San Luis Obispo City Council
September 19, 2023

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

VOLUME III

SUPPORTING CONTRACT

DOCUMENTS
FOR

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure
Specification No. 90435
May 2023

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7200

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME I,I
1 Page 1329 of 2037

APPENDIX C

GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING STRUCTURE

AND REPERTORY THEATRE

PALM STREET AND NIPOMO STREET

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
December 13, 2019
(Revised January 7, 2020)
Prepared for
Watry Design, Inc.

Prepared by
Earth Systems Pacific
4378 Old Santa Fe Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Copyright © 2020

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
2 Page 1331 of 2037

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
3

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Letter ................................................................................................................... ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SITE SETTING .............................................................................. 1

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 2

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................................. 3

4.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 4

5.0 LID INFILTRATION TESTING ........................................................................................... 4

6.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE PROFILE ................................................................................... 5

7.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 7

8.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 11 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................... 12 Below-Grade Excavations ........................................................................................... 13 Grading ........................................................................................................................ 15 Utilities ........................................................................................................................ 17 Foundations ................................................................................................................ 18 Seismic Design Category ............................................................................................. 19 Seismic Design Parameters ......................................................................................... 20 Interior Slabs-on-Grade and Exterior Pedestrian Flatwork ........................................ 24 Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................... 27 Vehicle PCC Pavements............................................................................................... 31 Drainage and Maintenance......................................................................................... 32 Observation and Testing ............................................................................................. 33

9.0 CLOSURE...................................................................................................................... 35 TECHNICAL REFERENCE LIST ................................................................................................... 36

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
4

iv

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Figure 1 – Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Exploration Location Map
Boring Log Legend
Boring Logs
x ESP 2019
x ESP 2011
x Kleinfelder 2005
APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results
x ESP 2019
x ESP 2011
x Kleinfelder 2005
APPENDIX C LID Infiltration Test Results
APPENDIX D Geologic Map
Firm Flood Zone Map - ESP 2011
Firm Flood Zone Map - ESP 2019
Table D-1 – Spectral Response Values
APPENDIX E Soil Corrosivity Study by HDR Engineering, Inc.

APPENDIX F Typical Detail A: Pipe Placed Parallel to Foundations Tremie Method

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
5

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 1 1912-016.SER.REV2

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SITE SETTING
The proposed project will consist of a parking structure and theatre to be constructed at the southeast corner (all directional references are with respect to Project North on Figure 1 – Site Vicinity Map in Appendix A) of Palm and Nipomo Streets in San Luis Obispo, California. Based on our discussions with and a site plan provided by the client (WATRY 2019), the proposed parking structure will consist of five levels; it will provide approximately 400 parking stalls and have a lowest level slab-on-grade finish floor elevation of approximately 189.3 feet (Elev. 189.3). The proposed structure will be constructed of reinforced concrete and will have a rectangular footprint that will occupy roughly the northern two-thirds of the site. Vehicular access to the garage will be from both Palm Street and Nipomo Street. Based on the architectural plan set prepared by Bryce Engstrom Architect (undated), the proposed theatre will consist of two to three stories and a rooftop deck that will be supported by slabs-on-grade at several finish floor elevations (Elevs. 189.4, 195.4 and 201.0). The proposed theatre will likely be of steel-frame and/or CMU construction and will occupy roughly the southern third of the site. Additional site improvements will consist of retaining walls up to 15 feet in height, exterior pedestrian flatwork, trash enclosures, landscaping, and Low Impact Development (LID) features that may include buried retention systems and/or bioswales. The parking structure and the theatre will be separate structures; however, an elevated walkway may be provided to connect the second and/or third floors. Dead plus live column loads provided by the client for the parking structure ranged from 125 kips for light exterior supports to 1,330 kips for girder supports. Dead plus live loads for the theatre were not available but were anticipated to be on the order of 250 kips. Cuts up to 16 feet from existing grades will be required to achieve planned finish grades. The new structures will be served by the existing municipal utility systems.

The approximate site coordinates of latitude 35.2796N and longitude 120.6664W were obtained from the Google Earth Website (Google Earth 2019) and were taken at the approximate location shown on Figure 1 – Site Vicinity Map. The site is bordered by Palm Street to the north, Monterey Street to the south, Nipomo Street to the west, and residential and commercial developments to the east (from Project North). Existing site improvements consist of an asphalt concrete (AC) parking lot that occupies most of the site, with single-family residences located at the northeast and southwest corners. The remainder of the site consists of landscaped areas that include mature trees and shrubs. The site slopes to the northwest with surface elevations of 205 feet at the southeast corner to 189 at the northwest corner. The locations and disposition of existing utilities on the site are unknown.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
6

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 2 1912-016.SER.REV2

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The authorized scope of work included review of the previous report prepared by this firm (ESP 2011), which included subsurface exploration data from this firm and from Kleinfelder (2005), a general site reconnaissance, field exploration, geotechnical and corrosivity (subcontracted to HDR, Inc.) laboratory testing, geotechnical analysis of the data gathered, and preparation of this report. The results of LID infiltration testing are also included. The analysis and subsequent recommendations were based on the findings from our field and laboratory testing, review of previous exploration data, the proposed development described herein, and our experience with similar projects.

This report and recommendations are intended to comply with the considerations of Sections 1803.1 through 1803.6, J104.3 and J104.4, as applicable, of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and common geotechnical engineering practice in this area under similar conditions at this time. The test procedures were accomplished in general conformance with the standards noted, as modified by common geotechnical engineering practice in this area under similar conditions at this time.

Preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations for site preparation, below grade excavations, grading, utilities, foundations, interior slabs-on-grade and exterior pedestrian flatwork, retaining walls, vehicle PCC pavements, drainage and maintenance, and observation and testing are presented to guide the development of project plans and specifications.

Application beyond this intent is strictly at the user’s risk. As there may be additional geotechnical issues, this firm can be retained to provide consultation as the design progresses, and to review project plans as they near completion to assist in verifying that pertinent geotechnical issues have been addressed and to aid in conformance with the intent of this report.

This report does not address issues in the domain of contractors such as, but not limited to, site safety, loss of volume due to stripping of the site, shrinkage of soils during compaction, excavatability, dewatering, temporary slope angles, construction means and methods, etc.

Analyses of the soil for radioisotopes, asbestos (either naturally occurring or in man-made products), lead or mold potential, hydrocarbons, or chemical properties is beyond the scope of this report. Ancillary features such as flag or light poles, temporary access roads, and nonstructural fills are not within our scope and are also not addressed. Design of LID features such as retention basins, bio swales, or other improvements is also beyond our scope.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
7

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 3 1912-016.SER.REV2
In the event that there are any changes in the nature, design, or location of improvements, or if any assumptions used in the preparation of this report prove to be incorrect, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified or verified by the geotechnical engineer in writing. The criteria presented in this report are considered preliminary until such time as any peer review or review by any jurisdiction has been completed, conditions have been observed by the geotechnical engineer in the field during construction, and the recommendations have been verified as appropriate, or modified by the geotechnical engineer in writing.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
Eleven exploratory borings were drilled at the site on September 3 through 6, 2019. The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted Mobile Drill Model B-53 rig and a track-mounted CME-55 rig.

The B-53 rig was equipped with a 6-inch outside diameter hollow stem auger. The CME-55 rig used a combination of 6-inch outside diameter solid stem auger during drilling in soil and HQ size rock cores using a triple tube wire-line and diamond/PDC impregnated bit system during coring within the underlying bedrock. Both drill rigs were equipped with an automatic hammer for soil sampling. The borings were drilled or cored to depths that ranged from approximately 4 to 63 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Three of the 11 borings (designated A, B and C) were converted to LID infiltration test holes (see Section 5.0); these borings were drilled to depths that ranged from approximately 4 to 13.5 feet bgs. All of the remaining eight borings met practical refusal. As the borings were drilled, soil samples were obtained using a 3-inch outside diameter ring-lined barrel sampler (ASTM D 3550-17 with shoe similar to ASTM D 2937-17).

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) (ASTM D 1586-11) using a 2-inch outside diameter sampler were also performed at selected depths in the borings and bag samples were obtained from the auger cuttings. Rock cores were retrieved in accordance with ISRM and ASTM guidelines and placed into wax impregnated boxes for transport and storage in accordance with USBR guidelines.

Soils encountered in Borings 1 through 8 were categorized and logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and ASTM D 2488-17. Rock cores recovered were logged in general accordance with ASTM D 2113-14, Standard Practice for Rock Core Drilling and Sampling of Rock for Site Investigations. Copies of the borings logs and a boring log legend are included in Appendix A. In reviewing the boring logs and legend, the reader should recognize that the legend is intended as a guideline only, and there are a number of conditions that may influence the characteristics observed during drilling. These include, but are not limited to, the presence of

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
8

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 4 1912-016.SER.REV2
cobbles or boulders, cementation, variations in soil moisture, presence of groundwater, and other factors. It should also be noted that the descriptions of bedrock must span a much wider range of density and strength characteristics than soil and are relative to other bedrock strata.

For example, fractured and weathered bedrock may be described as “soft,” yet it will be considerably harder than almost any type of soil. Conversely, a clay soil may be described as “hard,” however it will not be nearly as hard as even “soft” bedrock such as the graywacke encountered on this site. Consequently, the logger must exercise judgment in interpreting the subsurface characteristics, possibly resulting in soil and bedrock descriptions that vary somewhat from the legend.

Additional borings were performed by Kleinfelder and this firm for investigations in 2005 and 2011, respectively. The approximate locations of all borings are shown on Figure 2 – Exploration Location Map in Appendix A.

4.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Selected soil samples were tested in our laboratory for bulk density (ASTM D 2937-17, modified for ring liners) and/or moisture content (ASTM D 2216-10), expansion index (ASTM D 4829-11), maximum density and optimum moisture content (ASTM D 1557-12), cohesion and angle of shearing resistance (ASTM D 3080/3080M-11, for both in-situ density and recompacted to 90 percent of maximum dry density, and modified for consolidated, undrained conditions), grain size distribution by sieve analysis (ASTM D 1140-17), plasticity index (ASTM D 4318-17), consolidation (ASTM D 2435/D 2435M-11) and R-value (ASTM D 2844/D2844M-13). Selected rock core samples were tested in our laboratory for compressive strength (ASTM D 7012).

Unconsolidated undrained triaxial shear strength testing (ASTM D 2850) was subcontracted to Cooper Testing Labs in Palo Alto, California. The results of the laboratory tests for the current investigation, as well as the results from the previous investigations, are presented in Appendix B.

5.0 LID INFILTRATION TESTING
After drilling was completed, a 2-inch diameter perforated pipe was installed in each of the three infiltration test borings and the annular spaces around the pipes were filled with gravel.

Infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the methods developed by this firm in cooperation with the Central Coast Low Impact Development Initiative (ESP 2013).

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
9

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 5 1912-016.SER.REV2
Initially, testing consisted of introducing water into each of the test borings to just below existing grade. This water level was then maintained at constant head for 30 minutes. After the 30- minute period, the water was shut off and the amount of water introduced into each of the test borings was recorded. Readings of the change in water level were then recorded at various time intervals over a period of approximately 4 hours. Following testing, the pipes were removed and the test borings were backfilled with on-site soil. The LID infiltration test results are attached in Appendix C.

Constant head infiltration testing resulted in introducing up to 10 gallons of water over a period of 30 minutes. The test results indicate moderate to fast rates of infiltration. The test results only indicate the infiltration rates at the specific locations tested and under specific conditions.

Sound engineering judgment should be exercised in extrapolating the test results for other conditions or locations. Technical design references vary in methods they present for using these types of test results. However, most references include reduction, safety, and/or correction factors for several parameters including, but not limited to, size of the LID system relative to the test volume, number of tests conducted, variability in the soil profile, anticipated silt loading, anticipated biological buildup, anticipated long-term maintenance, and other factors. Typically, in aggregate these factors range from about 2.5 to 50 depending upon the method used. The final determination of the means by which these data are used is left to the design engineer.

6.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE PROFILE
All of the current borings were performed within paved areas, with the exception of Borings 5 and 8, which had no surface improvements or a thin layer of topsoil. The existing pavement sections consisted of approximately 2.5 inches of PCC in Boring 1, and 6 to 7 inches of AC in the remaining borings; the AC encountered in Boring 6 was underlain by 2 inches of aggregate base.

Below the improved or unimproved surfaces, 18 to 40 feet of alluvium was encountered, which was underlain by bedrock of the Franciscan Mélange the continued to the maximum depth explored of approximately 63 feet bgs.

The alluvium generally consisted of layers of stiff to hard lean clays with variable amounts of silt, sand and gravel; hard silt; and medium dense to very dense poorly graded and well graded sands with variable amounts of clay, silt and gravel.

The bedrock formation underlying the site is the Cretaceous-age Franciscan Mélange; a variably deformed and slightly metamorphosed chaotic assemblage of sedimentary rocks that were accreted at the edge of the North American continent as the Pacific tectonic plate subducted

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
10

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 6 1912-016.SER.REV2
beneath North America. This accreted wedge of rocks was subsequently intruded by volcanic rocks, mantled by younger sedimentary rocks, and subjected to continued tectonic deformation and faulting. This complex history has created a rock mass with blocks of relatively undeformed rocks separated by penetratively sheared and crushed zones with somewhat random occurrence and orientations. This rock mass does not conform to the standard “rules” for geologic structure and relationships. The bedrock observed in rock cores at the site ranges from intensely sheared “fault gouge” with geomechanical properties and excavatability of a dense soil, to graywacke sandstone with unconfined compressive strengths (UCS) that ranged from 585 to over 18,000 psi as tested. This range of rock strength is indicative of the wide range of rock properties that may be encountered at the site.

A copy of the Geologic Map from the 2011 investigation by this firm is included in Appendix D.

Subsurface conditions encountered during the previous investigations were generally consistent with those from this current investigation, with the exceptions of approximately 5.5 feet of fill encountered in Boring 4 (ESP 2011) and shale bedrock encountered by Kleinfelder (2005) in Borings 1 and 2 at 40 and 26 feet, respectively. The fill was logged as medium stiff sandy lean clay; the shale was logged as weak to moderately strong.

Groundwater was encountered during the current investigation in Borings 5 and 8 at depths of approximately 19.5 feet (Elev. 181.0) and 21.5 feet (Elev. 175.5) bgs, respectively. Groundwater was also encountered in some of the borings previously performed at the site, with levels that ranged from Elev. 166.0 to 177.5. Historical groundwater data was not available in the immediate site area; however, based on our experience in the area and the data presented above, a historical high ground water level at Elev. 184.0 was estimated and used for our analyses.

Table 1 below summarizes some of the key data presented above, which includes all exploratory borings performed at the site.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
11

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 7 1912-016.SER.REV2
TABLE 1: EXPLORATORY BORING SUMMARY
Boring No.

Surface
Elevation*
(feet)
Date Drilled
Subsurface
Water
Elevation
(feet)
Bedrock
Elevation
(feet)
11 205.5 2/15/2005 175.5 165.0
21 190.0 2/15/2005 N/A 164.0
31 201.0 2/15/2005 N/A N/A
42 190.0 8/18/2010 166.0 165.0
52 191.0 8/18/2010 N/A N/A
62 190.5 8/18/2010 N/A N/A
72 200.5 8/18/2010 177.5 167.5
82 204.0 8/18/2010 170.0 160.0
13 192.0 9/4/2019 N/A 170.5
23 203.5 9/3/2019 N/A 168.5
33 190.5 9/4/2019 N/A 167.5
43 194.5 9/5/2019 N/A 170.5
53 200.5 9/6/2019 181.0 163.5
63 190.5 9/4/2019 N/A 167.5
73 191.5 9/5/2019 N/A 173.5
83 197.0 9/6/2019 175.5 171.5
* Surface elevations estimated from topographic map by RRM Design Group (2006) 1 Kleinfelder (2005), 2 ESP (2011), 3 ESP (2019)

7.0 CONCLUSIONS
In our opinion, the site is suitable, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, for the proposed development discussed in the “Introduction and Site Setting” Section of the report, provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented in the design and construction. In our opinion, the primary geotechnical engineering concerns at the site are the potential for strong seismic shaking, the potential for significant static settlements, existing undocumented fill, the

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
12

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 8 1912-016.SER.REV2
planned excavation adjacent to existing structures and improvements, the soils expansion and corrosion potential, and the residence of shallow groundwater. Liquefaction potential is also discussed.

Potential for Strong Seismic Shaking
The site is in a region of high seismic activity, with the potential for large seismic events that could generate strong ground shaking. For this project, we were asked to provide seismic design criteria in accordance with CBC 2019/ASCE 7-16. The new methods prescribed by CBC 2019/ASCE 7-16 include significant revisions for determination of site-specific design parameters and further revisions were prescribed in ASCE 7-16 Supplement 1. Seismic acceleration parameters should be utilized in the design of the structures so that potential damage is reduced during a seismic event. These parameters are provided in Table 2 within the “Foundations” Section of this report.

Potential for Significant Static Settlements
Based on loading information provided by the client and the laboratory test results, our analyses indicate up to 6 inches of total static settlement could occur within the parking structure if column loads stated in the “Introduction and Site Setting” Section were to be supported on conventional shallow foundations. Therefore, the parking structure should be supported by deep foundations bearing in the underlying bedrock. Considering the proximity of structures on the adjacent properties, and the variable depths to and hardness of the underlying bedrock, driven piles (precast concrete or steel H-piles) would likely not be suitable. Drilled, cast-in-place reinforced concrete caissons are considered most suitable for this project; potential total and differential settlement associated with properly designed and properly constructed deep foundations would likely be negligible. In contrast, approximately 1-inch of total settlement for the theatre was estimated from the anticipated loads; therefore, the theatre structure could be supported by conventional shallow foundations. If conventional shallow foundations are used for the theatre, the elevated walkway between the theatre and the parking structures, as well as any matching finishes between the two buildings, would have to be designed to accommodate approximately 1-inch of differential settlement. Alternatively, the theatre could be supported by deep foundations similar to the parking structure, in which case there would likely be no differential movement between the two structures. Foundation recommendations to address both structures are provided in the “Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations” Section of this report.

Based on the relatively conventional equipment available in the area, caissons appear to be the most feasible option. However, given the depth to bedrock (up to 25 feet below finish floor

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
13

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 9 1912-016.SER.REV2
elevation) and the proposed loading, shallow foundations over ground improvement may be a feasible option. The ground improvement elements should extend at least 5 feet into the bedrock and may consist of deep soil-cement mixing, or other methods such as stone or grout columns. Stone or grout columns involve displacing the soil with an auger to the specified depth and consolidating gravel or injecting grout into the resulting soil voids, thus densifying the soil and reducing potential settlements while increasing bearing capacity. Conventional shallow or mat slab foundations could then be constructed over the ground improvement elements.

Ground improvement means and methods would be the responsibility of a design-build contractor, and quality control during the design process and construction would be provided by the geotechnical engineer. Most ground improvement contractors are out of the area and costs for mobilization and equipment may not be financially feasible; therefore, if considered, a cost analysis should be performed between options for caissons vs. ground improvement.

Existing Fill
Fill was encountered in Borings 4 and 8 (ESP 2011), which were located near the northern and southern limits of the site, respectively. The depth of fill at these locations was approximately

5.5 feet and 3 feet, respectively. While the fill encountered within Boring 8 (ESP 2011) will likely be removed during excavation for the flatwork around the theatre, the surface elevation where Boring 4 (ESP 2011) was drilled is nearly the proposed finish floor elevation of the parking structure. As a result, the planned excavation to construct the parking structure would likely not remove the fill. We are unaware of any documentation regarding the placement of the fill.

