Agenda packet — San Luis Obispo City Council, August 4, 2026 (part 4 of 5)

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-02 Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Illi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,000 - 0.8
Analysis PGA: 0.39 ' Liquefaction 12.0-
7 8 0.7 - 11.0-
9 . PA

10.0-
-S’
te
O

0.6- or 9.0-
100 -

8.0-

0.5-

7.0- R.
% a 0.4-
lo F 6.0-
O
5 O

5.0-
ils &
O 0.3-
10 - U

4.0- 4
j

0.2- 3.0-

2.0-

0.1 -
2 1.0-
No Liquefaction -
1 T 0 I I I I—n-1—Tur—r"|—I I I ।—I I I ।—I I I ।—I I I । I I I ।—I I I ।—I I I 0.0

0.1 10 0 20 40 60 80 120 140 160 180 200 0 6 7 8 101
Normalized friction ratio (%) Thickness of surface layer, Hl (m) Input parameters and analysis data
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
6 A-17of32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:28 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to O4.clq 100
Qtn,cs
O
o2dC
Q
o0)
in O
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

O
o
/
Z
4 .CL.

X
C
U)
Ux
o
oD
in
U) 9
in
Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Ko
applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands only
NoN/A
Mui. UCC.
.togat
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation: Use fill:Fill height:
5 2.40
Based on SBTNoN/A
T
C
(
0)
O
©
O
Mdx.CCC.

NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value7.10

0.39 15.00 ft
8 g
0 (
O
T
3 g
\
V
\
T
2 £
N
x
1—Illi
1 T
4 I
1 !
T
9 T
5 T
3 ‘4
-J
ti :............: -
5 f : ...

I i
I Ma- oee > .

O ‘ 400-500gal
N(oEo
Z
-

Page 488 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-02 Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
Norm. cone resistance Grain char, factor Corrected norm, cone resistance SBTnIndex Liquefied Su/Sig'v 0- 0- 0 0 0
6-8- P
14-16-
d d
O O
36-
!
60-
-
Peak Su ratio 62-
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 0 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 4 0 200 0 0.3 1 4 0.4 0.5
Ie (Robertson 1990) Su/Sig'v
Input parameters and analysis data
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
7 A-18of32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:28 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to O4.clq 52-
54-60-62-
60-62-
52-54-
42-44-
60-62-
42-44-
56-58-60-62-
56-58-
56-
58-
56-
58-
42-44-
56-
58-
10-12-
46-48-
50-
46-
48-
50-
26-
28-10-12-
46-
48-
50-14-16-18-
20-22-
24-30-
32-
10-12-
14-16-18-
20-22-
24-
26-28-52-54-
38-
40-
18-
20-22-
24-
26-
28-
52-
54-
46-
48-50-14-16-18-
20-22-
24-
52-
54-
6-8-
30-
32-
6-8-
14-
16-
18-
20-22-24-
30-
32-
34-
30-
32-34-36-38-
40 -
26-28-
1 26-28-
46-
48-
50-
10-12-
10-12-
6-8-
6-8-
Q
Q
5 6
Kc
2-
4-
2-
4-
2-4-
2-
4-
2-
4-
Q
C
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude M: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu):
42-|44-।
42-44-
N/A
YesYes
Sands onlyNoN/A
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height:
a 34-
36-1 38-
40-
Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Kg applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

52.40Based on SBTNoN/A
a 34-
36-38-
40-
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
• 30-
C
8 32-Q
a 34-
36-38-
40-

0.1 0.2
L
50 -- 1-
100
Qtn,cs
L
50 T
3 T
100 2
-- —
150
Qtn
L
250
-r200
—1—
150

Page 489 of 1065 ends

Yeh and Associates
•A Veh and Associates, Inc. https://www.yeh-eng.com
Al Geotechnical ■ Geological • Construction Services
Location : PRADO RD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Input parameters and analysis data
Sands only
Average results interval: 5 Limit depth applied: No
Ic cut-off value: 2.40 Trans, detect, applied: Yes
Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Kg applied: Yes
Cone resistance Friction Ratio SBTn Plot CRR plot FS Plot Dur ng-earthQ.---- ’9
5 ■—
T
। । । । । । । T
0 2 10 1 4 2 0 o.e 0 2 1.5
qt (tsf) Rf (%) Ic (Robertson 1990) CRR & CSR Factor of safety Mw=71/2, sigma =1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential i L L IIII 0.8 A 1,000 -
; Liquefaction
7 8

0.7-
•p‘ 9
L

0.6- 100 - •,2
r 0.5- Az ( o

0.4- O
10-
-1
t. 0.3 - J
O
2 0.2-
1 0.1 101

0.1-
0 0 20 40 60 80 120 140 160 180 200
8 A-19of32

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
I
—9
Limit depth:

MSF method:
100
Qtn,CS

15.00 ft

15.00 ft
G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

No
N/A
N/A
Q
Cl
0-
2-
4-
6-
8-
10-
12-
14-
16-
18-
20-
22-
24-
26-
28-
30-
32-
34-
36-
38-
40 -
42-
44-,
46-
48-
50-
52-
54-
56-
58-
60-
0- 2-
4-
6-
8-4
10-
12-
14-
16-
18-
20-
22-
24-
26-
28-'
30-1
32-1
34-1
36-
38-
40-
42-
44-
46-
48-
50-
52-
54-
56-
58-
60-
0-
2-
4-
6-
8-
10-
12-
14-
16-
18-
20-
22-
24-
26-
28-
30-
32-
34-
36-
38-
40-
42-
44-
46-
48-
50-
52-
54-
56-
58-
60-
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M:

Peak ground acceleration:

Clay like behavior
applied:

Project title : Prado Road Interchange
CPT file : 25CPT-03
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to O4.clq 0-
2-
4-
6-
8-
10-
12-
14-
16-
18-
20-
22-
24-
26-
28-
30-
32-
34-
36-
38-
40-
42-
44-
46-
48-
50-
52-
54-
56-
58-
60-
0 2
4 6
8'
10 12
14'
16'
18'
20 22
24 26 -
28-1
30-1
32-1
34 -
36 -
38 -
40-1
42 -1
44-
46-
48-
50 -1
52 -
54-
56-1
58 -
60-1
X
n
U) 9
x
o
toD
0)
W
CD
10 N/A
Method based
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.10 0.39
1 T
1 Normalized friction ratio (%)
Zone A : Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry 1n/i—IIII
3 J_ I I I i I7
Q
C (
0)
0 CD
C
o
(
d
C
Q
"T"

0.5 T
4 "T"

0.4 T
6 Li

0.2 No Liquefaction
I • । • I • । • i । । । i । । । I • । • I • । •
T
8 (D
N (
E
o
Z
Li
100
Lil
200
I

Page 490 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-03 CPT basic interpretation plots
Cone resistance Friction Ratio Pore pressure SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type 0 0
Clay
clay & sily Clay & silty clay
8 Clay N
Insitu
28- C Be
30 e 30-
32 Sand & silty sand
ilty sand,&sandy silt land & silty sand ilty sand & sandy silt A lity sand&s<
and & Silty si
Tay & silty cli
Sand & silty sand
T f
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 1 * I
1 1
1 I
1 1 * 1 * I
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 0 10 -10 20 1 4
Rf (%) Ic(SBT)
Input parameters and analysis data
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
| | 7. Gravely sand to sand
9 A-20 of 32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to 04.clq 18-20-
Q
C
| | 5. Silty sand to sandy silt • 8. Very stiff sand to| | 6. Clean sand to silty sand • 9. Very stiff fine grained or
C
Q
C
c
C
0-
2-4- '6-
Q
a
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu):

N/A
YesYes
Sands onlyNoN/A
2-
4-
6-1
26-128-1
10-12-14-16-
0-2-
4-
6-8-
10-12-14-16-18-
20-22-24-26-28-30-32-34-36-38-
40-42-44-46-48-
50-52-54-56-58-60-
32-1 34-136-
38-
40-1 42-'
44-
46-48-
50-52-54-56- 58-'
60-
34-'36-
38-
40-42-44-46-48-
50-52-54-56-58-60-
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height:

Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Kg applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
o-—
2-
4-6-8-
10-12-14-16-18-
20-
22-
24-26-28-30-
32-
34-36-38-
40-42-44-^46-48- .
50-52-54-
56-
58-
60-
Clay
Clay & silty clay
22-24-
26-

52.40Based on SBTNoN/A
• 2. Organic material • 3. Clay to silty clay
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
TI
3 TI
2 SBT legend
| | 1. Sensitive fine grained • 4. Clayey silt to silty 2-
4-
6- 48- ?
10-12-14-16-18-
20-22-24-26-28-30-32-34-36-38--
40—
42- J
44- ]
46-48-
50- i 52- i
54-
56-58-
60-
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay Clay
T
4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
L
10 and
lay

T---------
o
u (psi)
T
6 T
2 “I---------------
100
qt (tsf)
Clay --------
C ay & silty clay c ay & silty clay
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt
T
8 -r
-
200

