E48b. Based on these calculations, at any given profile (e.g. the longitudinal stresses at the pipe crown) there are three possible stresses that can be reported:
• Axial Stress
• Combined Stress (Axial + Bending)
• Combined Stress (Axial - Bending)
DRAFT
24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 13 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 As the MWD Casa Loma Barrel is constructed of concrete, we have focused the results on the “tension side” combined stress (axial + bending) as this will present the more positive or more tensile stresses in the pipe elements at the subject location.

To emphasize the model conditions expected to have the most significant impact on pipe stresses due to induced displacements, we present the stress results for Steps 1.e, 3, and 5.a. As the pipe stresses are initialized during Step 0.c, but not reset, each plot contains the initial stress after adding the water into the pipe to evaluate the induced changes at each stage.

Figures E49 to E54 show the longitudinal fiber stresses for each selected step at the invert and crown model results. Likewise, Figures E55 to E60 show the hoop fiber stresses at the invert and crown, and Figures E61 to E66 shows the hoop fiber stresses at the pipe spring lines. We note that some chattering is present in the stress data. Based on a response from PLAXIS support, they believe this is an artifact caused by the extrapolation of the stress/force data from the internal gaussian stress points to the points at which the data is extracted (generally at the nodes of the elements). PLAXIS stated that artifact would not affect the estimated pipe deflections. It is possible that reduction of the pipe element mesh may reduce this noise but would likely still be present to some degree due to the triangular elements. Based on the subsequent discussion with MWD, it was decided not to further refine the pipe mesh.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analyses completed, the proposed flood channel and associated embankments/crossing structure are expected to induce less than the required ¼” inch over 100 ft displacement tolerance required by MWD, provided the recommendations contained in this memorandum and geotechnical report, and Kleinfelder’s structural engineering report are followed. The key recommendations and assumptions utilized in the modeling that must be implemented in the design and construction of the crossing are:
• Excavations will not be completed at a time when MWD has emptied the pipeline (i.e. it is not inservice). • The crossing structure footings are constructed following the 1/3 sequence of excavation and footing placement.
o Excavation of the subsequent 1/3 shall not progress until the footing for the previous 1/3 is in-place.
o Excavation slopes and benches shall not be flatter than 1.5H:1V. • Excavation and footing construction sequence shall be completed simultaneously on the upstream and downstream sides of the MWD pipeline. Simultaneously shall mean:
o Elevations in excavations on either side shall not be more than 1 ft different. o The concrete footings shall be poured on both sides at the same time. • Excavations shall not be backfilled until the full footing construction sequence is completed. o Backfill will consist of a flowable fill material (e.g. LCC) with a unit weight of approximately 85 pcf which does not require high vibration compactor equipment during placement. o Backfill shall be completed simultaneously on the upstream and downstream sides of the MWD pipeline. Simultaneously shall mean elevations of the backfill on each side shall not be more than 1 ft different.

DRAFT
24002328.001A/LH24M174280 Page 14 of 14 February 13, 2025 © 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 • Lightweight flowable fill shall be used for embankments within 50 ft from the edge of the MWD pipe. Embankment fill shall consist of lightweight flowable fill material (e.g. LCC) not to exceed a unit weight of 30 pcf and does not require compaction to limit vibration impacts. • Embankment fill shall be placed such that the elevation difference across (upstream to downstream sides) the MWD pipe is not greater than 1 ft at any time until final grades are established.
• The channel section shall limit the 100-yr flood event to a peak water elevation of 1453.47 ft.

Additional construction considerations, such as subgrade preparation for footings and fill placement are discussed in the geotechnical report.

LIMITATIONS
Kleinfelder has been provided information by and discussed the modeling evaluation with representatives of MWD, Webb, and Alabasi (the contractor), which were used in developing our model geometries, parameters, sequencing and assumptions. The results of this evaluations are in part reliant on provided information and feasibility of the construction limitations. Actual geometries and conditions will be different than those evaluated and engineering judgement is necessary to interpret and apply the analysis results to the realities of the project conditions. Kleinfelder should be notified of any changed conditions or plans that are in conflict with the assumptions and project understanding detailed in this analysis.

Failure to notify Kleinfelder of changes and, therefore, inappropriately applying our conclusions and recommendations to the project are at the responsibility of those entities.