Undocumented fill has more potential for destructive settlement than properly placed and documented fill. Therefore, existing fill should be removed and replaced with properly moisture conditioned and compacted soil, as discussed in the “Grading” Section of this report.

Excavation Adjacent to Existing Structures and Improvements Cuts up to 16 feet from existing grades will be required to construct the proposed structures.

This mass excavation will extend to within 5 feet of the property lines in some locations. Existing improvements, such as the apartment complex to the east (project east), are within 4 feet of the property line. With consideration to the excavation depths, proximity of the existing structures to the proposed excavation, and the soil types encountered, sloping the excavations will not be possible at several locations and shoring will be necessary to support the walls of the excavation and, the existing structures. Shoring recommendations are provided in the “Shoring” Section of this report.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
14

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 10 1912-016.SER.REV2
Soil Expansion Potential
Expansion index testing of the alluvium near the proposed finish floor elevation yielded results that ranged from 44 to 76. An additional expansion index test performed during the 2011 investigation (ESP 2011) yielded a result of 87. Per Section 1803.5.3 of the 2019 CBC, these soils are considered to be expansive. The more commonly used ASTM classification is that the soils would be generally considered to have a “low” to “medium” expansion potential. Expansive soils tend to swell with increases in soil moisture and shrink as soil moisture decreases; the upper 3 to 5 feet of soil is the zone most affected by these seasonal soil moisture fluctuations. The volume changes that these materials undergo in this cyclical pattern can damage slabs and foundations if precautionary measures are not incorporated into the design and construction procedures. Recommendations for reducing the potential for damage to the proposed improvements are provided in the “Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations” Section of this report.

Corrosion Potential
As indicated in the Soil Corrosivity Study by HDR Engineering, Inc. (see Appendix E), electrical resistivities of the samples tested were in the corrosive to moderately corrosive categories with as received moisture contents; when saturated, the resistivities were in the severely corrosive and corrosive categories. Soil pH values were in the neutral category. The soluble salt contents of the soils were low. Chloride and sulfate were detected at low concentrations. Ammonium was detected in one sample at a low concentration. Nitrate was detected in all samples with one sample concentration high enough to be considered aggressive to copper. The soils were classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metals. Recommendations for mitigation of soil corrosivity are contained in HDR’s Report.

Shallow Groundwater
Groundwater was measured in our borings as high as Elev. 181.0; however, we anticipate groundwater levels may rise as high as Elev. 184.0 over the design life of the improvements; therefore, this elevation should be used as the design groundwater level. This elevation is approximately 5 feet below the proposed parking structure finish floor elevation and the lowest finish floor elevation within the theatre. Impacts resulting from shallow groundwater may include wet and unstable soils, difficulty achieving compaction, and difficult utility and foundation installation. Recommendations addressing these potential issues are provided in the “Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations” Section of this report.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
15

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 11 1912-016.SER.REV2
Additionally, the previous FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) provided in the 2011 report (ESP 2011) indicated the 100-year flood elevation to be at Elev. 192. The current version of the FIRM (FEMA 2012) indicates the 100-year flood elevation to be at approximately 188. With this revision, and the planned lowest level finish floor elevation of 189, the project would not be subject to inundation from a 100-year flood. However, per the current map, the northwestern corner of the project is within the 500-year flood zone.

Liquefaction Potential
The site is in an area of moderate liquefaction potential, as mapped by the County of San Luis Obispo (2019). Because of the mapped moderate liquefaction potential, we evaluated the soil layers below the design groundwater level of Elev. 184.0 for liquefaction potential. After correcting blowcounts of the soil layers for depth and hammer efficiency, these layers did not show the potential to liquefy during a seismic event; therefore, we anticipate these soils, as well as the underlying bedrock, have very low to no potential for liquefaction.

8.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
These recommendations are applicable for the proposed project as described in the “Introduction and Site Setting” Section of this report. If other improvements not previously mentioned are included, the geotechnical engineer should be contacted for revised recommendations.

Unless otherwise noted, the following definitions are used in the recommendations presented below. Where terms are not defined, definitions commonly used in the construction industry are intended.
x Building Area: The area within and extending a minimum of 5 feet beyond* the perimeter of the foundations of the proposed parking structure and theatre. The building area also includes the footprint of any improvements which are rigidly connected to the structures, such as retaining walls, and that are expected to perform in a similar manner.
x Sitework Retaining Wall Area: The area within and extending a minimum of 3 feet beyond* the footprint of any sitework retaining wall foundation. x Flatwork Area: The area within and extending a minimum of 1 foot beyond* the limits of exterior pedestrian flatwork.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
16

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 12 1912-016.SER.REV2
x Vehicle Pavement Area: The area within and extending a minimum of 1 foot beyond* the limits of any areas to receive PCC pavement, such as driveways, driveway aprons, and/or trash enclosure pads.
x Subgrade: The elevation of the surface upon which a sand cushion/nonexpansive imported material or aggregate base (AB) will be placed for flatwork or pavement, respectively.
x Existing Grade: Elevations of the site that existed as of the date of this report. x Finish Pad Grade: The elevation in the building area where earthwork operations are typically considered to be complete. It does not include any sand or gravel that might be placed below slabs in association with vapor protection for the slabs.
x Scarified: Thoroughly plowed or ripped in two orthogonal directions to a depth of not less than 8 inches.
x Moisture Conditioned: Soil moisture content adjusted to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content prior to application of compactive effort. x Compacted/Recompacted: Soils placed in level lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density, unless specified otherwise. The standard tests used to establish maximum dry density and field density should be ASTM D 1557-12 and ASTM D 6938-17, respectively, or other methods acceptable to the geotechnical engineer and jurisdiction.
* Note: The extents of building, sitework retaining wall, flatwork and vehicle pavement areas are not intended to cross any property lines.

Site Preparation

1. The ground surface in the grading area should be prepared for construction by removing all existing improvements, foundations, pavement sections, concrete, vegetation, debris, and other deleterious materials. Any existing utility lines that will not remain in service should be either removed or abandoned. The appropriate method of utility abandonment will depend upon the type and depth of the utility. Recommendations for abandonment during construction can be made as necessary.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
17

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 13 1912-016.SER.REV2

2. Voids created by the removal of materials or utilities described above should be called to the attention of the geotechnical engineer. No fill should be placed unless the underlying soil has been observed by the geotechnical engineer.

Below-Grade Excavations
Temporary Cut Slopes
Where possible, excavations may be sloped per OSHA requirements from existing grades to the bottoms of the excavations required to construct the proposed structures, as determined by the contractor’s “competent person.” Where temporary cut slopes are not possible, such as where cuts up to 16 feet from existing grades are proposed, shoring should be implemented to support the planned cuts, as well as adjacent structures and improvements. A discussion of temporary shoring design is provided in the following section:

Temporary Shoring
Areas where cut slopes are not possible may be supported by temporary shoring. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, the planned cuts, as well as existing structures and other improvements, may be supported by walls consisting of soldier piles and tiebacks, soil nails, bracing, secant piles, or potentially other methods. Soldier pile walls may be faced with wood or shotcrete lagging. Design provisions for wall design are provided below and in the “Retaining Walls” Section of this report.

1. The shoring system will be supporting existing improvements and structures, as well as potentially providing a facing for the permanent basement walls to be formed against; therefore, wall deflection should be limited and designing the walls for a restrained condition (at-rest pressures) should be considered.

2. Shoring walls should be designed to support the adjacent loading from structures, improvements and vehicles. Generally, one-half of the resulting vertical pressures from these items will result in lateral pressures that should be applied to the full height of the wall. If desired, an analysis for lateral wall pressures resulting from these surcharge loads may be performed on a case-by-case basis.

3. Heavy construction loads, such as cranes and material stockpiles, that will bear near the top of walls should be set back at least 15 feet from the walls. Where this will not be possible, the walls should be designed to support the loading, as discussed above.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
18

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 14 1912-016.SER.REV2

4. Voids created by soil sloughing and erosion can cause ground subsidence and deflections in addition to those imparted by lateral wall pressures. Therefore, the contractor should cut the excavations as neatly and vertically as possible. Any voids created within the excavation face should be backfilled as soon as possible with grout or well graded gravel.

5. If shotcrete lagging is proposed, a permanent drainage system should be installed prior to placing the shotcrete. The drainage system should consist of 2 or 4-foot wide vertical drainage panels spaced at 6 or 8-foot centers, respectively. The vertical drainage panels should be connected to horizontal strip drains located at the bottoms of the walls. If installing a drainage system is not desired or feasible, an additional lateral pressure increment of 40 pcf should be added for the entire wall height to account for hydrostatic pressure associated with an undrained wall. If secant pile walls are chosen, installation of wall drainage will likely not be feasible, and the undrained walls should be designed for the additional hydrostatic pressure increment stated above.

6. A drainage system would not be required if wood lagging is proposed for soldier pile walls.

Wood lagging is installed with small vertical gaps between the lagging boards, which allows any water present within the exposed soils to drain between the gaps. Some water accumulation at the bottoms of the excavations is likely, and collection of the water should be planned.

7. Due to the potential for surface disturbance, lateral and vertical capacity for shoring foundation elements should not rely on the upper 2 feet of soil below the bottom of the excavation.

8. The recommendations above and in the “Foundations” and “Retaining Walls” Sections of this report have been provided for the use of the design team. The temporary shoring system should be designed by a California-licensed civil or structural engineer who will be in responsible charge for the design, which should include protection of adjacent structures and improvements from lateral movements and subsidence. The shoring contractor is responsible for means and methods during construction of the shoring system, as well as site safety during construction and while the shoring system is the primary means of excavation support.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
19

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 15 1912-016.SER.REV2
General

1. Approximately 5.5 feet of fill was encountered in Boring 4 (ESP 2011). Based on the boring surface elevation, it appears that approximately 5 feet of fill could be present below the proposed finish floor elevation. Based on the location of Boring 4 near the northern limit of the site (project north), there is the potential that the fill extends into temporary shoring and permanent foundation areas. Therefore, the fill should be removed and replaced with engineered fill prior to shoring construction, as noted in the “Grading” Section of this report.

2. A pre-construction survey should be performed that will document the conditions of adjacent structures and improvements. The site and surrounding structures and improvements should also be monitored periodically throughout construction. The survey should include establishing benchmarks on adjacent buildings and improvements such that periodic measurements can be taken to determine if movement is occurring.

The contractor should have an appropriate plan of action ready for immediate implementation in the event that the monitoring program detects movement in the existing improvements.

3. Grading for cut slopes and shoring design should consider the additional cut depth required below finish pad grades to accommodate preparation of native soils and the recommended nonexpansive fill section.

4. Additional and/or augmented geotechnical recommendations may be warranted based upon the proposed cut slopes and shoring system.

Grading

1. Following site preparation, the fill materials encountered in Boring 4 (ESP 2011) should be completely removed and the excavation should be cut to a level plane. The exposed surface should then be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted.

2. Following site preparation and shoring installation, the building areas should be excavated to at least 18 inches below finish pad elevations. The exposed surfaces should then be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted.

3. Following site preparation, sitework retaining wall areas, and flatwork and vehicle pavement areas, should be excavated to bottom of footing elevation and subgrade

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
20

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 16 1912-016.SER.REV2
elevation, respectively. The exposed surfaces should then be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted.

4. All excavations should extend at a minimum to the depth of disturbance from demolition of existing improvements, where the areas should be graded to level plane, then scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted.

5. Voids created by dislodging rocks and/or debris during scarification should be backfilled and replaced with appropriate fill material, and the dislodged materials should be removed from the work area.

6. The exposed surfaces within the areas mentioned above should then be backfilled in level lifts with moisture conditioned, compacted site soils or approved imported nonexpansive materials to 18 inches below finish pad grade, subgrade or to bottom of footing elevation.

7. lsolated excavations, such as that required to remove the fill encountered in Boring 4 (ESP 2011), may be required within the proposed improvement areas. To limit the differential settlement that may result when improvements transition from being supported by fill materials to native soils, a gradual transition from fill materials to native materials is recommended. This may be accomplished by sloping back excavations no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) and keying into the sides of the excavations with each lift of backfill. Backfill at sloped excavations, such as where an excavation will meet a basement wall, should also be keyed into the side of the excavation with each lift.

8. The upper 18 inches of fill below finish pad grade should consist of properly compacted imported nonexpansive material, as described in Paragraph 10 of this section.

9. To limit settlement of improvements constructed over thick fills, such as at wall backfill locations, fills extending more than 5 feet below finished grades should be compacted to a minimum of 93 percent of maximum dry density. The final foot of subgrade and all Class 2 AB (Caltrans 2015) in pavement areas should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density. Subgrade and AB should be firm and unyielding when proofrolled with heavy, rubber-tired grading equipment prior to continuing construction.

10. Nonexpansive materials are defined as materials that fall in the GW, GP, GM, GC, SP, SW, SC and SM categories per ASTM D 2487-17, and that have an expansion index of 10 or less

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
21

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 17 1912-016.SER.REV2
(ASTM D 4829-11). Proposed nonexpansive materials should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer before being brought to the site, and on an intermittent basis during placement.

11. All materials used as fill should be cleaned of all debris and any rocks larger than 3 inches in maximum dimension. When fill material includes rocks, the rocks should be placed in a sufficient soil matrix to ensure that voids caused by nesting of the rocks will not occur and that the fill can be properly compacted.

12. If the soils become unstable, or if the recommended compaction cannot be readily achieved, drying the soil to optimum moisture content, or just above, may be necessary.

Placement of gravel layers or geotextiles may also be necessary to help stabilize unstable soils. Soils that are disturbed in any manner should be removed, moisture conditioned, and recompacted.

13. The recommended soil moisture content should be maintained throughout construction.

Failure to maintain the soil moisture content can result in cracks and disturbance, which are an indication of degradation of the soil compaction. If cracks are allowed to develop, or if soils near improvements such as foundations, flatwork, pavement, curbs, etc. are otherwise disturbed, damage to those improvements may result. Soils that have been or are otherwise disturbed should be removed, moisture conditioned, and compacted.

14. Permanent cut and fill slopes should not exceed a 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) gradient, unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical engineer.

Utilities

1. Any utility trenches that extend below Elev. 184 may encounter groundwater. If groundwater is encountered during utility trench excavation, the trench should be dewatered until it can be properly backfilled per the recommendations provided below and per the requirements of the architect/engineer.

2. Unless otherwise recommended, utility trenches adjacent to foundations should not be excavated within the zone of foundation influence, as shown in Typical Detail A in Appendix F.

3. Utilities that must pass beneath a foundation should be placed with properly compacted utility trench backfill and the foundation should be designed to span the trench.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
22

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 18 1912-016.SER.REV2

4. A select, non-corrosive, granular, easily compacted sand should be used as bedding and shading immediately around utilities. All trench backfill above the select material within the building, flatwork, and pavement areas should consist of properly compacted nonexpansive material or AB, as defined in the “Grading” Section of this report. The site soils may be used for trench backfill above the select material within landscape, or otherwise unimproved areas.

5. In general, trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density. The upper 12 inches of subgrade and all aggregate base for trench backfill in vehicle pavement areas should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density.

6. Trench backfill should be placed in level lifts, moisture conditioned, and compacted to the minimums noted above.

7. Compaction of trench backfill by jetting or flooding is not recommended except under extraordinary circumstances. However, to aid in encasing utility conduits, particularly corrugated drain pipes, and multiple, closely spaced conduits in a single trench, jetting or flooding may be useful. Flooding or jetting should only be attempted with extreme caution, and any jetting operation should be subject to review by the geotechnical engineer.

8. Recommendations for protection of utilities from soil corrosivity are provided in the report by HDR, Inc., in Appendix E.

9. The recommendations of this section are minimums only and may be superseded by the requirements of the architect/engineer, the recommendations of pipe manufacturers or utility companies, or the requirements of the governing jurisdiction based upon soil corrosivity or other factors.

Foundations
Ground Motion Analyses
In accordance with 2019 CBC and ASCE 7-16 an assessment was made to determine the need for employing “Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures” to determine the ground motion parameters for the project. The S1 ground motion value obtained from the Structural Engineers

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
23

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 19 1912-016.SER.REV2
Association of California website (SEAOC 2019) using the ASCE 7-16 (2016), for Site Class D “Stiff Soil”, was 0.39g, greater than 0.2; therefore, per Section 11.4.8.3 of ASCE 7-16, the project requires site-specific ground motion analyses.

A risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) modeling procedure was performed in accordance with ASCE 7-16, including a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA); a Deterministic Ground Motion Analysis (DGMA) was not required because the PGA calculated for the PHSA (0.840) is less than 1.2, in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Supplement 1. The analysis is based on knowledge of the regional tectonic setting, geology, and seismicity.

A Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the United States Geologic Survey (USGS, 2019b) Unified Hazard Tool was used to access the Third California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) database and the Risk-Targeted Ground Motions Calculator (USGS 2019a) was used to estimate potential ground motions at the project site. The PSHA was performed in general accordance with Section 21.2.1.2, Method 2, of ASCE 7-16 to estimate the peak ground motion corresponding to the uniform hazards earthquake and MCER which has a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years.

For analysis purposes, we assumed the Los Osos fault as the causative fault, located 2.4 miles from the site. The Los Osos fault is a reverse-oblique fault and we specified footwall conditions for the attenuation relationships. A magnitude of 6.8 was used as a basis to model fault rupture.

The primary seismic risks are from earthquakes generated by the local Los Osos, Rinconada, San Luis Range and Hosgri-San Simeon faults and the more distant San Andreas fault.

The 2019 CBC seismic design criteria are based on a Design Earthquake that produces ground motion 2/3 of the lesser of an earthquake with 2 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years, or maximum 84th percentile of the mean deterministic MCE. In this case the probabilistic spectra governed, scaled in accordance with ASCE 7-16 procedures.

Seismic Design Category
Section 1613.2.5 of the 2019 CBC states that structures classified as Risk Category I, II, or III that are located where the mapped spectral response acceleration parameter at 1-second period, S1, is greater than or equal to 0.75 shall be assigned to Seismic Design Category E. The S1 calculated for the site is 0.39, less than 0.75; therefore, the site should be assigned to the seismic design category based on risk category and the design spectral response acceleration parameters SDS

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
24

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 20 1912-016.SER.REV2
and SD1. The site falls under Risk Category II, per Table 1604.5 of the 2019 CBC, and SDS and SD1 are 0.695 and 0.565, respectively. Applying this risk category and these acceleration parameters to Tables 1613.2.5(1) and (2) resulted in a classification of Seismic Design Category D.

Seismic Design Parameters
This site may be subject to strong ground shaking due to potential fault movements along regional faults including the Los Osos fault, whose proximity was considered during our sitespecific analysis. Engineered design and earthquake-resistant construction increase safety and allow development of seismically active areas. The minimum seismic design should comply with the 2019 edition of the California Building Code and ASCE 7-16. The resulting seismic coefficients considering Site Class D are given in the table below.

TABLE 2: SEISMIC PARAMETERS (2019 CBC/ASCE 7-16)
Seismic Design Category D
Site Class D
Mapped and Code Based Ground Motion
Short Period Spectral Response, Ss 1.057 g
1 Second Mapped Spectral Response, S1 0.390 g
Design Earthquake Ground Motion
Short Period Spectral Response, SDS 0.695 g
1 second Spectral Response, SD1 0.565 g
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) 0.550 g
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
Short Period Spectral Response, SMS 1.043 g
1 Second Period Spectral Response, SM1 0.847 g
Site Amplification Factors
Short Period Site Coefficient, Fa 1.077
1 Second Period Site Coefficient, Fv 2.5
Vertical Site Coefficient, Cv 1.31
Risk Coefficient (Short Period), CRs 0.889
Risk Coefficient (1 Second Period), CR1 0.902
Acceleration values provided are estimates only. The estimated peak horizontal site acceleration based upon a probabilistic analysis (2 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years) is approximately 1.4 g for this site. Actual accelerations may be more or less than estimated.