This technical memorandum is also subject to the limitations contained within our geotechnical report prepared for the project.

Respectfully submitted,

KLEINFELDER
W. Troy Covill, PE* (Licensed in UT) Majid Talebi, Ph.D., PE, GE Project Professional Sr. Principal Engineer
Attachments: References
Appendix A – Analysis Figures
DRAFT
24002328.001A/LH24M174280 February 13, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

REFERENCES
Kleinfelder, Inc. (2024). Structures Report, San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain, San Jacinto, California.

Kleinfelder Project No. 24002328.001A, dated November 1, 2024.

PLAXIS BV (2020). PLAXIS 3D, V 20.04.00.790.

Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A. (1998). Special issue on pre-failure deformation behavior of geomaterials.

Géotechnique, Issue 48, pg. 383-387.

Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A., Bonnier, P.G. (1999). The hardening-soil model: Formulation and verification. In R.B.J Brinkgreve, Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics, Balkema, Rotterdam. pg. 281-290.

Duncan, J.M., Chang, C.Y. (1970). Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soil. ASCE J. of the Soil Mech. and Found. Div. Issue 96, pg. 1629-1653.

Legatski, L.A., (1994). Cellular Concrete. Chapter 49, STP169C-EB, pg. 533-539.

Tiwari, B., Ajmera, B., Maw, R. Cole, R. Villegas, D., Palmerson, P. (2017). Mechanical Properties of Lightweight Cellular Concrete for Geotechnical Applications. ASCE J. Mater. Civ. Eng., Issue 29(7), 06017007.

ATTACHMENT A

ANALYSIS FIGURES
DRAFT
MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 WEBB N
W E
S CASA LOMA BARREL NO. 1

MDP LINE E CONCRRETE CHANNEL
CONCEPT 2 CROSSING EXHIBIT
1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Preliminary Embankment & Channel
Contour Plan and cross-Section at MWD
Barrel No. 1
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 01/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E1 Notes:

1. Original plan provided by Albert A. Webb Associates (Webb), dated 2/3/2024.

2. The original plan is scaled to 40% of original to facilitate reporting, shown scale should be adjusted as required.

Approximate PLAXIS
Model Boundary
DRAFT
Depth Elevation (N1
)60 φ' C' Su E50 (Vs/3) E50 (Vs/2) σ`p Cce Cre CV γ Vs
(ft) (ft) (deg) (psf) (psf) (ksf) (ksf) (psf) (ft2
/day) (pcf) (ft/sec)
Top 0 1450 10 30 50 - 125 281.25 5000 - - - 85 400
Bottom 16.5 1433.5 10 30 50 - 209.15 470.59 5000 - - - 85 500 Top 16.5 1433.5 10 30 50 - 209.15 470.59 5000 - - - 115 500 Bottom 100 1350 10 30 50 - 635 1428.75 16200 - - - 115 900 Top 100 1350 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bottom 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Top 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bottom 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Top 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bottom 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Top 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bottom 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Top 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bottom 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Top 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bottom 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Top 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bottom 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Top 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bottom 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Top 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bottom 200 1250 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Design Ground Water Depth = 16.5
Design Groundwater Elevation = 1433.5
PROJECT NO.

DRAWN:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

FILE NAME:

Layer Design Values
-
Layer
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sandy SILT to SILT (Unsaturated)
Sandy SILT to SILT (Saturated)
-
-
Design Stratigraphy and Soil Properties
(1 of 4)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
24002328.0
1/31/2025
T. Covill
M. Talebi
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing E2
DRAFT
164.528 299.1418 294.8142
168.5276 306.4137 301.6394
172.5035 313.6428 308.4263
176.4567 320.8305 315.1761
180.3879 327.9781 321.8899
184.2978 335.0869 328.5689
188.1871 342.1583 335.2141
192.0563 349.1933 341.8265
195.9062 356.1931 348.4071
199.7372 363.1586 354.9568
203.55 370.0909 361.4764
207.345 376.9909 367.9667
211.1227 383.8594 374.4285
214.8836 390.6974 380.8626
218.628 397.5055 387.2696
222.3566 404.2847 393.6502
226.0695 411.0355 400.0051
229.7673 417.7587 406.3348
233.4503 424.455 412.64
237.1187 431.125 418.9211
240.7731 437.7693 425.1789
244.4136 444.3884 431.4136
248.0407 450.983 437.626
251.6545 457.5536 443.8163
255.2554 464.1007 449.9852
258.8436 470.6247 456.1329
262.4194 477.1263 462.2601
265.9831 483.6057 468.3669
269.5349 490.0635 474.454
273.0751 496.5002 480.5216
276.6038 502.916 486.5701
280.1213 509.3114 492.5998
283.6277 515.6868 498.6112
287.1234 522.0426 504.6045
290.6085 528.3791 510.58
294.0831 534.6966 516.5381
297.5475 540.9955 522.4791
301.0019 547.2762 528.4032
304.4464 553.5389 534.3108
307.8811 559.7839 540.2021
311.3063 566.0115 546.0774
314.7221 572.2221 551.9369
318.1287 578.4158 557.7809
321.5262 584.5931 563.6097
324.9147 590.754 569.4234
328.2944 596.8989 575.2223
331.6654 603.0281 581.0066
335.0279 609.1417 586.7766
338.382 615.24 592.5324 Value Primary Min: 1350 Value Primary Min: 1350 Value Primary Min: 1350 341.7278 621.3232 598.2742 Value Primary Max: 1450 Value Primary Max: 1450 Value Primary Max: 1450 345.0654 627.3916 604.0024
348.395 633.4454 609.7169
351.7166 639.4847 615.4182
355.0304 645.5098 621.1062
358.3365 651.5208 626.7813
361.6349 657.5181 632.4435 Elevation (ft)
1350
1360
1370
1380
1390
1400
1410
1420
1430
1440
1450
0 20 40 60 80 100
(N1) 60
B-1 Correlation B-2 Correlation
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Friction Angle, φ' (deg)
B-1 Correlation B-2 Correlation CPT-1 Correlation
CPT-2 Correlation PI Correlation DS
0 2000 4000 6000
Undrained Shear Str., Su (psf)
B-1 Correlation B-2 Correlation
CPT-1 Correlation CPT-2 Correlation
Design Stratigraphy and Soil Properties
(2 of 4)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1
24002328.0
1/31/2025
T. Covill
M. Talebi
Design Value
0 100 200 300 400 500
C' (psf)
DS
Design Groundwater Elevation
E3
Figure E3a Figure E3b Figure E3c Figure E3d
DRAFT
Value Primary Min: 1350 Value Primary Min: 1350 Value Primary Min: 1350 Value Primary Min: 1350 Value Primary Max: 1450 Value Primary Max: 1450 Value Primary Max: 1450 Value Primary Max: 1450 1350
1360
1370
1380
1390
1400
1410
1420
1430
1440
1450
0 500 1000 1500
Elastic Modulus (ksf) - Loading
B-1 Correlation B-2 Correlation
CPT-1 Correlation CPT-2 Correlation
Implied E50 from Vs/3 Implied E50 from Vs/2
Hardening Model - E50 Hardening Model - Ei
Elevation (ft)
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Preconsolidation Stress (psf)
B-1 Correlation B-2 Correlation
CPT-1 Correlation CPT-2 Correlation
Initial Effective Stress
Design Stratigraphy and Soil Properties
(3 of 4)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1
24002328.0
1/31/2025
T. Covill
M. Talebi
Design Value
0 500 1000 1500
Elastic Modulus (ksf) - Un/Reload
B-1 Correlation B-2 Correlation
CPT-1 Correlation CPT-2 Correlation
Implied E50 from Vs/3 Implied E50 from Vs/2
Hardening Model - Eur
Implied E50 values from the Vs
assume a Poisson's Ratio of 0.33
and the dry soil unit weight. The
measured Vs values were divided by
the respective factor before
calculating the implied E50 value
presented.