Vertical accelerations are typically Ы to а of the horizontal accelerations, but can equal or exceed the horizontal accelerations, depending upon the local site effects and amplification.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
25

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 21 1912-016.SER.REV2
General

1. Due to the relatively large potential static settlements resulting from the proposed structural loading, supporting the proposed parking structure on conventional shallow foundations is not recommended. The parking structure should be supported on deep foundation consisting of drilled, cast-in-place reinforced concrete caissons. Column and wall loads for the theatre will be relatively small with much smaller corresponding anticipated settlements; therefore, the theatre may be supported on conventional shallow foundations, or on deep foundations.

2. Recommendations for protection of cast-in-place concrete foundation elements are provided in the report by HDR, Inc. in Appendix E.

3. If the theatre is supported by drilled, cast-in -place concrete caissons similar to those supporting the parking structure, the planned elevated walkway between the two structures would likely experience negligible differential settlement. However, if the theatre is supported by conventional shallow foundations, the elevated walkway should be designed to accommodate up to 1 inch of differential settlement.

Drilled, Cast-in-Place Concrete Caissons – Parking Structure, Theatre or Sitework Retaining Walls

1. The caissons may be designed using a downward (compressive) allowable skin friction value of 700 psf for the alluvium and 1,500 psf within the Franciscan Mélange bedrock.

The caissons should be embedded a minimum of 10 feet into the underlying bedrock. No end bearing capacity should be used in the calculations.

2. Allowable skin friction values of 450 psf and 1,000 psf can be used for short-term tension (uplift) conditions within the alluvium and bedrock, respectively. The self-weight of the caissons may be neglected in the determination of loading, however it may be included, if needed, for resistance to uplift.

3. The allowable skin friction values for the caissons may be increased by one-third when transient loads such as wind or seismicity are included. Foundations should be designed using the site design response parameters to be provided in an addendum

4. An ultimate passive resistance based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pcf up to a maximum uniform pressure of 2,000 psf, acting over 2 caisson diameters, may be taken

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
26

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 22 1912-016.SER.REV2
for resistance to short term lateral loads within the alluvium. The maximum uniform pressure above may be increased to 4,000 psf within the bedrock. The structural engineer should apply an appropriate factor of safety to the ultimate values presented above.

5. As foundation design progresses Lpile parameters can be provided as needed.

6. Grade beams between caissons should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and 24 inches deep. Based on soil expansion potential only, minimum grade beam reinforcement should consist of one No. 5 rebar, top and bottom.

7. As the caissons will penetrate into the underlying bedrock, a group effect may be neglected in the design. However, closely spaced caissons may require special considerations with respect to resistance to lateral loads and construction methods.

Caissons should not be constructed closer than three caisson diameters to each other without approval from the geotechnical engineer.

8. Subsurface water was encountered in many of the explorations and will be encountered during the caisson drilling operations; therefore, caisson reinforcing should be designed to accommodate a minimum 5-inch diameter tremie pipe for concrete placement. The reinforcing should also be designed to facilitate removal of the casing during concrete placement, and additional coverage over reinforcing steel is recommended to account for likely difficult concrete placement conditions. All water encountered should be removed from the caisson excavation prior to placing concrete, or the concrete should be tremied.

The tremie method is described in Appendix F.

9. As the caissons will utilize skin friction in the bedrock for support, it is not necessary to remove all loose debris and slough material from the bottoms of the excavations, although the majority of loose debris and slough material should be removed by means of a clean-out bucket.

10. Concrete used in caissons should be placed at a slump between 6 and 8 inches in dry excavations and between 8 and 10 inches when placed under water. The concrete in the upper 8 to 10 feet of the caissons should be mechanically consolidated following placement.

11. The caissons should not deviate from a plumb line taken from the center of the caisson by more than 2 percent of the caisson length, from the top to the point of interest.

Adequate caisson oversize may be assumed to provide required tolerance.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
27

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 23 1912-016.SER.REV2

12. All caisson excavations should be filled with concrete on the same day as they are drilled.

If this is not practicable, the caissons should be secured in a safe manner in conformance with OSHA requirements or other applicable safety standards until concrete can be placed. Any caisson excavation that has not been filled with concrete on the same day as it was drilled should have the surfaces “freshened” by extending the rotating auger into and out of the hole several times, immediately prior to placement of the concrete. The bottom of the hole should then be cleaned out again by means of the clean-out bucket.

13. Caisson excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer during drilling operations to confirm the subsurface conditions and prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Special inspection of reinforcing steel and concrete placement for caissons should also be provided.

14. Soils in grade beam excavations should be moistened to optimum moisture content or just above, and no desiccation cracks should be present, prior to concrete placement.

Conventional Shallow Foundations – Theatre and Sitework Retaining Walls

1. Continuous and spread footings may be used to support the proposed theatre and sitework retaining walls. The footings should be constructed with a minimum overall depths of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade. The theatre foundations should bear in neatly cut excavations into firm undisturbed native soils. If firm conditions are not present at design bottom of foundation elevation, localized deepening of foundation excavations will be necessary. Retaining wall foundations should bear in neatly cut excavations into firm compacted fill, as described in the “Grading” Section of this report.

Footing excavations should be horizontal and stepped as needed to bear in uniform material.

2. Continuous footings and grade beams should be reinforced, at a minimum, by two No. 5 rebar, one at the top and one at the bottom, or as required by the architect/engineer.

Spread footings should be reinforced in accordance with the requirements of the architect/engineer.

3. Footings bearing into undisturbed native soils or firm compacted fill may be designed using maximum allowable bearing capacities of 2,000 psf for dead loads and 3,000 psf for dead plus live loads. Using these criteria, maximum settlement and differential settlement are expected to be on the order of 1-inch and а-inch over a horizontal distance of 25 feet, respectively.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
28

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 24 1912-016.SER.REV2

4. Allowable capacities may be increased by one-third when transient loads such as wind or seismicity are included. Foundations should be designed using the site design response parameters to be provided in an addendum.

5. In calculating resistance to lateral loads, ultimate passive equivalent fluid pressures of 350 pcf may be used for foundations bearing in undisturbed native soils or compacted fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.40 may also be utilized in the design. The lateral capacities are based on the assumption that the soil adjacent to the foundations is undisturbed and/or properly compacted. Passive and friction resistance components may be combined in the analysis without reduction to either value. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the values presented above.

6. Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer during excavation and prior to placement of formwork, reinforcing steel or concrete. Soil in foundation excavations should be moistened to optimum moisture content or above and no desiccation cracks should be present prior to concrete placement.

Interior Slabs-on-Grade and Exterior Pedestrian Flatwork Interior Slabs-on-Grade

1. Interior slabs-on-grade for non-vehicle use should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches.

They should be reinforced and doweled to foundations per the specifications of the architect/engineer. At a minimum, interior slabs should be reinforced with No. 3 rebar placed at 24 inches on center each way. All structural slabs should contain minimum rebar meeting the criteria of ACI 318, Section 24.4 (ACI 2014). At a minimum, foundation dowels should be lap spliced to the slab rebar. The size and spacing of the dowels should match the size and spacing of the slab rebar.

Exterior Pedestrian Flatwork

1. Exterior pedestrian flatwork should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches. Minimum reinforcement for exterior pedestrian flatwork should consist of No. 3 rebar placed at 24 inches on-center each way.

2. In conventional construction, it is common to use 4 to 6 inches of imported sand beneath exterior pedestrian flatwork. However, due to the moderate expansion potential of the site soils, there will be a risk of movement and damage to the flatwork and slabs if

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
29

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 25 1912-016.SER.REV2
conventional measures are used. Heaving and cracking could occur. To reduce the potential for movement and damage, flatwork and slabs should be supported on at least 18 inches of nonexpansive imported soils.

3. To further reduce the risk of movement of flatwork due to seasonal moisture variations or loss of soil from erosion, thickened edges or grade beams can be provided around the perimeters of the flatwork. At a minimum, any thickened edge or grade beam should be reinforced by two No. 4 rebar, one at the top and one at the bottom.

4. It is recognized that the measures recommended in the previous paragraph for protecting exterior flatwork from seasonal moisture variations are an added expense, possibly more expensive than simply replacing flatwork that has settled and/or cracked. Consequently, the above measures for protecting exterior flatwork are only suggestions for consideration by the owner and/or architect/engineer. The degree to which exterior flatwork is protected is left to the discretion of the owner and/or architect/engineer.

5. Flatwork should be constructed with frequent joints to allow articulation as the flatwork moves in response to seasonal soil temperature and moisture variations. The soil below flatwork should be moisture conditioned prior to casting the flatwork.

6. Flatwork at doorways, and at other areas where maintaining the elevation of the flatwork is desired, should be doweled to the perimeter foundations, at a minimum, by No. 3 dowels lapped to the flatwork rebar at 24 inches on center. In other areas, the flatwork may be doweled to the foundation or the flatwork may be allowed to “float free,” at the discretion of the architect/engineer. Flatwork that is intended to float free should be separated from foundations by a felt joint or other means.

Moisture Vapor Transmission

1. Due to the current use of impermeable floor coverings, water-soluble flooring adhesives, and the speed at which buildings are now constructed, moisture vapor transmission through slabs is a much more common problem than in past years. Where moisture vapor transmitted from the underlying soil would be undesirable, the slabs should be protected from subsurface moisture vapor. A number of options for vapor protection are discussed below; however, the means of vapor protection, including the type and thickness of the vapor retarder, if specified, are left to the discretion of the architect/engineer.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
30

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 26 1912-016.SER.REV2

2. Where specified, vapor retarders should conform to ASTM Standard E1745-17. This standard specifies properties for three performance classes, Class “A”, “B” and “C”. The appropriate class should be selected based on the potential for damage to the vapor retarder during its installation and placement of slab reinforcement and concrete.

3. It should be noted that ASTM E 1745-17 has the same permeance threshold for Class A through Class C (0.1 perms). The class that is chosen will make a difference in how resistant the vapor retarder is to punctures and tears, but it will not insure any better permeance values to protect floor coverings.

4. Several recent studies, including those of ACI Committee 302 (ACI 2015), have concluded that excess water above the vapor retarder increases the potential for moisture damage to floor coverings and could increase the potential for mold growth or other microbial contamination. The studies also concluded that it is preferable to eliminate the typical sand layer beneath the slab and place the slab PCC in direct contact with a vapor retarder, particularly during wet weather construction. However, placing the PCC directly on the vapor retarder requires special attention to specifying the proper vapor retarder, a very low water-cement ratio in the PCC mix, and special finishing and curing techniques.

5. Another option for vapor protection would be the use of vapor-inhibiting admixtures in the slab PCC mix and/or application of a sealer to the surface of the slab. This would also require special PCC mixes and placement procedures, depending upon the recommendations of the admixture or sealer manufacturer.

6. A third option that may be a reasonable compromise between effectiveness and cost considerations would be the use of a subslab vapor retarder protected by a layer of granular material or of clean sand, with the granular material being the preferred choice.

The granular material should be easily compactible and have a relatively low fines content and a low wicking potential; virgin Class 2 AB (Caltrans 2015) meets these criteria. Clean sand is defined as a well or poorly graded sand (ASTM D2487-17) of which less than 3 percent passes the No. 200 sieve. The retarder should be covered with a minimum 4 inches of granular material or clean sand. If a Class “A” vapor retarder is specified, the retarder can be placed directly on the compacted soil material. If a less durable vapor retarder is specified (Class “B” or “C”), a minimum of 1 inch of fine-graded material such as a clean sand should be placed over the compacted soil material to reduce the chance of puncturing the vapor retarder. The materials mentioned above may count as part of the nonexpansive fill section, not in addition to it.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
31

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 27 1912-016.SER.REV2

7. If sand is used between the vapor retarder and the slab, it should be moistened only as necessary to promote concrete curing; saturation of the sand should be avoided, as the excess moisture would be on top of the vapor retarder, potentially resulting in vapor transmission through the slab for months or years.

8. Regardless of the underslab vapor retarder selected, proper installation of the retarder is critical for optimum performance. Where utilized, the vapor retarder should be placed a minimum of 1 inch above the flow line of the drainage path surrounding the structures, or 1 inch above the area drain grates if area drains are used to collect runoff around the structures. All seams must be properly lapped, and all seams and utility penetrations properly sealed in accordance with the vapor retarder manufacturer’s recommendations and ASTM E1643-18a. At the terminating edges of the vapor retarder, the vapor retarder should be effectively sealed with accessories specifically designed to seal the material to new or existing concrete; details for edge sealing of the vapor retarder should be provided by the architect/engineer.

Slabs-on-Grade - General

1. To reduce shrinkage cracks in all interior and exterior slabs-on-grade, the concrete aggregates should be of appropriate size and proportion, the water/cement ratio should be low, the concrete should be properly placed and finished, contraction joints should be installed, and the concrete should be properly cured. This is particularly applicable to slabs that will be cast directly upon a vapor retarder and those that will be protected from transmission of vapor by use of admixtures or surface sealers. Concrete materials, placement, and curing specifications should be at the direction of the architect/engineer; AC 302.1R-15 (ACI 2015) is suggested as a resource for the architect/engineer in preparing such specification.

2. The structural engineer should consider the potential for hydrostatic uplift pressure on slabs-on-grade due to the potential for nearby flooding during 100-year and 500-year events.

Retaining Walls

1. Retaining walls should be founded in firm soil that has been recompacted per the “Grading” Section of this report. Retaining wall footings should be reinforced in accordance with the requirements of the architect/engineer; minimum retaining wall footing reinforcement should consist of one No. 4 rebar top and bottom.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
32

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 28 1912-016.SER.REV2

2. Retaining wall design may be based on the following parameters:

TABLE 3: RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Backfill Type Value
Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure Site Soils 45 pcf
Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure Imported Sand/Gravel 35 pcf At-Rest Equivalent Fluid Pressure Site Soils 60 pcf
At-Rest Equivalent Fluid Pressure Imported Sand/Gravel 50 pcf Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure Onsite or Imported Recompacted Soil 350 pcf Maximum Toe Pressure Onsite or Imported Recompacted Soil 3,000 psf Coefficient of Sliding Friction Onsite or Imported Recompacted Soil 0.40

3. The pressures provided above should also be applied to shoring elements.

4. The active and at-rest pressures are applicable to a horizontal retained surface behind the wall. Walls having a retained surface that slopes upward from the wall should be designed for an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 1 pcf for the active case and 1.5 pcf for the at-rest case, for every degree of slope inclination.

5. As with shoring walls, permanent retaining walls should be designed to support the adjacent loading from structures, improvements and vehicles. Generally, one-half of the resulting vertical pressures from these items will result in lateral pressures that should be applied to the full height of the wall. If desired, an analysis for lateral wall pressures resulting from these surcharge loads may be performed on a case-by-case basis.

6. The upper foot of backfill behind all retaining walls should consist of native soil, except in areas where exterior pedestrian flatwork or PCC pavements for vehicle use will abut the top of the wall. In such cases, the backfill soil should extend to the sand, aggregate base, or other material below the improved surface, as appropriate. If gravel backfill is utilized, the gravel should be encased in a permeable synthetic filter fabric conforming to standard specification section 96-1.02B – Class C (Caltrans 2015).

7. Under the 2019 CBC, the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) must be used for determining seismic pressures on walls. Further, Section 1807.2.2 of the 2019 CBC requires that dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures be provided by the geotechnical engineer for walls retaining more than 6 feet of backfill. The Structural Engineers Association of California website (SEAOC 2019) was used to determine the MCER-based

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
33

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 29 1912-016.SER.REV2
Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) for a Seismic Design Category “D” project. The resulting PGAM was 0.530g. Then, using the methods presented by Lew et al. (2010) and this PGAM, it was determined that no incremental increase in lateral soil pressure above the static active equivalent fluid pressure for flexible (cantilevered) walls was required for the native clayey soils; however, a pressure increase of 10 pcf was determined for imported sand or gravel backfill. Flexible (cantilevered) walls retaining over 6 feet of backfill should be designed using these incremental seismic pressures. Walls retaining 6 feet or less of backfill need not be designed for seismic pressures.

8. Recent research by Al Atik and Sitar (2010) confirmed that for flexible (cantilevered) walls, particularly those over 12 feet tall, an increase in soil pressure does occur under significant seismic accelerations. Further, they found that the increase is due to the outof-phase interaction between the soil and the flexible wall. When considering rigid walls (i.e. those designed using at-rest criteria); however, they found that the incremental increase due to seismicity was typically less than 50 percent of the static wall pressure.

Consequently, no incremental increase in lateral soil pressure is recommended for the design of walls where the static design utilizes the at-rest equivalent fluid pressure and they are designed with factors of safety and earth load factors of at least 1.5.

9. In typical structural design methods for retaining walls such as those found in Section 1605 of the 2019 CBC, lateral soil pressure is multiplied by a load factor of 1.6. According to Lew et al. (2010), a load factor of 1.6 is too conservative for seismic loads; this paper suggests that the seismic increase in lateral pressure be separated from the static active pressure and that a load factor of 1.0 be used for the seismic increase. Further, Al Atik and Sitar (2010) found that pressure increases due to seismic earth loads were minimal for walls retaining less than 12 feet of backfill. While Al Atik and Sitar’s research is generally accepted among geotechnical and structural engineers in California, it is not entirely acknowledged by the CBC, as the CBC sets the height below which seismic loads may be ignored at 6 feet. Given this disparity, it is suggested that caution be used not to over-engineer walls retaining between 6 and 12 feet of backfill.

10. Long-term settlement of properly compacted native soil retaining wall backfill or imported sand/gravel backfill should be assumed to be about 0.5 and 0.25 percent of the depth of the backfill, respectively. Improvements that are constructed near the tops of retaining walls should be designed to accommodate long-term settlement.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
34

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 30 1912-016.SER.REV2

11. All retaining walls, including basement walls, should be designed as drained walls. The wall drainage design may consist of a conventional system that includes perforated pipe encased in a free-draining gravel blanket or of a manufactured synthetic drainage system that consists of drainage panels that direct water flow into an integrated subdrain.

12. For the conventional system, the pipe should be placed with perforations facing downward, and should discharge in a non-erosive manner away from foundations and other improvements. The gravel blanket should have a width of approximately 1 foot and should extend upward to approximately 1 foot below the top of the wall backfill. The upper foot should be backfilled with native soil, except in areas where exterior pedestrian flatwork will abut the top of the wall. In such cases, the gravel should extend to the sand, aggregate base, or other material below the improved surface, as appropriate. To reduce infiltration of the soil into the gravel, a permeable synthetic filter fabric conforming to Standard Specifications Section 96-1.02B – Class C (Caltrans 2015), should be placed between the two.

13. Manufactured synthetic drains, such as Miradrain or Enkadrain are acceptable alternatives to the use of gravel, provided they are installed in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer. The integrated subdrain should discharge in a non-erosive manner away from foundations and other improvements. The drainage panels should extend upward to approximately 1 foot below the top of the wall backfill.

14. Where weep hole drainage can be properly discharged, the perforated pipe or integrated subdrain may be omitted in lieu of weep holes on maximum 4-foot centers. A filter fabric as described above should be placed between the weep holes and the drain gravel when applied to a conventional drainage system.

15. If drainage cannot be provided for permanent walls or temporary shoring walls, an additional lateral hydrostatic pressure increment of 40 pcf should be applied over the entire height of the wall.

16. Walls facing areas where moisture transmission through the wall would be undesirable should be thoroughly waterproofed in accordance with the specifications of the architect/engineer.

17. The architect/engineer should bear in mind that retaining walls by their nature are flexible structures, and that surface treatments on walls often crack. Where walls are to be plastered or otherwise have a finish applied, the flexibility should be considered in

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
35

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 31 1912-016.SER.REV2
determining the suitability of the surfacing material, spacing of horizontal and vertical control joints, etc. The flexibility should also be considered where a retaining wall will abut or be connected to a rigid structure, and where the geometry of the wall is such that its flexibility will vary along its length.

Vehicle PCC Pavements

1. If plain Portland cement concrete pavement is preferred (instead of reinforced concrete), the following minimum section is recommended
x 8 inches plain PCC (4,000 psi minimum)
x No. 4 smooth dowels at 12-inch centers at concrete joints x 12 inches Class 2 AB (Caltrans 2015) compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density
x 12 inches subgrade, compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density

2. If reinforced concrete pavement is preferred, the following minimum section may be used:
x 6 inches PCC (4,000 psi minimum)
x No. 3 rebar at 24-inch centers each way
x No. 3 smooth joint dowels at 24-inch centers
x 12 inches Class 2 AB (Caltrans 2015) compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density
x 12 inches subgrade, compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density

3. Alternately, the pavement may be designed by the architect/engineer for the appropriate loads. Provided that a minimum of 12 inches of compacted Class 2 AB is under the pavement, the design may be based on a modulus of subgrade reaction (k30) of 200 pci (psi/in). Specification of concrete properties and reinforcing is left to the architect/engineer.

4. The above sections should apply to the parking structure basement slabs as well as trash enclosures and stress pads, with the exception that the 18-inch thick nonexpansive fill section is satisfied. This section may consist of an additional 6 inches of Class 2 AB or other nonexpansive materials discussed in the “Grading” Section of this report.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
36

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 32 1912-016.SER.REV2

5. Pavement surfaces should be sloped to freely drain toward appropriate drainage facilities.

Water should not be allowed to stand or pond on or adjacent to pavement or other improvements as it could infiltrate into the AB and/or subgrade, causing premature pavement deterioration.

6. To reduce migration of surface drainage into the subgrade, maintenance of pavement areas is critical. Any cracks that develop in the pavement should be promptly sealed.

7. The local jurisdiction may have additional requirements for pavement that could take precedence over the above recommendations.

Drainage and Maintenance

1. Unpaved ground surfaces should be graded during construction and, per Section 1804.4 of the CBC, finish graded to direct surface runoff away from foundations, slopes, and other improvements at a minimum 5 percent grade for a minimum distance of 10 feet. If this is not feasible due to the terrain, property lines, or other factors, swales with improved surfaces, area drains, or other drainage features should be provided to divert drainage away from these areas.

2. Paved surfaces should provide positive drainage away from foundations, slopes and other improvements.

3. Where infiltration stormwater control measure areas will lie within 10 feet of a foundation, flatwork, pavement, or other similar surface improvement, moisture protection should be provided between the infiltration feature and the improvement.

Moisture protection should consist of curbs or impermeable liners, deepened to a minimum of 2 feet below foundations, or 1 foot below the bottom of the infiltration facility, whichever is deeper.

4. To reduce the potential for planter drainage gaining access to subslab areas, any raised planter boxes adjacent to foundations should be installed with drains and sealed sides and bottoms. Drains should also be provided for areas adjacent to the structure that would not otherwise freely drain.

5. The eaves of the proposed buildings should be provided with roof gutters. Runoff from roof gutters, downspouts, area drains, weep holes, etc., should discharge to an

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
37

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 33 1912-016.SER.REV2
appropriate outlet in a nonerosive manner away from foundations and other improvements in accordance with the requirements of the governing agencies. Erosion protection should be placed at all discharge points unless the discharge is to a pavement surface.

6. To reduce the potential for damage due to erosion it is essential that the surface soils, particularly those disturbed during construction, be stabilized by vegetation or other means during and following construction. Care should be taken to establish and maintain vegetation. The landscaping and exterior flatwork should be installed to maintain the surface drainage recommended above.

7. To reduce the potential for disruption of drainage patterns and undermining of foundations and other improvements, rodent activity should be aggressively controlled.

Observation and Testing

1. It must be recognized that the recommendations contained in this report are based on a limited number of borings and rely on continuity of the subsurface conditions encountered. Therefore, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to provide consultation during the design phase, to review plans as they near completion, to interpret this report during construction, and to provide construction monitoring in the form of testing and observation.

2. At a minimum, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to provide:
x Review of the project plans as they near completion
x Professional observation during grading and backfill
x Oversight of soil special inspection
x Oversight of special inspection for shallow and deep foundation excavation/installation

3. Special inspection of grading and backfill should be provided as per Section 1705.6 and Table 1705.6 of the 2019 CBC. The special inspector should be under the direction of the geotechnical engineer. It is our opinion that none of the grading construction is of a nature that should warrant continuous special inspection; periodic special inspection should suffice. Subject to approval by the Building Official, the exception to continuous special inspection is described in Section 1704.2 of the 2019 CBC and should be specified

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
38

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 34 1912-016.SER.REV2
by the architect/engineer and periodic special inspection of the following items should be provided by the special inspector.
x Stripping and clearing of vegetation and unsuitable materials x Shoring installation observation
x Overexcavation to the recommended depths
x Scarification, moisture conditioning, and compaction of the soil x Fill quality, placement, and compaction
x Utility trench backfill
x Foundation excavations
x Retaining wall drains and backfill
x Subgrade and AB compaction and proof-rolling

4. Continuous special inspection of the cast-in-place deep foundation installation should be provided as per Section 1705.8 of the 2019 CBC. The special inspector should be under the direction of the geotechnical engineer.

5. A program of quality control should be developed prior to beginning grading. The contractor or project manager should determine any additional inspection items required by the architect/engineer or the governing jurisdiction.

6. Locations and frequency of compaction tests should be as per the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. The recommended test locations and frequency may be subject to modification by the geotechnical engineer, based upon soil and moisture conditions encountered, size and type of equipment used by the contractor, the general trend of the results of compaction tests, or other factors.

7. A preconstruction conference among the owner, the geotechnical engineer, the governing agency, the special inspector, the project inspector, the architect/engineer, and contractors is recommended to discuss planned construction procedures and quality control requirements.

8. The geotechnical engineer should be notified at least 48 hours prior to beginning construction operations. If Earth Systems Pacific is not retained to provide construction observation and testing services, it shall not be responsible for the interpretation of the information by others or any consequences arising therefrom.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
39

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 35 1912-016.SER.REV2

9.0 CLOSURE
Our intent was to perform the investigation in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the locality of this project and under similar conditions. No representation, warranty, or guarantee is either expressed or implied. This report is intended for the exclusive use by the client as discussed in the “Scope of Services” Section. Application beyond the stated intent is strictly at the user's risk.

This report is valid for conditions as they exist at this time for the type of project described herein.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report could be rendered invalid, either in whole or in part, due to changes in building codes, regulations, standards of geotechnical or construction practice, changes in physical conditions, or the broadening of knowledge. If Earth Systems Pacific is not retained to provide construction observation and testing services, it shall not be responsible for the interpretation of the information by others or any consequences arising therefrom.

If changes with respect to project type or location become necessary, if items not addressed in this report are incorporated into plans, or if any of the assumptions used in the preparation of this report are not correct, this firm shall be notified for modifications to this report. Any items not specifically addressed in this report should comply with the CBC and the requirements of the governing jurisdiction.

The preliminary recommendations of this geotechnical report are based upon the geotechnical conditions encountered at the site and may be augmented by additional requirements of the architect/engineer, or by additional recommendations provided by the geotechnical engineer based on conditions exposed at the time of construction.

This document, the data, conclusions, and recommendations contained herein are the property of Earth Systems Pacific. This report shall be used in its entirety, with no individual sections reproduced or used out of context. Copies may be made only by Earth Systems Pacific, the client, and the client’s authorized agents for use exclusively on the subject project. Any other use is subject to federal copyright laws and the written approval of Earth Systems Pacific.

Thank you for this opportunity to have been of service. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office at your convenience.

End of Text.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
40

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 36 1912-016.SER.REV2

TECHNICAL REFERENCE LIST
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2015. "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction." Documents 302.1R-15.

Al Atik, L. and Sitar, N. 2010 October. “Seismic Earth Pressures on Cantilever Retaining Structures.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136 (10), American Society of Civil Engineers.

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2017. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16.

Bryce Engstrom Architect. Undated. Plan Set for San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
California Building Code. 2019. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2015. Standard Specifications.

Dibblee, Thomas W. Jr., 2004, Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California, Dibblee Geology Center Map #DF-129 scale 1:24,000, first printing November 2004.

Earth Systems Pacific (ESP 2011). Geotechnical, Geologic, and Hazardous Materials Assessment Report, Palm and Nipomo Parking Structure, Palm and Nipomo Streets, San Luis Obispo, California, File No.: SL-16264-SA, Doc. No.: 1104-091.RPT, dated April 21, 2011 Earth Systems Pacific. 2013. “Native Soil Assessment for Small Infiltration – Based Stormwater Control Measures.”
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 2012, Flood Insurance Rate Map, panel 06079C1068G, effective November 19, 2012.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). November 2012. “Flood Insurance Rate Map,” Map Number 06079C1068G.

Google Earth. 2019. Google Earth [website], retrieved from:
http://www.google.com/earth/index.html
Kleinfelder, Inc. Constraints Level Environmental and Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed Palm-Nipomo Garage Site, San Luis Obispo, California, dated June 8, 2005 Lew, M., et al. 2010. “Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Building Basements.” Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Convention Proceedings.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
41

Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure December 13, 2019
and Repertory Theatre (Revised January 7, 2020)
303310-001 37 1912-016.SER.REV2
TECHNICAL REFERENCE LIST (continued)
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2019, PEER Ground Motion Database, a web application to access earthquake data and spectra generated with NGA-West2 attenuation equations, accessed at https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/site RRM Design Group. May 2006. Topographic Map
RRM Design Group. September 6, 2019. Site Plan, Palm and Nipomo Parking Structure.

San Luis Obispo, County of, 2019, Department of Planning and Building, Land Use View, interactive web, https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/PlanningBuilding/Information-Systems/Services/Land-Use-View.aspx SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). 2019. “Seismic Design Map Tool.” Retrieved from: https://seismicmaps.org/
USGS (United States Geological Survey), 2019a, Risk Targeted Ground Motion Calculator, a web application that can calculate risk targeted ground motion values in accordance with “method 2” of ASCE 7 standard, accessed at
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/rtgm/
USGS (United States Geological Survey), 2019b, Unified Hazard Tool, an on-line portal to access public domain fault models and data, and generate earthquake spectra based on probability, accessed at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Watry (Watry Design Group, Inc.). 2019. Preliminary Site Plan, Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and Repertory Theatre.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
42

APPENDIX A
Figure 1 – Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map
Boring Log Legend
Boring Logs
x ESP 2019
x ESP 2011
x Kleinfelder 2005

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
43 Page 1372 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
44 Page 1373 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
45

drafting/masters/Boring Log Legend121714.dwg
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)

OBSERVED MOISTURE CONDITION

DRY SLIGHTLY MOIST MOIST VERY MOIST WET (SATURATED)

TYPICAL BEDROCK HARDNESS

TYPICAL BEDROCK WEATHERING

GRAIN SIZES

CONSISTENCY

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
46 Page 1375 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
47 Page 1376 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.

2.5" Concrete

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 1 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger/ Mud Rotary Core DATE: 9/4/19 DRILL RIG: CME 55 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer
Boring No. 1
SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL: brown,
stiff, moist
CL

5.0 - 6.5

10.0 - 11.5 7
4 9
4 4
11 2.0 - 7.0

ELEVATION
(feet)

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
SANDY LEAN CLAY: brown, medium stiff,
moist (Alluvium)
SILTY CLAY: brown, very stiff, slightly moist
switched to mud rotary core @ 10'
SANDY LEAN CLAY: brown, stiff, slightly
moist
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY:
brown, medium dense, moist
CL
CLCL
SPML

15.0 - 16.5

20.0 - 21.5

21.5 - 23.0
12 6
14 11
8 16
30 25
39 1.75

1.25 METASANDSTONE: light brown to olive brown
(Franciscan Mélange)
Clay and gravel slough in upper 0.5',
discolored yellow brown sandstone,
pulverized and weathered intensely, sheared
and fractured throughout, less weathered and
greenish gray from 25.7' down, rock grade
R0-R1

23.0 - 28.0 RECOVERY RQD

3.9 0

NR RUN TIME
SC

92.1 30.5

99.7 24.2
(Pocket Pen)

1.7 (TX-UU)

3.5 (Pocket Pen)
(Pocket Pen)

1.8 (TX-UU)

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
48 Page 1377 of 2037
AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger/ Mud Rotary Core
DRILL RIG: CME 55 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

RECOVERY
RQD

RUN TIME
(min./ft.)

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Intensely sheared and pulverized sandstone,
friable, shears running from 1-10 mm in
thickness, dark gray to greenish gray,
intensely fractured

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
Multiple crushed zones, slightly fractured,
joints are tight

33.0 - 38.0

38.0 - 43.0

28.0 - 33.0

ELEVATION
(feet)

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
Same as above
Dark gray to greenish gray sandstone,
intensely sheared and fractured, friable
End of Boring @ 53' due to practical refusal.

No subsurface water encountered.

Rock varies in grade, intensely fractured, 43.0 - 48.0
some joints open 2-3 mm, moderately
weathered, rock grade R3 to 46.6 then R0-R1

48.0 - 53.0
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.

5.2 0

5.0 0

5.0 0

5.2 13

5.0 76 Rock grade R3, moderately fractured
PAGE 2 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/4/19
Boring No. 1
22 min/5'

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
49 Page 1378 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times. 6" Asphalt Concrete

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 1 OF 3
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/3/19
Boring No. 2
SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL: brown,
stiff, moist
Switched to mud rotary core @ 10'
SP

5.0 - 6.5

10.0 - 11.5 9
5 13
8 12
13 ELEVATION
(feet)

98.0 17.3

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY: brown
with red and yellow mottles, medium dense,
slightly moist (Alluvium)
LEAN CLAY: brown, stiff, slightly moist
SANDY LEAN CLAY: brown, very stiff, moist
CL
CL
CL

15.0 - 16.5

20.0 - 21.5

25.0 - 26.5
11 8
13 17
20 25
7 5
9 4.5

1.5 decreasing sand content

14.0 - 19.0

4.5 AUGER TYPE: 6" Solid Stem Auger/ Mud Rotary
DRILL RIG: CME 55 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

98.4 20.3
105.0 21.4
(Pocket Pen)
(Pocket Pen)
(Pocket Pen)

3.3 (TX-UU)

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
50 Page 1379 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

RECOVERY
RQD
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California

35.0 -38.0

ELEVATION
(feet)

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)

43.0 - 48.0

48.0 - 53.0
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.

0.65 13

0.7 0

2.9 0
SILT: brown, hard, slightly moist
CLAYEY SAND: olive brown, very dense,
moist
SANDSTONE: medium grained, greenish
black, no HCl reaction with infil.
(Franciscan Mélange)
Rock grade R4-R5
ML
SC
5 17
30 30.0 - 31.5

35.0 - 36.5
15 11
50 RECOVERY RQD
NR
Intensely sheared rock fragments in a matrix, 38.0 - 43.0 dark gray with green chlorite ribbons, larger
fragments at the top with sheared gray
sandstone on bottom
Rock grade R0-R1
Gravel sized fragments of sandstone and
chert. Fragments are R4. Bottom is sheared
rock matrix
@ 45' Fluid Loss ~1-2 GPM
@ 48' bit change
Gravel sized rock fragments top 0.5'
Intensely sheared sandstone with
coarse-grained sand of various colors. Fault
gouge surounding a small cobble of
sandstone.

NR

3.3 0
GRAYWACKE SANDSTONE: gray, vague
indistinct bedding, slightly weathered, R4 53.0 - 58.0 5.1 95 PAGE 2 OF 3
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/3/19
Boring No. 2
Converted to mud rotary core at 35' RUN TIME
NR 33 min/5'
46 min/5'
75 min/5'
39 min/5'
NR
Same as above
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

AUGER TYPE: 6" Solid Stem Auger/ Mud Rotary
DRILL RIG: CME 55 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
51 Page 1380 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

RECOVERY
RQD

RUN TIME
(min./ft.)

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California

ELEVATION
(feet)

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.

NR
PAGE 3 OF 3
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/3/19
Boring No. 2

53.0 - 58.0
Rock Grade R3

5.1 95

58.0 - 63.0
GRAYWACKE SANDSTONE: gray, vague
indistinct bedding, slightly weathered, rock
grade R4
End of Boring @ 63.0' due to practical refusal.

No subsurface water encountered.