Design Groundwater Elevation
E4
Figure E4a Figure E4b Figure D4c Figure E4d
DRAFT
Value Primary Min: 1350 Value Primary Min: 1350 Value Primary Min: 1350 Value Primary Min: 1350 Value Primary Max: 1450 Value Primary Max: 1450 Value Primary Max: 1450 Value Primary Max: 1450 0 20 40 60 80 100
Fines Content (%)
1350
1360
1370
1380
1390
1400
1410
1420
1430
1440
1450
50 70 90 110 130 150
Density (pcf)
Dry Density Moist Density
0 20 40 60 80 100
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index Water Content
Elevation (ft)
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs(ft/sec)
Avg. Array 1 Avg. Array 2
Design Stratigraphy and Soil Properties
(4 of 4)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1
24002328.0
1/31/2025
T. Covill
M. Talebi
Design Value Design Groundwater Elevation
E5
Figure E5a Figure E5b Figure E5c Figure E5d
DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Stress-Strain Behavior of Hardening Model
and Definition of Various Moduli
(Taken from PLAXIS Manual)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 01/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E6
DRAFT
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Hardening Model
B-1 @ 7.5 ft
B-1 @ 25 ft
B-2 @ 10 ft
B-2 @ 30 ft
MC Model (~12 ft Depth, E= 151.2 ksf)
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Constitutive Model Calibration
Direct Simple Shear Test
Normal Stress - 1 ksf (1 of 3)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E7
DRAFT
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Hardening Model
B-1 @ 7.5 ft
B-1 @ 25 ft
B-2 @ 10 ft
B-2 @ 30 ft
MC Model (~28 ft Depth, E= 232.8 ksf)
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Constitutive Model Calibration
Direct Simple Shear Test
Normal Stress - 2 ksf (2 of 3)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E8
DRAFT
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
Hardening Model
B-1 @ 7.5 ft
B-1 @ 25 ft
B-2 @ 10 ft
B-2 @ 30 ft
MC Model (~66.5 ft Depth, E= 429.2 ksf)
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Shear Stress (psf)
Shear Strain (%)
FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES
Constitutive Model Calibration
Direct Simple Shear Test
Normal Stress - 4 ksf (3 of 3)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E9
DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO. FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Preliminary Crossing Concept
Cross-Section with Modeling Concepts for
PLAXIS
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 01/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E10
DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Plan View of Model Mesh San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E11
Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment
0 40 80 160 APPROXIMATE SCALE (1" = 80')
DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 0.a: PLAXIS K0 & Gravity Loading San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E12
Step 0.a: Initial Phase - PLAXIS K0 Routine & Gravity Loading Notes: 1. Not to Scale. Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment 99.52 ft 135 ft 700 ft Approximate Bridge Limits Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Channel Limit DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 0.b: Initial Phase - Activation of MWD Pipe San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E13 Step 0.b: Initial Phase - Activation of MWD PipeMWD Pipe is "wished" into place. Notes: 1. Not to Scale. 2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacent materials. Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment 99.52 ft 135 ft 700 ft Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Bridge Limits DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E14 Step 0.c: Initial Phase - Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe Notes: 1. Not to Scale. 2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacent materials. Water is added as a volume to the inside of the MWD pipe. Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment 99.52 ft 135 ft 700 ft Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Bridge Limits DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: Notes: 1. Not to Scale. 2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacent materials. ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 1.a: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Center 1/3 San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E15 Step 1.a: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Center 1/3 Center 1/3 is excavated for footing installation. Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment 99.52 ft 135 ft 700 ft Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Bridge Limits DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: Notes: 1. Not to Scale. 2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacent materials. ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 1.b: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Center 1/3 Footing San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E16 Step 1.b: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Center 1/3 Footing Center 1/3 footing is installed. Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment 99.52 ft 135 ft 700 ft Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Bridge Limits DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: Notes: 1. Not to Scale. 2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacent materials. ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 1.c: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Left 1/3 San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E17 Step 1.c: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Left 1/3 Left 1/3 is excavated for footing installation. Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment 99.52 ft 135 ft 700 ft Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Bridge Limits DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 1.d: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Left 1/3 Footing San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E18 Step 1.d: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Left 1/3 Footing Notes: 1. Not to Scale. 2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacent materials. Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment Left 1/3 footing is installed. 99.52 ft 135 ft 700 ft Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Channel Limit Approximate Bridge Limits DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E19 Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 Notes: 1. Not to Scale. 2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacent materials. Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment Right 1/3 is excavated for footing installation.