3.8 76
39 min/5'
82 min/5'
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

AUGER TYPE: 6" Solid Stem Auger/ Mud Rotary
DRILL RIG: CME 55 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
52 Page 1381 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times. 6" Asphalt Concrete

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 1 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/4/19
Boring No. 3
SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL: brown,
stiff, fine sand, fine subangular to angular
gravel
CL

5.0 - 6.5

10.0 - 11.5 7
4 11
2 3
4 ELEVATION
(feet)
107.8 22.2

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL: brown, stiff,
moist, fine gravel, subangular gravel (Alluvium)
very stiff
CL
CL 15.0 - 16.5

20.0 - 21.5

25.0 - 26.5
11 7
14 12
10 17
50/3"
34 1.75

3.75 CLAYSTONE: gray, soft, dry, highly weathered
(Franciscan Mélange)

3.0 - 5.0
AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: R. Mettler
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

1.1 (TX-UU)
(Pocket Pen)

1.7 (TX-UU)
(Pocket Pen)

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
53 Page 1382 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 2 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/4/19
Boring No. 3
Same as above
50/3"

ELEVATION
(feet)

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
End of boring @ 28.8' due to practical refusal
No subsurface water encountered

28.5 - 28.8
AUGER TYPE: 6" Solid Stem Auger/ Mud Rotary
DRILL RIG: CME 55 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
54 Page 1383 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times. 7" Asphalt Concrete

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 1 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/5/19
Boring No. 4
CL

5.0 - 6.5

10.0 - 11.5 6
5 10
4 8
14 ELEVATION
(feet)
100.6 27.2

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL: hard, moist,
brown, fine to medium gravel (Alluvium)
very stiff to hard, brown 15.0 - 16.5

20.0 - 21.5

25.0 - 26.5
10 7
13 11
6 23
50/5"
19 CLAYSTONE: gray, soft, slightly moist, highly
weathered. (Franciscan Mélange)
AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: R. Mettler
very stiff

6.0 - 10.0
SANDY LEAN CLAY: stiff, moist, light brown,
fine sand
CL
increasing sand, very stiff
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

3.0 (Pocket Pen)

1.75 (Pocket Pen)

3.75 (Pocket Pen)

4.3 (TX-UU)

3.75 (Pocket Pen)

2.9 (TX-UU)

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
55 Page 1384 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 2 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/5/19
Boring No. 4
50/3"

ELEVATION
(feet)

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
End of boring @ 27.5' due to practical refusal
No subsurface water encountered

27.0 - 27.5
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: R. Mettler
No Recovery

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
56 Page 1385 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 1 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/6/19
Boring No. 5

5.0 - 6.5

10.0 - 11.5 17
8 19
7 14
18 ELEVATION
(feet)

96.0 12.1

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL: mottled,
yellow brown and red brown, medium dense,
slightly moist (Alluvium)
SANDY LEAN CLAY: stiff, moist, light brown,
fine sand

15.0 - 16.5

20.0 - 21.5

25.0 - 26.5
13 7
19 14
9 17
29 15

3.25 WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND:
mottled dark gray, olive brown, light brown,
dense, moist

4.0 AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer

11.0 - 16.0
CL
CL - SILTY CLAY: brown, very stiff, slightly moist
ML
SC
33 GW
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig. (Pocket Pen)

4.5 (TX-UU)
(Pocket Pen)

98.6 18.6
105.6 19.8
115.1 11.3
wet

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
57 Page 1386 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 2 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/6/19
Boring No. 5

ELEVATION
(feet)

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
End of boring @ 40.5' due to practical refusal
Groundwater encountered @ 19.5'

30.0 - 31.5 WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND
SAND: brown/gray/olive brown, medium
dense, wet
GW
3 7
11 7
12 12

35.0 - 36.5
CLAYSTONE: only observed in cuttings 40.0 - 40.5 50/6"
Same as above
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer
No Recovery

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
58 Page 1387 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION

2.0 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times. 6" Asphalt Concrete over 2" Aggregate Base

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 1 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/4/19
Boring No. 6
GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: stiff,
brown, moist, fine sand, fine to medium gravel
CL

5.0 - 6.5

10.0 - 11.5 14
12 14
7 12
17 ELEVATION
(feet)

97.4 17.5

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND GRAVEL:
brown, very stiff, moist, fine sand and gravel
(Alluvium)
SANDY LEAN CLAY: very stiff, brown, moist,
fine sands
CL
CL 15.0 - 16.5

20.0 - 21.5

25.0 - 26.5
9 5
11 14
5 29
13 14

1.5 2.5
CLAYSTONE: dark gray, very soft, moist to
wet, highly weathered, closley fractured
(Franciscan Mélange)

3.0 - 6.0

3.5 AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer
GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY: stiff, brown, moist,
fine to coarse gravel
40 CL
increasing fine gravel, fine to medium sand,
coarse gravel found in shoe
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig. (Pocket Pen)

1.5 (TX-UU)
(Pocket Pen)
(Pocket Pen)
(Pocket Pen)

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
59 Page 1388 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 2 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/4/19
Boring No. 6

ELEVATION
(feet)

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)

30.0 - 30.1 End of boring @ 30.1' due to practical refusal Subsurface water encountered @ 25.0'
No water present when hole left open and
before backfilling
50/1"
Same as above
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
60 Page 1389 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times. 6" Asphalt Concrete

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 1 OF 1
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/5/19
Boring No. 7
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL: brown, medium
dense, slightly moist (Alluvium)

5.0 - 6.5

10.0 - 11.5 9
5 12
14 15
17 ELEVATION
(feet)

98.2 15.7

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
LEAN CLAY: brown, stiff, moist
SC
CL 15.0 - 16.5 8
5 15
25 23
23 2.75

4.0 16.5 - 18.0
AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger/ Mud Rotary Core
DRILL RIG: CME 55 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer
CL LEAN CLAY: brown, stiff, moist
SANDY LEAN CLAY: brown, stiff, moist
dark yellow brown to olive brown, fragments of
graywacke sandstone (dark gray)
Fault Gouge: fragments of metavolcanic rock
and sandstone in a greenish gray sheared
matrix, rock grade R4 (Franciscan Mélange)
CL

3.0 - 8.0

RECOVERY RQD RUN TIME

1.1 0

0.4 0

18.0 - 23.0 NR

23.0 - 28.0 NR 10 min/5'
Recovered gravel sized fragments of slightly
weather graywacke sandstone, rock grade R5
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

Converted to mud rotary core at 18'
(Pocket Pen)

2.0 (TX-UU)
(Pocket Pen)

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
61 Page 1390 of 2037
AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger/ Mud Rotary Core
DRILL RIG: CME 55 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

RECOVERY
RQD

RUN TIME

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Fault Gouge: intensely sheared and
fractured, all primary structures obliterated,
generally black to dark gray with pockets of
green chloritized material, foliation of
shearing dips - 60° -70°, rock grade R0-R1

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
rock grade R0 33.0 - 38.0

38.0 - 43.0

28.0 - 33.0

ELEVATION
(feet)

UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
Same as above

42.5 - 43' clasts of greenish gray sandstone
with calcite filled joints, rock grade R0-R1
End of Boring @ 53' due to practical refusal
No subsurface groundwater encountered.

43.0 - 48.0 extruding core caused compression of sample material
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.

4.7 0

5.0 0

5.1 0

3.9 0
PAGE 2 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/5/19
Boring No. 7
NR
LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
62 Page 1391 of 2037
DEPTH
(feet)

USCS CLASS
SYMBOL

INTERVAL
(feet)
SAMPLE
TYPE

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

MOISTURE
(%)
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

SAMPLE DATA

SOIL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.

Topsoil

PALM-NIPOMO STREET PARKING

STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE
Palm Street and Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California
PAGE 1 OF 2
JOB NO.: 303310-001
DATE: 9/6/19
Boring No. 8
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL: brown, medium
dense, slightly moist (Alluvium)

5.0 - 6.5

10.0 - 11.5 9
3 15
8 19
21 ELEVATION
(feet)

28.7 UNDRAINED
SHEAR

STRENGTH
(ksf)
very stiff
SC

15.0 - 16.5 20
8 28
12 7
17 4.25
>4.5
AUGER TYPE: 6" Solid Stem Auger/ Mud Rotary
DRILL RIG: CME 55 with Automatic Hammer
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer
SANDY LEAN CLAY: brown, stiff, slightly
moist
CL
moist
SILTY CLAY: brown, very stiff, slightly moist

8.0 - 13.0
CL
-ML
WELL GRADED SAND with CLAY and
GRAVEL: mottled brown with dark yellow,
medium dense, wet

20.0 - 21.5

25.0 - 26.5 SW
-SC
12 9
22 LEGEND: Ring Sample Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT Continuous Core NR = No Recovery RQD = Rock Quality Desig.

92.2 115.8 15.4

99.1 26.4

98.2 20.5
(Pocket Pen)
(TX-UU)
(Pocket Pen)
27 3.75
wet
(Pocket Pen)

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
63 Page 1392 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
64

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
65 Page 1394 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
66

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
67

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
68

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
69

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
70

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
71

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
72

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
73

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
74 Page 1403 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
75 Page 1404 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
76 Page 1405 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
77 Page 1406 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
78 Page 1407 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
79 Page 1408 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
80 Page 1409 of 2037

APPENDIX B
Laboratory Test Results
x ESP 2019
x ESP 2011
x Kleinfelder 2005

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
81 Page 1410 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
82 Page 1411 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
83 Page 1412 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
84 Page 1413 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
85 Page 1414 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
86 Page 1415 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
87 Page 1416 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
88 Page 1417 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
89 Page 1418 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
90 Page 1419 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
91 Page 1420 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
92 Page 1421 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
93 Page 1422 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
94 Page 1423 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
95 Page 1424 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
96 Page 1425 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
97 Page 1426 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
98 Page 1427 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
99 Page 1428 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
100 Page 1429 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
101 Page 1430 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
102 Page 1431 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
103 Page 1432 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
104 Page 1433 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
105 Page 1434 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
106 Page 1435 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
107 Page 1436 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
108 Page 1437 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
109 Page 1438 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
110 Page 1439 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
111 Page 1440 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
112 Page 1441 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
113 Page 1442 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
114 Page 1443 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
115 Page 1444 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
116 Page 1445 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
117 Page 1446 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
118 Page 1447 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
119 Page 1448 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
120 Page 1449 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
121 Page 1450 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
122 Page 1451 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
123 Page 1452 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
124 Page 1453 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
125 Page 1454 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
126 Page 1455 of 2037

APPENDIX C
LID Infiltration Test Results

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
127 Page 1456 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
128 Page 1457 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
129 Page 1458 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
130 Page 1459 of 2037

APPENDIX D
Geologic Map – ESP 2011
FIRM Flood Zone Map – FEMA 2008 (ESP 2011)
FIRM Flood Zone Map – FEMA 2012
Table D-1 – Spectral Response Values

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
131 Page 1460 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
132 Page 1461 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
133

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
134 Page 1463 of 2037
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure v2.1 303310-001
GeoMean
Probab. 2%
in 50 year
MCE
Spectrum
Probab. 1%
collapse in 50
year MCEr
Spectrum
Max 84th
Percentile
Determ. MCE
Spectrum
Determ.

Lower Limit
MCE
Spectrum
Determ.

MCE
Spectrum
MCE
Ground
Motion
(SaM)
Site Specific
MCE
Spectrum
2019 CBC
MCE
Spectrum
Design
Spectral
Response (Sa)
2019 CBC
Design
Spectrum
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6b) (7) (8) (9)
2475-year 2475-year - - - Min (2),(5) Max (6),1.5*(8) 2/3*(7) (ASCE 21.2.1) (ASCE 21.2.1.2) (ASCE 21.2.2) (ASCE 21.2.2) (ASCE 21.2.2) (ASCE 21.2.3) (ASCE 21.2.3) (ASCE 21.3)

0.00 0.549 0.549 - - - 0.549 0.549 0.455 0.366 0.304

0.05 0.744 0.649 - - - 0.649 0.649 0.655 0.433 0.437

0.10 0.939 0.749 - - - 0.749 0.749 0.854 0.499 0.570

0.15 1.104 0.894 - - - 0.894 0.894 1.054 0.596 0.703

0.20 1.270 1.038 - - - 1.038 1.038 1.139 0.692 0.759

0.30 1.412 1.159 - - - 1.159 1.159 1.139 0.773 0.759

0.40 1.366 1.136 - - - 1.136 1.136 1.139 0.757 0.759

0.50 1.320 1.112 - - - 1.112 1.112 1.139 0.741 0.759

0.75 1.088 0.898 - - - 0.898 0.911 1.139 0.607 0.759

1.00 0.856 0.734 - - - 0.734 0.780 0.975 0.520 0.650

1.50 0.655 0.565 - - - 0.565 0.565 0.650 0.376 0.433

2.00 0.455 0.395 - - - 0.395 0.395 0.488 0.263 0.325

3.00 0.297 0.259 - - - 0.259 0.260 0.325 0.173 0.217

4.00 0.212 0.185 - - - 0.185 0.195 0.244 0.130 0.163

5.00 0.162 0.140 - - - 0.140 0.156 0.195 0.104 0.130

8.00 0.117 0.000 - - - --- --

10.00 0.112 0.000 - - - --- --
CRS: 0.889
CR1: 0.902
FPGA 1.13
Fa 1.077
Fv 2.50
PGA 0.468 g
SS 1.057 g
S1 0.390 g
SMS 1.043 g
SM1 0.975 g
T0 0.17
Ts 0.86
PGAM 0.550 g
SDS 0.695 g
SD1 0.565 g
1 g = 980.6 cm/sec2 =32.2 ft/sec2 SMS 1.043 g
PSV (ft/sec) = 32.2(Sa)T/(2p) SM1 0.847 g
Key: Probab. = Probabilistic, Determ. = Deterministic, MCE = Maximum Considered Earthquake Design Acceleration Values
MCER, 5% damped, Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter
Site-Specific

1.31 1-Second Period Seismic
Design Category:

Short-Period Seismic Design
Category: Site-Specific
Vertical Coefficient (CV)
DD
Table D-1 - Spectral Response Values
Probabilistic and Deterministic Response Spectra for MCE compared to Code Spectra for 5% Viscous Damping Ratio
Natural Period
T
(seconds)
Reference: ASCE 7-16, Chapters 21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 11.4, and 11.8 Deterministic MCE not calculated due to
Exception in 21.2.2 ASCE 7-16. 2019 CBC Site Coefficients Mapped MCE Acceleration Values
Probabilistic Spectrum from 2014 USGS Ground Motion Mapping Program adjusted for site conditions and maximum rotated component of ground motion using NGA, Column 2 has risk coefficients CR applied.

EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
135 Page 1464 of 2037

APPENDIX E
Soil Corrosivity Study by HDR, Inc.

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
136 Page 1465 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
137 Page 1466 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
138 Page 1467 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
139 Page 1468 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
140 Page 1469 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
141 Page 1470 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
142 Page 1471 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
143 Page 1472 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
144 Page 1473 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
145 Page 1474 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
146 Page 1475 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
147 Page 1476 of 2037

APPENDIX F
Typical Detail A: Pipe Placed Parallel to Foundations
Tremie Method

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
148 Page 1477 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
149 Page 1478 of 2037

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
150 Page 1479 of 2037
July 10, 2020
File No.: 303310-001
Mr. Gordon T. Knowles
Watry Design, Inc.
2099 Gateway Place, Suite 550
San Jose, California 95110
PROJECT: PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE

PALM STREET AND NIPOMO STREET

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
SUBJECT: Addendum No. 1 – General Ground Improvement Parameters for Parking Structure
REFS: 1) Contract Amendment for Current Agreement Dated: 07/19/16, Palm Nipomo, San Luis Obispo, WDI Job #09079.111, by Watry Design, Inc., dated March 12, 2019
2) Geotechnical Engineering Report, Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure and Repertory Theatre, Palm Street and Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, California, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, dated December 13, 2019 (Revised January 7, 2020)
Dear Mr. Knowles:

As requested by Ms. Jessica McInerney of Watry Design, Inc. and per the authorization of the above referenced agreement, we have prepared this addendum letter to provide the following general geotechnical parameters for ground improvement; more detailed parameters will be provided at a later date after additional evaluation is completed. x We understand that an allowable dead plus live bearing pressure of 5,000 psf is desired by the structural designer; in our opinion, this can be achieved with several types of ground improvement methods. The allowable pressures should be confirmed with a verification testing program performed by the ground improvement contractor and confirmed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GEOR). x A one-third increase may be applied to the allowable dead plus live bearing pressure when transient loads such as wind and seismic are included x We understand it is desired by the structural designer to reduce total settlement to 1.5 inches or less for all loads including wind and seismic, and to 1 inch or less for the allowable dead plus live pressures stated above. Corresponding differential settlement for the cases of all loads (including wind and seismic), and dead plus live loads only, of

0.75-inch or less and 0.5-inch or less, respectively, over a horizontal distance of 30 feet, should be met.

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
151 Page 1480 of 2037
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure 2 July 10, 2020
And Repertory Theatre
San Luis Obispo, California
x Preliminary moduli of subgrade reaction of 100 pci and 30 pci may be used for the seismic and static cases, respectively, for the proposed shear wall footings, based on approximate footing dimensions of 12 feet wide and 70 feet long. The static case is based on the settlement and allowable dead plus live bearing pressure criteria provided above. x A friction coefficient of 0.40 may be used at the foundation concrete/soil contact END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1
If there are any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,
Earth Systems Pacific
Nick Zoetewey, PE, GE
Senior Engineer
Copy To: Watry Design, Inc., Attn: Ms. Jessica McInerney Doc. No. 2007-037.ADD1/cr

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
152 Page 1481 of 2037
July 16, 2020
File No.: 303310-001
Mr. Gordon T. Knowles
Watry Design, Inc.
2099 Gateway Place, Suite 550
San Jose, California 95110
PROJECT: PALM-NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE AND REPERTORY THEATRE

PALM STREET AND NIPOMO STREET

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
SUBJECT: Addendum No. 2 – Ground Improvement Guidelines for Parking Structure REFS: 1) Contract Amendment for Current Agreement Dated: 07/19/16, Palm Nipomo, San Luis Obispo, WDI Job #09079.111, by Watry Design, Inc., dated March 12, 2019
2) Addendum No. 1 – General Ground Improvement Parameters for Parking Structure
3) Geotechnical Engineering Report, Palm-Nipomo Street Parking Structure and Repertory Theatre, Palm Street and Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, California, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, dated December 13, 2019 (Revised January 7, 2020)
Dear Mr. Knowles:

As requested by Ms. Jessica McInerney of Watry Design, Inc. and per your authorization (Ref. No. 1), we have prepared this addendum letter to provide geotechnical guidelines for ground improvement. This letter is in addition to Addendum No. 1 (Ref. No. 2) which provided general ground improvement parameters.

Ground Improvement Design Parameters
x The purpose of implementing the ground improvement program for this site will be to increase the soil’s bearing capacity to support the structure on shallow foundations instead of deep foundations (recommended in Ref. No. 3) and reduce the potential postconstruction settlements to those specified below. x We understand that an allowable (dead plus live) bearing pressure of 5,000 psf is desired by the structural designer; in our opinion, there are several types of ground improvement methods that can achieve this goal. The allowable pressures should be confirmed with a verification testing program performed by the ground improvement contractor and confirmed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GEOR).

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
153 Page 1482 of 2037
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure 2 July 16, 2020
And Repertory Theatre
San Luis Obispo, California
x A one-third increase may be applied to the allowable dead plus live bearing pressure when transient loads such as wind and seismic are included x We understand it is desired by the structural designer to reduce total settlement to 1.5 inches or less for all loads including wind and seismic, and to 1 inch or less for the allowable dead plus live pressure stated above. Corresponding differential settlement for the cases of all loads (including wind and seismic), and dead plus live loads only, of 0.75- inch or less and 0.5-inch or less, respectively, over a horizontal distance of 30 feet, should be met.
x Preliminary moduli of subgrade reaction of 100 pci and 30 pci may be used for the seismic and static cases, respectively, for the proposed shear wall footings, based on approximate footing dimensions of 12 feet wide and 70 feet long. The static case is based on the settlement and allowable dead plus live bearing pressure criteria provided above. x A friction coefficient of 0.40 may be used at the foundation concrete/soil contact x Each ground improvement element should extend from near the footing bottoms to the underlying bedrock
x Ground improvement element spacing of 4 to 6 feet on center is anticipated in order to achieve the criteria provided above.
x Due to the proposed increase in bearing capacity, an additional row of ground improvement elements should be included outside the foundation limits. These elements should be consistent with those installed beneath the foundations. x Although several ground improvement methods are geotechnically feasible for the site, the proposed method should consider disturbances, such as noise and vibration, to the surrounding area and structures that are adjacent to the site. x Potential ground improvement methods should not include untreated soil (i.e. on-site soil properties modified by compaction only, and not using additives such as cement or fly ash). If the ground improvement method includes compaction of aggregate, then compaction by pneumatic tamping instead of vibration (i.e. vibroflotation) should be considered to reduce the potential for disturbance by vibration to structures that are adjacent to the site.

Performance Testing
x The ground improvement design should meet the allowable bearing and settlement criteria provided above; therefore, verification that the criteria are met should be by performance testing.

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
154 Page 1483 of 2037
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure 3 July 16, 2020
And Repertory Theatre
San Luis Obispo, California
x Prior to construction, the contractor should submit to the GEOR design calculations and plans for the installation of ground improvement members proposed to be tested. x Performance testing should consist of at least two modulus tests in compression on an individual ground improvement element or in a composite modulus test over a group of elements surrounded by soil. The test should be performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1143 and should be tested to at least 200 percent of the design capacity. If elements are required to resist uplift forces, at least one element should be tested in tension.
x The location of the modulus test(s) should be determined by the GEOR. x A representative of the GEOR should be onsite on a full-time basis during installation and testing of the ground improvement element(s) to be used in performance testing. x Performance load test data should be submitted to the GEOR for review to confirm the proposed method achieves the ground improvement requirements. x After completion of the testing program, the contractor should submit to the GEOR a finalized ground improvement report that should include calculations and other supporting information indicating the design criteria will be met. At a minimum, the report should also include the ground improvement element layout, spacing, diameter, length, top and bottom elevations, as well as QA/QC procedures.

Construction Considerations
x Production elements should be constructed in the same manner (overall diameter, depth, compaction effort, etc.) as the elements tested during the performance testing program. x Representatives of the GEOR should be onsite on a full-time basis during production ground improvement installation.
x Unless a ground improvement option is chosen to treat the soils in place, significant spoils will be generated during excavation for the ground improvement elements and will need to be removed from the site.
x Significant disturbance and potentially heave (depending on ground improvement method) may result to the ground surface during ground improvement. To allow for this, the site should be roughly graded to the bottom of the nonexpansive fill section (18 inches below finish pad grade) prior to ground improvement. After the ground improvement has been completed, the exposed surface should be regraded to roughly 18 inches below

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
155 Page 1484 of 2037
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure 4 July 16, 2020
And Repertory Theatre
San Luis Obispo, California
finish pad grade, the exposed surface then ripped, moisture conditioned and recompacted, then fine-graded to the elevation above. The nonexpansive fill section would then be place above.

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 2
If there are any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,
Earth Systems Pacific
Nick Zoetewey, PE, GE
Senior Engineer
Copy To: Watry Design, Inc., Attn: Ms. Jessica McInerney Doc. No. 2007-055.ADD2/cr

APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
156 Page 1485 of 2037

APPENDIX D

SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
805 547 0900
i [email protected]
www.rinconconsultants.com
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
September 20, 2022
Project 22-12836
Brian Nelson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
c/o Lief McKay via email: [email protected]
Subject: Soil Assessment Report, Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project, San Luis Obispo, California
Mr. Nelson,
On behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo (City), Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has prepared this report presenting the findings of a soil assessment performed at 609 Palm Street in San Luis Obispo, California (Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The soil assessment was performed for compliance with HAZ-1 of the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project (Project) Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP).

The following sections describe the Project and site background, soil assessment methodology, screening criteria, analytical findings of the soil assessment, and conclusions and recommendations.

Background
Project Description
The site is currently developed with a surface level parking lot divided by a sloped garden planter, creating an approximate 4 to 6-foot height variation between the upper and lower parking sections (Figure 2). The area consists of overhead power lines, mature trees, and underground utilities surrounding the perimeter. The Project includes the construction of a multi-level parking structure in roughly the same area as the existing surface parking lot at the corner of Palm and Nipomo streets, and construction of a Repertory Theatre structure to the southeast towards Monterey Street. The portion of the Project site that was included in the soil assessment was the planned parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets. Our understanding of Project earthwork was based on review of the April 20, 2020, Preliminary Palm and Nipomo Phase 1 On-Site Improvement Plans prepared by RRM Design Group. The existing parking lot and structures will be demolished, and then excavated to maximum depths of 18 feet. Raw cut is estimated as 15,300 cubic yards. In the assessment area at 609 Palm Street, the Project excavation depths will be between 2 and 6 feet (RRM 2020).

Site Setting
The site slopes downward from southeast to northwest with a maximum elevation of 203 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the southeast corner, and minimum elevation of 190 feet AMSL at the northwest corner (Earth Systems Pacific, 2011).

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
157 Page 1487 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project
609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California

The site is characterized by alluvial sand and gravel from surrounding valley areas and is underlain by Franciscan Assemblage, primarily consisting of greywacke sandstone and metavolcanic rock . This metavolcanic rock often has high levels of iron, nickel, chromium, and magnesium (Earth Systems Pacific 2011). Alluvium observed during an assessment performed by Kleinfelder contained inconsistent zones of sandy clay, clay, and clayey gravel underlain by weak to moderately strong shale bedrock (Kleinfelder 2005).

Groundwater was first encountered at approximately 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) in one boring advanced by Kleinfelder in 2005 and between 24 and 30 feet bgs in four borings advanced by Earth Systems Pacific at the site in 2011.

Site History
A June 8, 2005, report titled Constraints Level Environmental and Geotechnical Assessment (report) prepared by Kleinfelder describes previous site uses, areas of concern for soil impacts, and soil assessment findings. Except for 960 Nipomo Street (address changed to 609 Palm Street in 1992), most of the site appears to have been residential use prior to development as a parking lot. A welding shop and automotive repair station were previously located at 960 Nipomo Street. The onsite parking lot development appears to occur after 1998. The report included documents from Cleath and Associates (Cleath) and San Luis Obispo (SLO) City Fire Department that describe the following potential areas of concern at 960 Nipomo/609 Palm:
ƒ Hydraulic lift. A hydraulic lift was removed in the early 1990s. No evidence of soil discoloration and odor were reported by Cleath in the excavation and soil stockpile (Cleath 1992). ƒ Oil-stained surface soil was identified near the northeast corner of the building at the garage entrance. During an inspection performed by Cleath in 1992, the area of oil-stained soil was no longer evident (Cleath 1992).
ƒ Dry well. A dry well approximately 15 feet bgs was observed. A 1991 memorandum from Michael Smith, SLO City Hazardous Materials Inspector, recommends destruction per County Health Department standards (SLO 1991).
ƒ Concrete pit (mechanics pit). A memorandum from Michael Smith, SLO City Hazardous Materials Inspector, indicates the concrete pit was found to be sound, with the concrete floor, and sides containing no indications of petroleum spillage (SLO 1991). ƒ Fill pipe. A fill pipe likely used as modified sewer clean-out was observed (SLO 1991).

Kleinfelder advanced three borings at the site with one of the borings being advanced at 960 Nipomo Street/609 Palm. One soil sample from each boring, collected at 5 feet bgs, was analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) using EPA Method 8270, and cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc using EPA Method 6010.

VOCs and SVOCs were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in the soil samples. Chromium and nickel were detected at total concentrations exceeding ten times soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC) levels and were analyzed for soluble chromium and soluble nickel using deionized water waste extraction test (DI-WET). Leachable chromium and nickel were detected at concentrations below STLC levels. DI-WET uses deionized water for metal extraction. If soil is to be disposed at a landfill, STLC analysis using WET with acid extraction is required for total metals detected at concentrations exceeding

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
158 Page 1488 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project
609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California

ten times STLC. The current assessment performed by Rincon and described in this report, analyzed metals by WET as warranted and described in the Results section.

Five borings were additionally advanced at the site by Earth Systems Pacific in 2011. Metals were detected in the soil samples at similar concentrations to the 2005 Kleinfelder assessment. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the oil range were detected at 3,700 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in the sample collected from 3 feet bgs in boring B-6, and at 140 mg/kg in the sample collected at 4 feet bgs in boring B-4. TPH was not detected or detected at low concentrations in the other analyzed soil samples.

Methodology
Boring locations were marked in the field using a GPS device with submeter accuracy (Figure 3). A hand auger was utilized on May 26, 2022, to continuously core five soil borings. Soil samples were collected at 2 feet bgs from borings HA1 to HA5, and 5 feet bgs from HA3 and HA4. When the target sampling depth was reached, a slide hammer sampler was utilized to collect discrete soil samples in 6-inch long by 2- inch diameter stainless steel sleeves.

A second mobilization was subsequently conducted on July 6, 2022. Additional characterization of constituents detected, as well as the need to resample locations requiring additional solubility analysis (due to inadvertent disposal of samples by the analytical laboratory) was conducted. A Geoprobe® was utilized by Oilfield Environmental and Compliance (OEC) under direction of Rincon to advance five borings to 2 feet bgs. Soil samples were collected from the borings (HA6 to HA10) at 2 feet bgs. Borings were continuously cored by hydraulically driving a two-inch diameter sampling rod into the ground. The macro-core sampler consists of a two-inch diameter tube containing an acetate sleeve liner. By advancing this sampler into the soil, soil was forced into the opening of the sampling tube and a sample was obtained. The designated sampling section (6-inch) length was cut and retained for laboratory analysis.

All samples retained were sealed with Teflon sheets, capped, labeled, and stored in a cooler, chilled to approximately 4 degrees Celsius, pending delivery to the analytical laboratory. Soil sample collection was in conformance with the current version of the United States EPA, SW-846 guidance document – Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. The samples were couriered to the analytical laboratory using chain-of-custody protocol.

Unretained soil recovered near the sample depths was used to field screen for VOCs, total lead, and to classify the soils. Soil was placed in a zip lock baggie and allowed to volatilize. After sufficient time, the baggie was slightly opened, and the photoionization detector (PID) probe tip was placed within oneeighth inch of the soil inside the baggie. Prior to testing, the PID was calibrated to an isobutylene standard. Soil was also field screened for lead with a x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer.

Observations made in the field, including soil classification per the Unified Soil Classification System, a description of any debris, discoloration, odors, PID readings, and XRF measurements were documented on boring logs completed for each location (Appendix A).

Following collection of soil samples, all equipment was washed in a non-phosphate detergent solution and double rinsed with water. Borings were backfilled with a concrete bentonite slurry. Asphalt patch was added to the top several inches of the borings to attain a flush paved finish. Soil cuttings and

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
159 Page 1489 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project
609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California

decontamination water were properly stored onsite in one labeled Department of Transportation 55- gallon drum pending receipt of analytical data.

Sampling was performed under the oversight of a California Professional Geologist.

Sample Analysis
The soil samples collected on May 26, 2022, were analyzed for the following:
ƒ Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using EPA Method 8270C Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM) mode ƒ Full range TPH using EPA Method 8015M
ƒ Metals using EPA Method 6010B/7471A
ƒ VOCs using EPA Method 8260B
Soil samples collected on July 6, 2022, were analyzed for the following:
ƒ Two soil samples (HA8-2 and HA9-2) were analyzed for PAHs using EPA Method 8270C SIM ƒ Five soil samples (HA6-2 to HA10-2) were analyzed for total chromium, STLC chromium, and toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) chromium using EPA Method 6010B ƒ Two soil samples (HA5-2 and HA6-2) were analyzed for total lead and STLC lead using EPA Method 6010B
ƒ One soil sample (HA6-2) was analyzed for total nickel and STLC nickel using EPA Method 6010B Screening Criteria
The site is within the jurisdictional area of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB). The CCRWQCB generally uses Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) developed by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. ESLs are conservative concentration thresholds designed to be protective of the environment and human health. Under most circumstances, the presence of a chemical in soil, soil vapor, groundwater, or ambient air at concentrations below the corresponding ESL can be assumed to not pose a significant, long term (chronic) threat to human health and the environment. Additional evaluation is generally necessary at sites where a chemical is detected at concentrations above the corresponding ESL. Active remediation may or may not be required depending on site specific conditions and considerations.

The constituents detected in soil samples were evaluated with consideration to the following:
ƒ Were any ESLs exceeded?
ƒ Is additional delineation (lateral or vertical) warranted based on the ESLs? ƒ Will remediation be required prior to or during construction? ƒ Will special handling and disposal of impacted soil be required during construction? Constituents detected during the Rincon assessment were compared to the following ESLs:
ƒ Tier 1 ESL: Acceptable for most land uses
ƒ Commercial/Industrial Sites: Based on direct contact at commercial and industrial sites. The lower value of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk was used as the screening level.

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
160 Page 1490 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project
609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California

ƒ Construction Worker: Based on direct contact with soil by a construction worker. The lower value of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk was used as the screening level. ƒ Leaching: Based on potential to leach to groundwater. The lower value for drinking water was used as the screening level.

The following describes additional constituent specific screening criteria:

PAHs
In addition to comparing PAHs to ESLs, a toxicity equivalency factor (TEF) was used to convert concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs to an equivalent concentration of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). The BaP toxicity equivalent (TE) was used to evaluate cancer risk posed by these PAHs from oral exposure. The seven carcinogenic PAHs and their respective TEFs are listed below:

Toxicity Equivalency Factors for Carcinogenic PAHs
PAH Compound TEF
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0
Benz(a)anthracene 0.1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.01
Chrysene 0.001
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.0
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.1
TPH
TPH was compared to ESLs. ESLs use the following carbon ranges to differentiate the different types of hydrocarbons: gasoline range organics are in the carbon 4 (C4) to C12 range, diesel range organics are in the C13 to C22 range, and oil range organics are in the C23 to C40 range. The analytical laboratory (OEC) distinguishes the type of hydrocarbons by the same carbon ranges as ESLs.

VOCs
VOCs were compared to ESLs.

Metals
Metals were compared to ESLs, background concentrations, and hazardous waste determination criteria. Typical background concentrations for metals in soil in California are as referenced in Kearny Foundation of Soil Science, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, March 1996. Hazardous waste determination, for soil disposal purposes, included comparing metals to the following screening criteria:
ƒ Total metal concentrations were compared to the respective total threshold limit concentration (TTLC), to evaluate whether the soil is a California non- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
161 Page 1491 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project
609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California

ƒ STLC metal concentrations were compared to STLC thresholds to evaluate whether the soil is a nonRCRA waste ƒ TCLP metal concentrations were compared to TCLP thresholds to evaluate whether the soil is a RCRA waste
Results
No soil discoloration or odors were noted that may be indicative of impacted soil collected from the borings. Soil encountered in the borings generally consisted of medium grained silty sand with clay and gravel. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings.

Soil analytical results are summarized on Tables 1 through 3. A complete list of the analyzed constituents is included in the laboratory analytical reports in Appendix B.

TPH
TPH was not detected above method detection limits in any of the soil samples (Table 1) collected by Rincon. TPH was detected during the previous 2011 assessment at boring locations B-4 and B-6. Rincon deliberately located boring HA-4 near B-6 and boring HA-8 near B-4 based on the results of the 2011 assessment. Although TPH was not detected during Rincon’s assessment, it is possible there are isolated areas containing TPH at concentrations exceeding screening criteria.

VOCs
VOCs were not detected or detected at very low concentrations by the PID. The highest PID measurement was 10.3 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in boring HA5. As summarized on Table 1, the only VOC detected in the soil samples was 0.015 micrograms per kilogram (Pg/kg) 4-isopropyl toluene in soil sample HA5-2. An ESL has not been developed for 4-isopropyl toluene.

PAHS
PAHs were detected above ESLs in one (HA1-2) of the nine soil samples (Table 2). The lateral and vertical extent of BaP and BaP TE detected in HA1-2 was delineated based on soil samples collected from adjacent borings.

Metals
As summarized on Table 3, the following metals exceeded screening levels:
ƒ Arsenic, lead, nickel, vanadium, and zinc exceeded ESLs ƒ Chromium, lead, and nickel were detected at concentrations that warrant soluble analyses for disposal purposes
Metals detected at concentrations within background levels generally do not require additional assessment or remediation. However, ESLs and hazardous waste determination levels for lead are below the upper range of background levels for lead in California soil. Arsenic, lead, nickel, and vanadium were detected above ESLs but within background levels for California soils (Kearny 1996).

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
162 Page 1492 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project
609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California

Zinc was detected in HA5-2 at 460 mg/kg which exceeds the Tier 1 ESL of 340 mg/kg, which is based on terrestrial risk. ESLs for direct contact of zinc in soil at commercial sites and by construction workers are 350,000 mg/kg and 110,000 mg/kg, respectively. The zinc detected in HA5-2 is well below these ESLs.

Chromium, lead, and nickel were detected at concentrations warranting STLC analysis and chromium also warranted TCLP analysis for disposal purposes. STLC and TCLP detections did not exceed hazardous waste thresholds. Chromium was detected at similar concentrations in all of the soil samples and is likely representative of background chromium in site soil.

Conclusions
PAHs detected in HA1-2 at concentrations exceeding ESLs are delineated by adjacent samples. Certain metals were detected at concentrations exceeding ESLs and above thresholds that warrant additional hazardous waste determination analyses. TPH was not detected and only one low detection of a VOC was reported.

Recommendations
Soil remediation does not appear to be warranted based on the findings of this soil assessment. Soil excavated during Project construction should be properly managed and its use may be restricted based on the analytical data. Soil at HA1-2 could be re-used onsite if it is re-used at the same location it was removed from. If soil from the location of HA1-2 is to be removed from the site, it should be properly disposed. Other site soil may not be suitable for offsite re-use due to the elevated concentrations of certain metals. A soil management plan is recommended to be developed and used for the Project, and this report submitted to an oversight agency for review.

It appears that certain subsurface features such as the mechanics pit and dry well may remain at the site. If encountered, soil impacts may be associated with the features. The soil management plan should describe the methodology for performing soil characterization during Project construction, as warranted. To avoid construction delays, required permits and notifications for excavation of impacted soil should be completed prior to commencing Project earthwork. It is anticipated that the City’s annual permit with the SLO County Air Pollution Control District will cover the impacted soil management activities.

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
163 Page 1493 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project
609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California

Limitations
This report has been prepared for and is intended for the exclusive use of the City of San Luis Obispo.

The contents of this report should not be relied upon by any other party without the written consent of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Our conclusions regarding the site are based on the results of limited sampling programs conducted. The results of these evaluations are qualified by the fact that only limited sampling and analytical testing was conducted during these assessments.

If there are questions regarding the content of this report, please feel free to contact Shawn Decker at 805-319-4092.

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

This document has
been digitally signed
and sealed by
Julie Doane-Allmon,
PG, on 9/20/2022.

Shawn Decker, MESM, LEED AP
Senior Program Manager
Julie Doane-Allmon, PG #9252
Senior Program Manager

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
164 Page 1494 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project
609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California

Attachments
Table 1 Soil Analytical Results – TPH and VOCs
Table 2 Soil Analytical Results – PAHs
Table 3 Soil Analytical Results – Metals
Figure 1 Vicinity
Figure 2 Site
Figure 3 Boring Locations
Figure 4 Site Photographs
Attachment 1 Boring Logs
Attachment 2 Analytical Reports

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
165 Page 1495 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project
609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California

References
City of San Luis Obispo. 1990. V’s Unlimited – 960 Nipomo Street, February 5. ______. 1991. Memorandum, Site Environmental Review- 960 Nipomo Street, January 15.

Cleath & Associates. 1990. Reconnaissance for contamination at former Auto Repair Shop at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Nipomo and Palm Streets, January 25. ______. 1992. Soil Inspection at former auto repair shop at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Nipomo and Palm Streets, July 21.

Earth Systems Pacific. 2011. Geotechnical, Geologic, and Hazardous Materials Assessment Report, Palm and Nipomo Parking Structure, Palm and Nipomo Streets, San Luis Obispo, California, April 21.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, July.

Kearney Foundation of Soil Science, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. 1996. Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils.

March.

Kleinfelder. 2005. Constraints Level Environmental and Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed PalmNipomo Garage Site, San Luis Obispo, California.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2018. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project. July.