99.52 ft 135 ft 700 ft Approximate
Channel Limit
Approximate
Channel Limit
Approximate
Bridge Limits
DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 1.f: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Right 1/3 Footing San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E20 Step 1.f: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Right 1/3 Footing Notes: 1. Not to Scale. 2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacent materials. Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment Right 1/3 footing is installed.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 2: Backfill Footings San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E21
Step 2: Backfill Footings Notes: 1. Not to Scale.

2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacentmaterials.

Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment
Footings are backfilled with
existing soil material. Vibration
limits will require LCC or other
flowable fill type material with
similar unit weight to existing soil.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 3: Place Channel Embankments San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E22
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments Notes: 1. Not to Scale.

2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacentmaterials. 3. An alternate of this phase was evaluated where full weight fill is placed for across the full model.

Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment Lightweight fill is required for the area of ±50 ft from
the edge of the MWD pipe.

Fullweight fill is placed
outside the ±50 ft extents.

Geofoam material is
placed in the crossing
structure slab area.

99.52 ft 135 ft 700 ft
Fills are add as volumes
to best represent the
induced stresses (shear
and normal) on the pipe.

Approximate
Channel Limit
Approximate
Channel Limit
Approximate
Bridge Limits
DRAFT
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 4: Apply Dead Loads from Slab San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E23
Step 4: Apply Dead Loads from Slab Notes: 1. Not to Scale.

2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacentmaterials.

Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment Dead loads are applied as line loads
to the footings.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E24 Step 5.a: Apply Various Loads - 100-yr Flood Load Notes: 1. Not to Scale. 2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacent materials. 3. A subsequent stage was evaluated where the flood load is removed to evaluate the permanent deformation. Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment 100-yr flood load applied as a surface load vertically incremented by the unit weight of water referenced from EL. 1453.7 ft.

PLAXIS converts the unit weight of water
and elevation to stress on the surface,
then to forces at the nodes.
(See Figure E11 for plan view of mesh).

Water load on crossing
transfer slab + dead load.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 5.b: Transverse Excavator on Left San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E25
Step 5.b: Transverse Excavator on Left Notes: 1. Not to Scale.

2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacentmaterials.

Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment Transverse excavator load applied to left +
slab dead loads.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 5.c: Transverse Excavator on Center San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E26
Step 5.c: Transverse Excavator on Center Notes: 1. Not to Scale.

2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacentmaterials.

Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment
Transverse excavator
load applied to center
+ slab dead loads.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 5.d: Transverse Excavator on Right San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E27
Step 5.d: Transverse Excavator on Right Notes: 1. Not to Scale.

2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacentmaterials.

Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment
Transverse excavator
load applied to right +
slab dead loads.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 5.e: Longitudinal Excavator on Left San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E28
Step 5.e: Longitudinal Excavator on Left Notes: 1. Not to Scale.

2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacentmaterials.

Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment
Longitudinal excavator
load applied to left as
point loads + slab
dead loads.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 5.f: Longitudinal Excavator on Center San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E29
Step 5.f: Longitudinal Excavator on Center Notes: 1. Not to Scale.

2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacentmaterials.

Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment
Longitudinal excavator
load applied to center
as point loads + slab
dead loads.

FILE NAME:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN:PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE: ANALYSIS FIGURES Model Staging Step 5.f: Longitudinal Excavator on Right San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 10/2024 T. Covill M. Talebi E30
Step 5.f: Longitudinal Excavator on Right Notes: 1. Not to Scale.

2. Interfaces are not shown for simplicity. Interfaces are used between structural elements and adjacentmaterials.

Flow Direction of Storm Channel MWD Pipe Alignment
Longitudinal excavator
load applied to right
as point loads + slab
dead loads.

99.52 ft 135 ft 700 ft Approximate
Channel Limit
Approximate
Channel Limit
Approximate
Bridge Limits
DRAFT
-0.25
0 0.25

0.5 0.75
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Invert ) Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Crown ) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings
Full Length Excavation
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E31
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-0.25
0 0.25

0.5 0.75
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Invert) Step 1.a: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Center 1/3 (Pipe Invert) Step 1.b: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Center 1/3 Footing (Pipe Invert) Step 1.c: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Left 1/3 (Pipe Invert) Step 1.d: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Left 1/3 Footing (Pipe Invert) Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 (Pipe Invert) Step 1.f: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Right 1/3 Footing (Pipe Invert) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 1a-f: Excavate & Place Footings
1/3 Construction Sequencing at Pipe Invert
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E32
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
Approximate Peak
Displacement: 0.32 in
Approximate Peak
Displacement: 0.32 in
150 ft 150 ft
DRAFT
-0.25
0 0.25