RRM Design Group. 2020. Phase I On-Site Improvement Plans, 609 & 633 Palm, 970 & 972 Nipomo, 610, 614, & 630 Monterey. April 24.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2022.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T10000007943.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1986. Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4103. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri864103
______. 1995. Geologic map of the Solvang and Gaviota quadrangles, Santa Barbara County, California. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_205.htm

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
166 Page 1496 of 2037
Tables

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
167 Page 1497 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project, 609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California TPHg
(C5-C12)
TPHd
(C13-C22)
TPHo
(C23-C40)
Full Range
TPH
HA1 2 <0.0094 <10 <50 ND NDHA2 2 <0.0094 <10 <50 ND ND
2 <0.0094 <10 <50 ND ND5 <0.0094 <10 <50 ND ND2 <0.0094 <10 <50 ND ND5 <0.0094 <10 <50 ND ND HA5 2 <0.0094 <10 <50 ND 0.015 4-Isopropyl Toluene
100 260 1,600 NE Varies
2,000 1,200 180,000 NE Varies
ESL- L 1,100 1,100 NE NE Varies
1,800 1,100 54,000 NE Varies
Definitions:
bold Constituent detected above method detection limit<10 Constituent not detected above method detection limitND Constituent not detected above method detection limitNE Environmental screening level not establishedTPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), diesel (TPHd), and motor oil (TPHo)VOC Volatile organic compoundsESL San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (2019, Revision 2) Tier 1 ESL Acceptable for most land uses (basis- leaching, terrestrial habitat, odors, or health risk)ESL- C Direct contact at commercial sites. Lower value of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic usedESL- L Leaching to groundwater (drinking water)ESL- CW Direct contact construction worker. Lower value of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic usedbgs Below ground surface Notes:Soil samples collected by Rincon on May 26, 2022
Table 1: Soil Analytical Results - TPH
Boring
Identification
Sample Depth
(feet bgs)
TPH - EPA Method 8015B(M)
HA3
VOCs - EPA Method 8260B
milligrams per kilogram
ESL- C
Tier 1 ESL

ESL- CW
HA4
APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT 1 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 168 Page 1498 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project, 609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene TE
HA1 2 <0.02 0.028 0.032 0.19 0.26 0.099 0.27 0.19 0.14 0.048 0.27 <0.02 0.16 <0.02 0.18 0.31 0.38 HA2 2 <0.02 <0.02 0.0067 0.034 0.052 0.018 0.040 0.0093 0.028 <0.02 0.054 <0.02 0.010 <0.02 0.035 0.062 0.05 2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 ND5 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 ND2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 ND 5 0.13 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.028 <0.02 0.13 <0.02 <0.02 ND HA5 2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.010 <0.02 0.0063 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.0053 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.0060 0.0063 HA8 2 <0.01 0.010 0.015 0.080 0.130 0.047 0.100 0.029 0.069 <0.01 0.110 <0.01 0.031 <0.01 0.068 0.120 0.011 HA9 2 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 ND -- -- -- 0.1 0.1 0.01 1 -- 0.001 1 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- -- 12 6.4 1.9 0.63 1.1 2.8 0.11 2.5 2.2 0.11 0.69* 6 0.48* 0.04 7.8 45 0.11 45,000 -- 230,000 20 21 210 2.1 -- 2,100 2.1 30,000 30,000 21 17 -- 23,000 2.1 ESL- L 12 6.4 1.9 10 5.4 5 5.7 27.00 2.2 29 86 6 16 0.042 11 45 5.7 10,000 -- 50,000 110 110 910 10 -- 9,100 11 6,700 6,700 110 400 -- 5,000 10 Definitions: Notes:
bold Constituent detected above method detection limit * Tier I ESL based on terrestrial risk. Most conservative non-terrestrial based risk:
<0.02 Constituent not detected above method detection limit Fluoranthene ESL based on leaching to groundwater risk is 86 mg/kgND Constituent not detected above method detection limit Indeno ESL based on direct contact in a residential land use is 1.1 mg/kg NE Environmental screening level not establishedPAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsESL San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (2019, Revision 2)Tier 1 ESL Acceptable for most land uses (basis- leaching, terrestrial habitat, odors, or health risk)ESL- C Direct contact at commercial sites. Lower value of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic usedESL- CW Direct contact construction worker. Lower value of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic usedTE Toxicity equivalentTEF Toxicity equivalent factorbgs Below ground surface Table 2: Soil Analytical Results - PAHs
Boring Identification
Sample Depth
(feet bgs) milligrams per kilogram
ESL- C

ESL- CW
HA3
HA4
PAHs - EPA Method 8270C
Benzo(a)pyrene TEF
Date Sampled
May 26, 2022
July 6, 2022
Tier 1 ESL
1 Rincon Consultants, Inc. APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT 169 Page 1499 of 2037 City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project, 609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Chromium STLC
Chromium TCLP
Lead STLC
Nickel STLC
HA1 2 <2.3 4.7 110 <0.46 <0.23 120 18 25 30 0.10 1.2 210 <1.8 <0.46 <0.92 35 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A HA2 2 <2.3 4.1 130 <0.46 <0.23 110 21 30 57 0.16 0.91 180 <1.8 <0.46 <0.92 40 84 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 <2.3 6.3 150 <0.46 <0.23 110 22 33 6.6 <0.09 1.5 180 <1.8 <0.46 <0.92 46 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A5 <2.3 3.8 120 <0.46 <0.23 110 22 19 5.3 0.17 0.80 130 <1.8 <0.46 <0.92 41 32 N/A N/A N/A N/A2 <2.3 5.6 130 <0.46 <0.23 100 18 30 11 <0.09 1.6 170 <1.8 <0.46 <0.92 43 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A5 <2.3 5.5 120 <0.46 <0.23 120 18 26 6.6 <0.09 1.1 180 <1.8 <0.46 <0.92 43 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A HA5 2 <2.3 3.2 130 <0.46 0.51 94 15 19 41 0.18 1.0 130 <1.8 <0.46 <0.92 33 460 N/A N/A N/A N/A HA6 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 120 N/A N/A 47 N/A N/A 180 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.75 <0.05 0.87 3.4 HA7 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 130 N/A N/A 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.79 <0.05 0.12 N/A HA8 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 140 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.7 <0.05 N/A N/AHA9 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 120 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.65 <0.05 N/A N/A HA10 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.34 N/A N/A N/A <1 8 <0 46 <0 92
150 50 1,000 7.5 10 50 800 250 50 2 3,500 200 10 50 70 240 2,500 -- -- -- -- NA 100 2,000 NE 20 100 NE NE 100 4 NE NE 20 100 NE NE NE -- -- -- --

0.15 - 1.95 0.6 - 11 133 - 1,400 0.25 - 2.70 0.05 - 1.70 23 - 1,579 2.7 - 46.9 9.1 - 96.4 12.4 - 97.1 0.05 - 0.90 0.1 - 9.6 9.0 - 509 0.015 - 0.430 0.10 - 8.3 0.17- 1.1 39 - 288 88 - 236 -- -- -- -- 11 0.067 390 5 1.9 160 23 180 32 13 6.9 86 2.4 25 0.78 18 340 -- -- -- -- 160 0.31 220,000 230 1,100 -- 350 47,000 320 190 5,800 11,000 5,800 5,800 12 5,800 350,000 -- -- -- --

ESL- L NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE -- -- -- -- 50 0.98 3,000 27 51 -- 28 14,000 160 44 1,800 86 1,700 1,800 3.5 470 110,000 -- -- -- --15 5.0 100 0.75 1.0 5.0 80 25 5.0 0.20 350 20 1.0 5.0 7.0 24 250 5.0 -- 5.0 20 500 500 10,000 75 100 2,500 2,500 8,000 1,000 20 3,500 2,000 100 500 700 2,400 5,000 -- -- -- -- NE 5.0 100 NE 1.0 5.0 NE NE 5.0 0.20 NE NE 1.0 5.0 NE NE NE -- 5.0 -- -- Definitions:
bold Constituent detected above method detection limit<2.3 Constituent not detected above method detection limitND Constituent not detected above method detection limitNE Screening level not establishedBackground Concentration Kearney, Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils, University of California, 1996 ESL San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (2019, Revision 2)Tier 1 ESL Acceptable for most land uses (basis- leaching, terrestrial habitat, odors, or health risk)ESL- C Direct contact at commercial sites. Lower value of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic usedESL- L Leaching to groundwater (drinking water)ESL- CW Direct contact construction worker. Lower value of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic usedTTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration STLC Soluble Threshold Limit ConcentrationTCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure bgs Below ground surfaceN/A Analysis not run RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Boring Identification milligrams per kilogram
Sample Depth
(feet bgs)
TCLP (mg/L)
May 26, 2022
July 6, 2022
Date Sampled
Dispose Offsite as non-RCRA Waste
Dispose Offsite as RCRA Waste
TTLC
ESL-C
STLC (mg/L)
milligrams per kilogram
STLC/TCLP Metals - 6010B
Table 3: Soil Analytical Results - Metals
Metals - EPA Method 6010B; Mercury - EPA Method 7471A

ESL- CW
Trigger Level for performing CA-WET (10 x STLC)Trigger Level for performing TCLP (20 x TCLP) Arsenic
Lead
HA3HA4
Tier 1 ESL
Background Concentration
1 Rincon Consultants, Inc. APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT 170

Figures

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
171 Page 1501 of 2037
^_
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Vicinity Figure 1
±
Basemap Source: ESRI Data, 2004, and USGS/CDFG, 2002.

Pacific ^_ Ocean
Avenal
Bakersfield
Coalinga
Delano
Lemoore
Lompoc
Oxnard
Santa Barbara
Santa Maria
Soledad
Visalia
Los Padres
National
Forest
£¤101
|ÿ99
§¨¦5
0 2,000 1,000
Scale in Feet
Site
±
Imagery provided by National Geographic Society, Esri and its licensors © 2022. The topographic representation depicted in this map may not portray all of the features currently found in the vicinity today and/or features depicted in this map may have changed since the original topographic map was assembled.

Community Development Department City of San Luis Oispo Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project - 609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
172 Page 1502 of 2037
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project
609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaCommunity Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Site Figure 2
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
0 100 50
Feet ±
Project SiteParcel BoundariesSoil Assessment Site
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2022.

Single Family
Residential
Reis Family
Mortuary
(Historic Harmony
Creamery)
Soda Works
Mixed Use
Children's
Museum
Contributing
Historic
Buildings
Future MontereyPlace Mixed Use
Historic
Lattimer-Hayes
Adobe
Multi-family
Residential
Mission College Preparatory
School & Athletic Field
002-412-001 609 Palm St 002-412-002 972 Nipomo St
610 Monterey St 002-412-011 614 Monterey St 002-412-012 002-412-004 630 Palm St 002-412-003 633 Palm St

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
173 Page 1503 of 2037

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
174 Page 1504 of 2037
City of San Luis Obispo
Cultural Arts District Parking Structure Project609 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Figure 4
Photograph 1. View of HA1, HA2, HA2-stepout, HA4 and soil storage drum from the northwest.

Photograph 2. View of HA3, HA2, HA2-stepout, and HA4 from the west.

Photograph 3. View of HA5 coring from the northeast. Photograph 4. View of direct push rig at HA7 from the southeast.

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
175 Page 1505 of 2037
Attachment 1
Boring Logs

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
176 Page 1506 of 2037






















!"#$
%&'(
$


"

)*+'
),

-
)'
),
.#
/-
(0123.0!"
4)+
&5




6 7%-8

7 96 !6"+


62% ':%

(++
62% ':%



9

1 

#


#;
#

#;
#

#;
'


''
'7
0")!3
 '3)
3.
'%'".:9+
8
8$:8

+
68
%

68:
*

86
<
&2+=#;&

>06:



6>2*&
6:9$





%>
&
#;&


)3

#

?14)$5


APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
177 Page 1507 of 2037






















!"#$
%&'(
$


"

)*+'
),

-
)'
),
.#
/-
(0123.0!"
4)+
&5




6 7%-8

7 96 !6"+


62% ':%

(++
62% ':%



9

1 

#


#;
#

#;
#

#;
'


''
'
0")!3
 '3)
3.
'%'".:9+
8
8$:8
6+
68
%

686



8
6
<
&2+=#;&

>06:



6>2*&
6:9$





%>
&
#;&


)3

#

?14)$5
;

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
178 Page 1508 of 2037






















!"#

$%
&'#(
%


"

)*+#
),

-
)#
),
.$
/-
(0123.0!"#


4)+
'5




6 7&-8

7 96 !6"+


62& #:&

(++
62& #:&



9

1 

$


$;
$

$;
#


##
#
0")!3
 #3)
3.
<
'2+=$;'

>06:



6>2*'
6:9%




&>

'
$;'



APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
179 Page 1509 of 2037






















!"#$%
&'()
%


"

*+,(
*-

.
*(
*-
/$
#.
)0123/0!"#
4*,
'5




6 7&.8

7 96 !6",


62& (:&

),,
62& (:&



9

1 

$


$;
$

$;
$

$;
#$

#$;
$

$;
;$

(


((
)
)
0"*!3
 (3*
3/
) "/)"<:9
68
8%:8'
,
68
&

686



86
) "/)"<:9
68
8%:8'
,
68
&

68
,

86
=
'2,>;'

?06:



6?2+'
6:9%





&
*3

$


$

@14*%5

/

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
180 Page 1510 of 2037






















!"#$
%&'(
$


"

)*+'
),

-
)'
),
.#
/-
(0123.0!"
4)+
&5




6 7%-8

7 96 !6"+


62% ':%

(++
62% ':%



9

1 

#


#;
#

#;
#

#;
/#

/#;
#

#;
;#

'


''
7(
7(
0")!3
 '3)
3.
'3(
:9
68
8$:8&
+
68
%

68:
*

86
'6%'3(
8
8$:8&
+
68:


68:
*

86
<
&2+=;&

>06:



6>2*&
6:9$





%
)3

#/

#

?14)$5
.
.

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
181 Page 1511 of 2037






















!"#$%
&'()
%


"

* +, (
* -

.
* (
* -
/ $

0. )1 23 4/ 1 !"#
5* ,
'6




7 8 &.9

8 :7 !7",


73 & (; &

), ,
73 & (; &



:

2 

$


$

$

$.

$

$

$
(


((
(
1 "* !4
 (4*
4/
<
'3 , =$'

>1 7; 



7>3 +'
7; :%




&>

'
$'



APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
182 Page 1512 of 2037






















!"#$
%&
'()*
&


"

$+,)
$-

.
$)
$-
/%

0. *1234/1!"#$

5$,
(6




7 8'.9

8 :7 !7",


73' );'

*,,
73' );'



:

2 

%


%#
%

%#
%

%#
0%

)


))
)8
1"$!4
 )4$
4/
)7')4*
;:
,
9
9&;9
7,
79
'

79;
+

9
7
<
(3,=%(

>17;



7>3+(
7;:&





'
$4

%0
?25$&6
000

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
183 Page 1513 of 2037






















!"#$%
&'()
%


"

*+,(
*-

#
*(
*-
.$
/#
)0123.0!"#
4*,
'5




6 7&#8

9 :6 *


62& '
6 
;

3$
),,
62& (<&



:

1 

$


$=
$

$=
$

$=
(


((
)
0"*!3
 (3*
3.
) ".)"><:
66,
8
8%<8'

6,
68

&

686



86
?
'2,@$
'

A06<



6A2+'
6<:%


*3
$
B14*%5
C
B145
=/

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
184 Page 1514 of 2037






















!"#$%
&'()
%


"

*+,(
*-

.
*(
*-
/$

0. )1234/1!"#
5*,
'6




7 8&.9

:
;7 *


73& '
7 
<

4$
),,
73& (=&



;

2 

$


$>
$

$>
$

$>
(


((
(
1"*!4
 (4*
4/
(&("/=;,
9
9%=9
7,
79
&

79=
+

9
7
?
'3,@$
'

A17=



7A3+'
7=;%


*4
>$#
B25*%6
/
B256


APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
185 Page 1515 of 2037






















!"
#$
%&'(
$


"

)*+'
),

-
)'
),
.#
/-
(0123.0!"

4)+
&5




6 7%-8

9 :6 )


62% &
6 
;

3#
(++
62% '<%



:

1 

#


#=
#

#=
#

#=
'


''
'
0")!3
 '3)
3.
'%'".<:+
86%
8$<8
6+
68
%

68<
*


86
>
&2+?#
&

@06<



6@2*&
6<:$


)3
/#

A14)$5
-
A145
=

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
186 Page 1516 of 2037






















!"#$
%&'(
$


"

)*+'
),

-
)'
),
.#
/-
(0123.0!"
4)+
&5




6 7%-8

9 :6 )


62% &
6 
;

3#
(++
62% '<%



:

1 

#


#=
#

#=
#

#=
'


''
'
0")!3
 '3)
3.
'%'".<:+
8
8$<8
6+
68
%

68<
*

8
6
>
&2+?#
&

@06<



6@2*&
6<:$


)3
=#
A14)$5


A145
=

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
187 Page 1517 of 2037
Attachment 2
Analytical Reports

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
188 Page 1518 of 2037




 












 
 




  
   










!"
#$ %" # 

& !
 
  


*+ ''(')
*&
,

*
-
 &
 .


 !

$



/

& 0 
+
 0
 & 1 
*&





 & 


 
-
/ '2 ''' )



/3



 
 

 

(0(
/
4  



/



5 

*&




 
  5



 
+



 6

/ -


&&

+ 


 &


5 &


  
 
*



 1 





/

&

*
   
*& 



/ &


0 *
 + *


 

/
70 /




/ 8


 5


5 
 & &
 
 

  

 


5 


3 0 
 +/
 

  



  

 
 






 




  

  

  











  
!



 "

  
"
 
!
 


!



"  

 #$ 
  


 

 %

"



 &


'()(*
$#$+

(!


,
2
* %
/

 


-


  9:9








($;
'9 17 ')))
17 ') < 7 #=7$ 2':'2
!!!




>
?
-


@:A ':(2)
@:A ''(922'

APPENDIX D - SOIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
189 Page 1519 of 2037



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&
"

# $%

 # 
 &' 
"

(
"

"



)
(







$% &'
B(' ''( :=')=''' :' :='2=''' ) 
 

B'(' ''(' :=')=''' ) :='2=''' ) 
 

B(' ''( :=')=''' ' :='2=''' ) 
 

B9(' ''(9 :=')=''' 9 :='2=''' ) 
 

B:(

 ''(: :=')=''' 9' :='2=''' ) 
 

B(: ''() :=')='''  :='2=''' ) 
 

B9(: ''(2 :=')=''' ' :='2=''' ) 
 





!"


 "

*+ ,


 "

 *+ # ,


 
-.

,



 

( % /-&" !+ "


( #
 &

0
'2
 7- .'>2 )==''' 2
"
12

30 .,4 % /-5#
: !
 < - #
;
 .'> )==''' '
.
 &
 % 2


-
/ 1
$
 292 .'$2 :==''' 9
.
 &
 % #,
). 1
.'>') )==''' '
2 
30 

( % /-&"
'). >
;
=1
B(C
 .'> )==''' 2'



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 


"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


190

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
190



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' :'
;
+ 7!  ''(
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 




/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2
(
8
9 :))

.
 &
 % 2


&
 
  *5="5  .'$2 )=='' : $
 292

2
(
8
9 


.
 &
 % #,


*
/ ' ! $
 ). *5="5 .'>')  )=)='' ''




7  DD DD D
*  ' DD DD D
./

* 9) ! D DD D D

*

* ' ! D DD D D
+
  9) DD DD D 81
81

%  9) DD DD D


 9 ' DD DD D
$
(  9) DD DD D
&
%(
 
 9) DD DD D
8:
  9) DD DD D 81


*  ! D DD D D

 9) ! D DD D D
1

* ' ! D DD D D
2( 9  DD DD D
;   DD DD D

2

3:




;
9 <=4
>

"
12

30 .,4 % /-5#
1
B !
 @(''A  ! $
 :- *5="5 .'>  )='='' 9 1
B - #
@'(9A : ! D DD D D
$



4
)

!
 
23 %

)1
, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 
2
"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


191

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
191



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' :'
;
+ 7!  ''(
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2:



8
9 <=(


2 
30 

( % /-&"
.
3
 9 ! $
 ').=;4>1 *5="5 .'>  )=='' 2:2 .*+
3
 9 ! D DD D D
.**

 9 ! D DD D D
.*
*

 9 ! D DD D D
.*0* 9 ! D DD D D
.**

 9 ! D DD D D

(.
/+
3
 9 ! D DD D D
(.
/+
3
 9 ! D DD D D
(.
/+
3
 9 ! D DD D D

+


 9 ! D DD D D
+
3
 9 ! D DD D D


 9 ! D DD D D
0* 9 ! D DD D D
*

 9 ! D DD D D
'(

 9 ! D DD D D
9(

 9 ! D DD D D
!
+**

 9 ! D DD D D
'(!
+*((&&

 9 ! D DD D D
'(!
+*

 @$!.A 9 ! D DD D D
!
+**

 9 ! D DD D D
'(!
+
3
 9 ! D DD D D
(!
+
3
 9 ! D DD D D
9(!
+
3
 9 ! D DD D D
!