0.5 0.75
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Invert) Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Crown) Step 1.a: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Center 1/3 (Pipe Invert) Step 1.a: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Center 1/3 (Pipe Crown) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 1a: Excavate & Place Footings
Excavate Center 1/3
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E33
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-0.25
0 0.25

0.5 0.75
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Invert) Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Crown) Step 1.b: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Center 1/3 Footing (Pipe Invert, Hardening) Step 1.b: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Center 1/3 Footing (PipeCrown, Hardening) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 1b: Excavate & Place Footings
Place Center 1/3 Footing
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E34
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-0.25
0 0.25

0.5 0.75
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Invert) Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Crown) Step 1.c: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Left 1/3 (Pipe Invert) Step 1.c: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Left 1/3 (Pipe Crown) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 1c: Excavate & Place Footings
Excavate Left 1/3
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E35
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-0.25
0 0.25

0.5 0.75
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Invert) Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Crown) Step 1.d: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Left 1/3 Footing (Pipe Invert) Step 1.d: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Left 1/3 Footing (Pipe Crown) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 1d: Excavate & Place Footings
Place Left 1/3 Footing
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E36
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-0.25
0 0.25

0.5 0.75
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Invert) Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Crown) Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 (Pipe Invert) Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 (Pipe Crown) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 1e: Excavate & Place Footings
Excavate Right 1/3
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E37
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-0.25
0 0.25

0.5 0.75
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Invert) Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Pipe Crown) Step 1.f: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Right 1/3 Footing (Pipe Invert) Step 1.f: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Right 1/3 Footing (Pipe Crown) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 1f: Excavate & Place Footings
Place Right 1/3 Footing
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E38
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Lateral Displacement (in) Positive (+) Downstream, Negative (-) Upstream Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Downstream) Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings - Full Excavation (Upstream) Step 1.a: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Center 1/3 (Downstream) Step 1.a: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Center 1/3 (Upstream) Step 1.b: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Center 1/3 Footing (Downstream) Step 1.b: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Center 1/3 Footing (Upstream) Step 1.c: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Left 1/3 (Downstream) Step 1.c: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Left 1/3 (Upstream) Step 1.d: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Left 1/3 Footing (Downstream) Step 1.d: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Left 1/3 Footing (Upstream) Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 (Downstream) Step 1.e: Excavate & Place Footings - Excavate Right 1/3 (Upstream) Step 1.f: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Right 1/3 Footing (Downstream) Step 1.f: Excavate & Place Footings - Construct Right 1/3 Footing (Upstream) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill
Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Lateral Displacement
Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings
Full Length and Staged Excavation
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E39
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0 0.25
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Vertical Displacement (in) Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Full Weight Fill (Pipe Invert) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Full Weight Fill (Pipe Crown) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Pipe Invert) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Pipe Crown) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

MWD BARREL NO 1 PROFILE
10991+00 10992+00 10993+00 10994+00 10995+00 10996+00 10997+00 1430
1460
1450
1440
1430
1460
1450
1440
Notes:

1. Original profile provided by
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Webb), dated 2/3/2025.

2. Scale is modified for
reporting purposes (40% of
original).

Horizontal Scale: 1" = 50'
Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' ANALYSIS FIGURES
Model Results - Vertical Displacement
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments
Full vs Light Weight Fill
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California 24002328.001A 02/2025 T. Covill M. Talebi E40
0 25 50 100

APPROXIMATE HORIZOTNAL
SCALE (1" = 50') VERTICAL NOT TO SCALE
DRAFT
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25
10990+50 10991+50 10992+50 10993+50 10994+50 10995+50 10996+50 10997+50 Lateral Displacement (in) Positive (+) Downstream, Negative (-) Upstream Station along Pipe (ft)
Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Full Weight Fill (Downstream) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Full Weight Fill (Upstream) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Downstream) Step 3: Place Channel Embankments - Light Weight Fill (Upstream) Bridge Edge Edge of Fill Embankment Channel Embankment
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

San Jacinto City CouncilJune 2, 2026

San Jacinto City Council
June 2, 2026