0 *

 9 ! D DD D D
(!


 9 ! D DD D D
'(!


 9 ! D DD D D
(!

 9 ! D DD D D

('(!

 9 ! D DD D D


('(!

 9 ! D DD D D
'(!
&&

 9 ! D DD D D
(!
&&

 9 ! D DD D D
''(!
&&

 9 ! D DD D D
(!
&&
 9 ! D DD D D

((!
&&
 9 ! D DD D D


((!
&&
 9 ! D DD D D
$/+
3
 9 ! D DD D D



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 
1
"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


192

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
192



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' :'
;
+ 7!  ''(
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -
2 
30 

( % /-&" <

(=
B?
+



 9 ! $
 ').=;4>1 *5="5 .'>  )=='' 2:2 9(7&&/ 1

 9 ! D DD D D
7&&/+
3
 9 ! D DD D D
-/
 
 9 ! D DD D D

&

 9 ! D DD D D

(
&/+
3
 9 ! D DD D D
/
 9 ! D DD D D
'(1


 9 ! D DD D D
''(1


 9 ! D DD D D
1

 @
$A 9 ! D DD D D
1

 9 ! D DD D D
'(1
+
3
 9 ! D DD D D
'9(1
+
3
 9 ! D DD D D
(1


 9 ! D DD D D
'(1


 9 ! D DD D D
1

 @1$A 9 ! D DD D D
1
0
*

 9 ! D DD D D
'(1
&&

 9 ! D DD D D
'9(1
*/+
3
 9 ! D DD D D
:(1
*/+
3
 9 ! D DD D D

/ 
 9 ! D DD D D
E/
 @
A 9 ! D DD D D
1
B C


 @9('A 9 ! D DD D D
$



45

"$

 


3 %)
1, 0 0 0
$



4
$

)7 673 %6)
1, 0 0 0
$



41)8

"$

-

613 %7
)

, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 


"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


193

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
193



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' :'
;
+ 7!  ''(
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

1

2
 


)

8
9 <=(

?"






(


,



 

( % /-&" !+ "


( #
 &

0


&
 ' ! $
 '2( 7- *5="5 .'>2 9 )=='' 29



++


 ' DD DD D

+


 ' DD DD D
*
> <= +



' DD DD D
*
>
<%= 6
+


 ' DD DD D
*
>
<:= 6
+




' DD DD D
*
>
<=



7 ' DD DD D
*
>
<0+=





' DD DD D
+



' DD DD D
%
> <+= +



 ' DD DD D
5
+


7 ' DD DD D
>

 ' ! D DD D D
#(

<1(=



 ' DD DD D

&

 ' ! D DD D D
,+
+


 ' DD DD D
,


 ' DD DD D
$



4!)

!
)1 
3 %6)6
, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 
/
"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


194

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
194



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' )
;
+ 7!  ''('
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 




/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2
(
8
9 :))

.
 &
 % 2


&
 
 2 *5="5  .'$2 )=='' 2 $
 292

2
(
8
9 


.
 &
 % #,


*
/ '9 ! $
 ). *5="5 .'>')  )=)='' ':




  DD DD D
*  9 DD DD D
./

* 92 ! D DD D D

*

* '9 ! D DD D D
+
  92 DD DD D 81
81

%  92 DD DD D


  9 DD DD D
$
( 97 92 DD DD D 81
&
%(
 

 92 DD DD D
8:
  92 DD DD D


*  ! D DD D D

 92 ! D DD D D
1

* 9 ! D DD D D
2(
  DD DD D
; 
 DD DD D

2

3:




;
9 <=4
>

"
12

30 .,4 % /-5#
1
B !
 @(''A  ! $
 :- *5="5 .'>  )='='' '' 1
B - #
@'(9A : ! D DD D D
$



4
)

!
 
13 %

)1
, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 

"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


195

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
195



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' )
;
+ 7!  ''('
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2:



8
9 <=(


2 
30 

( % /-&"
.
3
 :' ! $
 ').=;4>1 *5="5 .'>  )=='' '9 .*+
3
 :' ! D DD D D
.**

 :' ! D DD D D
.*
*

 :' ! D DD D D
.*0* :' ! D DD D D
.**

 :' ! D DD D D

(.
/+
3
 :' ! D DD D D
(.
/+
3
 :' ! D DD D D
(.
/+
3
 :' ! D DD D D

+


 :' ! D DD D D
+
3
 :' ! D DD D D


 :' ! D DD D D
0* :' ! D DD D D
*

 :' ! D DD D D
'(

 :' ! D DD D D
9(

 :' ! D DD D D
!
+**

 :' ! D DD D D
'(!
+*((&&

 :' ! D DD D D
'(!
+*

 @$!.A :' ! D DD D D
!
+**

 :' ! D DD D D
'(!
+
3
 :' ! D DD D D
(!
+
3
 :' ! D DD D D
9(!
+
3
 :' ! D DD D D
!

0 *

 :' ! D DD D D
(!


 :' ! D DD D D
'(!


 :' ! D DD D D
(!

 :' ! D DD D D

('(!

 :' ! D DD D D


('(!

 :' ! D DD D D
'(!
&&

 :' ! D DD D D
(!
&&

 :' ! D DD D D
''(!
&&

 :' ! D DD D D
(!
&&
 :' ! D DD D D

((!
&&
 :' ! D DD D D


((!
&&
 :' ! D DD D D
$/+
3
 :' ! D DD D D



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 
7
"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


196

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
196



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' )
;
+ 7!  ''('
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -
2 
30 

( % /-&" <

(=
B?
+



 :' ! $
 ').=;4>1 *5="5 .'>  )=='' '9 9(7&&/ 1

 :' ! D DD D D
7&&/+
3
 :' ! D DD D D
-/
 
 :' ! D DD D D

&

 :' ! D DD D D

(
&/+
3
 :' ! D DD D D
/
 :' ! D DD D D
'(1


 :' ! D DD D D
''(1


 :' ! D DD D D
1

 @
$A :' ! D DD D D
1

 :' ! D DD D D
'(1
+
3
 :' ! D DD D D
'9(1
+
3
 :' ! D DD D D
(1


 :' ! D DD D D
'(1


 :' ! D DD D D
1

 @1$A :' ! D DD D D
1
0
*

 :' ! D DD D D
'(1
&&

 :' ! D DD D D
'9(1
*/+
3
 :' ! D DD D D
:(1
*/+
3
 :' ! D DD D D

/ 
 :' ! D DD D D
E/
 @
A :' ! D DD D D
1
B C


 @9('A :' ! D DD D D
$



45

"$

 

23 %)
1, 0 0 0
$



4
$

)7 6/3 %6)
1, 0 0 0
$



41)8

"$

-

6/3 %7
)

, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 
6
"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


197

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
197



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' )
;
+ 7!  ''('
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2
 


)

8
9 <=(

?"






(


,



 

( % /-&" !+ "


( #
 &

0


&
 : ! $
 '2( 7- *5="5 .'>2  )=='' ' 

&/
 : ! D DD D D

+


7 : DD DD D
*
> <= +



: DD DD D
*
>
<%= 6
+


9 : DD DD D
*
>
<:= 6
+


 : DD DD D
*
>
<=




 : DD DD D
*
>
<0+=





 : DD DD D
+


 : DD DD D
!
+
3 @
A



 : ! D DD D D
5
+


9
: DD DD D
>

 : ! D DD D D
#(

<1(=



 : DD DD D

&

 : ! D DD D D
,+
+


9 : DD DD D
,


 : DD DD D
$



4!)

!
)1 3 %6)6
, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 


"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


198

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
198



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' '
;
+ 7!  ''(
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 




/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2
(
8
9 :))

.
 &
 % 2


-
/ 9 ! $
 292 *5="5 .'$2  )=='' 

2
(
8
9 


.
 &
 % #,


*
/ ': ! $
 ). *5="5 .'>')  )=)='' '2


 
 ' DD DD D
* 9  DD DD D
./

* 9 ! D DD D D

*

* ': ! D DD D D
+
  9 DD DD D 81
81

%  9 DD DD D


   DD DD D
$
( 
 9 DD DD D
&
%(
 
9 9 DD DD D
8:
  9 DD DD D


* ' ! D DD D D

 9 ! D DD D D
1

*  ! D DD D D
2(
 ' DD DD D
;  ' DD DD D

2

3:




;
9 <=4
>

"
12

30 .,4 % /-5#
1
B !
 @(''A  ! $
 :- *5="5 .'>  )='=''  1
B - #
@'(9A : ! D DD D D
$



4
)

!
 

3 %

)1
, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 

"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


199

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
199



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' '
;
+ 7!  ''(
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2:



8
9 <=(


2 
30 

( % /-&"
.
3
 :) ! $
 ').=;4>1 *5="5 .'>  )=='' : .*+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
.**

 :) ! D DD D D
.*
*

 :) ! D DD D D
.*0* :) ! D DD D D
.**

 :) ! D DD D D

(.
/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
(.
/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
(.
/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D

+


 :) ! D DD D D
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D


 :) ! D DD D D
0* :) ! D DD D D
*

 :) ! D DD D D
'(

 :) ! D DD D D
9(

 :) ! D DD D D
!
+**

 :) ! D DD D D
'(!
+*((&&

 :) ! D DD D D
'(!
+*

 @$!.A :) ! D DD D D
!
+**

 :) ! D DD D D
'(!
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
(!
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
9(!
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
!

0 *

 :) ! D DD D D
(!


 :) ! D DD D D
'(!


 :) ! D DD D D
(!

 :) ! D DD D D

('(!

 :) ! D DD D D


('(!

 :) ! D DD D D
'(!
&&

 :) ! D DD D D
(!
&&

 :) ! D DD D D
''(!
&&

 :) ! D DD D D
(!
&&
 :) ! D DD D D

((!
&&
 :) ! D DD D D


((!
&&
 :) ! D DD D D
$/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 


"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


200

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
200



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' '
;
+ 7!  ''(
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -
2 
30 

( % /-&" <

(=
B?
+



 :) ! $
 ').=;4>1 *5="5 .'>  )=='' : 9(7&&/ 1

 :) ! D DD D D
7&&/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
-/
 
 :) ! D DD D D

&

 :) ! D DD D D

(
&/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
/
 :) ! D DD D D
'(1


 :) ! D DD D D
''(1


 :) ! D DD D D
1

 @
$A :) ! D DD D D
1

 :) ! D DD D D
'(1
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
'9(1
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
(1


 :) ! D DD D D
'(1


 :) ! D DD D D
1

 @1$A :) ! D DD D D
1
0
*

 :) ! D DD D D
'(1
&&

 :) ! D DD D D
'9(1
*/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
:(1
*/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D

/ 
 :) ! D DD D D
E/
 @
A :) ! D DD D D
1
B C


 @9('A :) ! D DD D D
$



45

"$

 


3 %)
1, 0 0 0
$



4
$

)7 63 %6)
1, 0 0 0
$



41)8

"$

-

6/3 %7
)

, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 
2
"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


201

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
201



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
1
*&  :=')='' '
;
+ 7!  ''(
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2
 


)

8
9 <=(

?"






(


,



 

( % /-&" !+ "


( #
 &

0


&
 : ! $
 '2( 7- *5="5 .'>2  )=='' '':9 

&/
 : ! D DD D D



 : ! D DD D D
.
3 @
A



 : ! D DD D D
.
3 @+A 0



 : ! D DD D D
.
3 @"A 0



 : ! D DD D D
.
3 @
A &/
 : ! D DD D D
.
3 @5
A &/
 : ! D DD D D
/
 : ! D DD D D
!
+
3 @
A



 : ! D DD D D
>



 : ! D DD D D
>

 : ! D DD D D
7 
 @'(A &/
 : ! D DD D D

&

 : ! D DD D D




 : ! D DD D D

/
 : ! D DD D D
$



4!)

!
)1 

3 %6)6
, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 
1
"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


202

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
202



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4

1
*&  :=')='' 9
;
+ 7!  ''(9
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 




/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2
(
8
9 :))

.
 &
 % 2


-
/ : ! $
 292 *5="5 .'$2  )=='' 

2
(
8
9 


.
 &
 % #,


*
/ ': ! $
 ). *5="5 .'>')  )=)='' ''


 9
 ' DD DD D
*   DD DD D
./

* : ! D DD D D

*

* ': ! D DD D D
+
  : DD DD D 81
81

%  : DD DD D


   DD DD D
$
(  : DD DD D
&
%(
 
 : DD DD D
8:
 7 : DD DD D


* ' ! D DD D D

 : ! D DD D D
1

*  ! D DD D D
2(
 ' DD DD D
;  ' DD DD D

2

3:




;
9 <=4
>

"
12

30 .,4 % /-5#
1
B !
 @(''A  ! $
 :- *5="5 .'>  )='='' ' 1
B - #
@'(9A : ! D DD D D
$



4
)

!
 663 %

)1
, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 


"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


203

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
203



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4

1
*&  :=')='' 9
;
+ 7!  ''(9
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2:



8
9 <=(


2 
30 

( % /-&"
.
3
 :) ! $
 ').=;4>1 *5="5 .'>  )=='' 2 .*+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
.**

 :) ! D DD D D
.*
*

 :) ! D DD D D
.*0* :) ! D DD D D
.**

 :) ! D DD D D

(.
/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
(.
/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
(.
/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D

+


 :) ! D DD D D
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D


 :) ! D DD D D
0* :) ! D DD D D
*

 :) ! D DD D D
'(

 :) ! D DD D D
9(

 :) ! D DD D D
!
+**

 :) ! D DD D D
'(!
+*((&&

 :) ! D DD D D
'(!
+*

 @$!.A :) ! D DD D D
!
+**

 :) ! D DD D D
'(!
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
(!
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
9(!
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
!

0 *

 :) ! D DD D D
(!


 :) ! D DD D D
'(!


 :) ! D DD D D
(!

 :) ! D DD D D

('(!

 :) ! D DD D D


('(!

 :) ! D DD D D
'(!
&&

 :) ! D DD D D
(!
&&

 :) ! D DD D D
''(!
&&

 :) ! D DD D D
(!
&&
 :) ! D DD D D

((!
&&
 :) ! D DD D D


((!
&&
 :) ! D DD D D
$/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 
/
"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


204

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
204



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4

1
*&  :=')='' 9
;
+ 7!  ''(9
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -
2 
30 

( % /-&" <

(=
B?
+



 :) ! $
 ').=;4>1 *5="5 .'>  )=='' 2 9(7&&/ 1

 :) ! D DD D D
7&&/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
-/
 
 :) ! D DD D D

&

 :) ! D DD D D

(
&/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
/
 :) ! D DD D D
'(1


 :) ! D DD D D
''(1


 :) ! D DD D D
1

 @
$A :) ! D DD D D
1

 :) ! D DD D D
'(1
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
'9(1
+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
(1


 :) ! D DD D D
'(1


 :) ! D DD D D
1

 @1$A :) ! D DD D D
1
0
*

 :) ! D DD D D
'(1
&&

 :) ! D DD D D
'9(1
*/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D
:(1
*/+
3
 :) ! D DD D D

/ 
 :) ! D DD D D
E/
 @
A :) ! D DD D D
1
B C


 @9('A :) ! D DD D D
$



45

"$

 

/3 %)
1, 0 0 0
$



4
$

)7 663 %6)
1, 0 0 0
$



41)8

"$

-

63 %7
)

, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 

"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


205

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
205



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4

1
*&  :=')='' 9
;
+ 7!  ''(9
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2
 


)

8
9 <=(

?"






(


,



 

( % /-&" !+ "


( #
 &

0


&
 : ! $
 '2( 7- *5="5 .'>2  )=='' '' 

&/
 : ! D DD D D



 : ! D DD D D
.
3 @
A



 : ! D DD D D
.
3 @+A 0



 : ! D DD D D
.
3 @"A 0



 : ! D DD D D
.
3 @
A &/
 : ! D DD D D
.
3 @5
A &/
 : ! D DD D D
/
 : ! D DD D D
!
+
3 @
A



 : ! D DD D D
>



 : ! D DD D D
>

 : ! D DD D D
7 
 @'(A &/
 : ! D DD D D

&

 : ! D DD D D




 : ! D DD D D

/
 : ! D DD D D
$



4!)

!
)1 
3 %6)6
, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 
7
"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


206

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
206



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
91,

*&  :=')='' 9'
;
+ 7!  ''(:
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 




/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2
(
8
9 :))

.
 &
 % 2


&
 
 ' *5="5  .'$2 )==''  $
 292

2
(
8
9 


.
 &
 % #,


*
/ '9 ! $
 ). *5="5 .'>')  )=)='' ''


 
  DD DD D
*  : DD DD D
./

* 92 ! D DD D D
( 
9 '9 DD DD D
+


92 DD DD D 81

% 9 92 DD DD D


 
: DD DD D
$
(
 92 DD DD D
&
%(
 
 92 DD DD D
8:
  92 DD DD D


*  ! D DD D D

 92 ! D DD D D
1

* : ! D DD D D
2(   DD DD D
;
  DD DD D

2

3:




;
9 <=4
>

"
12

30 .,4 % /-5#
1
B !
 @(''A  ! $
 :- *5="5 .'>  )='='' 9: 1
B - #
@'(9A : ! D DD D D
$



4
)

!
 
63 %

)1
, 0 0 0



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!

$







. 
6
"
/
#$%
&


' 


(

)
*#+,+
-.
/0$,1
*223+%%2



 4)5.
/0$,1
*2,3##%6
)3-)

2+#0
7
$2666 


. 



 


207

SPECIAL PROVISIONS VOLUME II
207



 
*+

 -

5







   
 ''(')


!"



 !






  )==''' )9


 









%# <
&



 6
 "


4
91,

*&  :=')='' 9'
;
+ 7!  ''(:
-

?  


*& 7! 

*& +/ 
/ 
*

>
 !

 


/


; .
 4

 !



 

/3 -

2:



8
9 <=(


2 
30 

( % /-&"
.
3
  ! $
 ').=;4>1 *5="5 .'>  )=='' 99 .*+
3
  ! D DD D D
.**

  ! D DD D D
.*
*

  ! D DD D D
.*0*  ! D DD D D
.**

  ! D DD D D

(.
/+
3
  ! D DD D D
(.
/+
3
  ! D DD D D
(.
/+
3
  ! D DD D D

+


  ! D DD D D
+
3
  ! D DD D D


  ! D DD D D
0*  ! D DD D D
*

  ! D DD D D
'(

  ! D DD D D
9(

  ! D DD D D
!
+**

  ! D DD D D
'(!
+*((&&

  ! D DD D D
'(!
+*

 @$!.A  ! D DD D D
!
+**

  ! D DD D D
'(!
+
3
  ! D DD D D
(!
+
3
  ! D DD D D
9(!
+
3
  ! D DD D D
!

0 *

  ! D DD D D
(!


  ! D DD D D
'(!


  ! D DD D D
(!

  ! D DD D D

('(!

  ! D DD D D


('(!

  ! D DD D D
'(!
&&

  ! D DD D D
(!
&&

  ! D DD D D
''(!
&&

  ! D DD D D
(!
&&
  ! D DD D D

((!
&&
  ! D DD D D


((!
&&
  ! D DD D D
$/+
3
  ! D DD D D



$



!

 !!



 !
  -
 

 



 
"$


$

  
 

!

 $




!