Page 491 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-03 interpretation plots (normalized)CPT basic
Norm. cone resistance Norm, friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot o 0
C
Clay & si ty
C ay & si ty C ay & si tyca’Clay
32 Clay
h
Sand & silty
sanesane
Sand& silty
Silty sand & Silty sand &
sane
sanesand’
T T 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 1
1 1
1 0 200 0 10 -0.2 1 1 4
Fr (%) Ic (Robertson 1990)
Input parameters and analysis data
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
| | 7. Gravely sand to sand
10 A-21 of 32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to 04.clq cay cay
| | 5. Silty sand to sandy silt • 8. Very stiff sand to| | 6. Clean sand to silty sand • 9. Very stiff fine grained Q
C
or
C
Q
C
c
C
o
a
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu):
2-
4-
6-8-
10-12-14-16-18-
20-22-24-26-28-
30-
Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Kg applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands onlyNoN/A
0-2-
4-
6-8-
10-12-14-16-18-
20-22-24-26-28-30-32-34-36-38-
40-42-44-46-48-
50-52-54-56-58-60-
32-134-
36-
38-
40-42-44-46-48-
50-52-54-56-58-60-
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height:
32-1 34-136-
38-
40-1 42-
1 44-
46-.48-
50-52-
54-
56-58-'
60 -
Clay
Clay & silty clay
0-
2-
4-6-8-
10-12-14-16-18-
20-
22-
24-
26-28-
30-
32-
34-36-38-
40-42-44-
46-48-
50-52-54-56-58-
60-
34-
36-38-
40-42-44-46-48-
50-52-54-56-58-
60 -

0.4 0.6Bq

52.40Based on SBTNoN/A
• 2. Organic material • 3. Clay to silty clay
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
TT
3 TI
2 SBTn legend
| | 1. Sensitive fine grained • 4. Clayey silt to silty Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
” ind & silty sand
.. a sandy silt
_____________silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
ysilt y silt
ysilt
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Clay
Sakdsars s
Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt
T
4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
0-
2-4-6-8-
10-12-14-16-18-
20-22-24-,26-
2 28-2 30-
2-
4-
6-1
26-
1 5 28-
e 30-
T
0 T
6 L

0.2 Li

0.8 T
2 L
50 L
150
—I
-
100
Qtn
T
8

Page 492 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-03 Liquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results) Total cone resistance SBTnIndex Norm, cone resistance Grain char, factor Corrected norm, cone resistance C
— 8
14 - 14- 14- 14- 14-
/
24 - 24 - 24- 24- 24 -
d d
44 - 44-
44- 44-
44-
t
54 - 54- 54- 54-
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 1 4 0 200 0 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 0 200
Ic (Robertson 1990)
Input parameters and analysis data
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
11 A-22 of 32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to 04.clq 0-2-
40-42-
40-
42-
46-
48-
50-52-
16-18-
20-22-
10-12-
46-
48-
50-52-
54-
16-18-
20-
22-
46-48-
50-52-
56-
58-60-
46-48-
50-52-
16-18-
20-22-26-28-
30-
16-18-
20-22-
56-
58-
60-
16-18-
20-
22-
32-34-36-38-
40-
42-
32-34-36-38-
40-42-
32-34-
36-
38-
46-48-
50-52-32-34-36-38-
32-134-36-38-
40-42-
56-
58-
60 -
56-
58-
60-
0-2-
0-2-
26-
28-
30-
0-
2-
0-
2-
Q
Q
4-
6-8-
10-12-
4-6-
Q
a
Q
C
Q
C
Q
C
56-
58-
60-
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu):
4-6-8-
10-12-
4-
6-8-
10-12-
N/A
YesYes
Sands onlyNoN/A
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height:

Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Kg applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
4-6-8-
10-12-
4 5 6
KC

52.40Based on SBTNoN/A
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
26-
2 28-
2 30-
T
3 26-
5 28-
e 30-1
~r
-
100
Qtn
—i—
100
Qtn,cs
26-
5 28-
e 30-
L
50 T
2 L
50 “I-----------------
100
qt(tsf)
Li
150
Li
150
“T"
200

Page 493 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-03 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRR plot FS Plot Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements Lateral displacements o
2-
4-
6-
12-
14- 14 14- 14- 14-
ring. earthq
ing.
24 - 24 24- 24- 24 -
d d
>
40-42-
44- 44 44- 44-
44-
54- 54-
60 - 60-
T
0 0.6 0 2 0 20 0 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.3
CRR&CSR Factor of safety Settlement (in)
Input parameters and analysis data F.S. color scheme
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
12 A-23 of 32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to 04.clq 0-2-
40-42-
46-
48-
50-52-
54-
Dry: 0.00
Wet: 0.37
56-58-
16-18-
20-
22-
56-
58-
46-48-
50-52-
56-
58-
60 -
4648
505254
16-18-
20-
22-26-28-30-32-34-
36-
38-
565860
16-18-
20-22-32-34-36-38-
32343638
4042
1618
2022
32-34-36-
38-
40-42-
0--2-
5658
60 0
2 26-
28-
30-
0-2-
Q
Q
□□□■
Q
a
468
1012
Q
C
Q
C
46-48- J
50- J52-1
16-18-
20-22-
4648-
50-5254'
Q
C
LPI color scheme
■ Very high risk
• High risk
□ Low risk
32-34-
36-
38-
40-
42-
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu):

Almost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
4-6-8-
10-12-
Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Kg applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
4-
6-8-
10-12-
N/A
YesYes
Sands onlyNoN/A
4-
6-8-
10-12-
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height:
8-
10-

52.40Based on SBTNoN/A
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
26 2
28 2
30 26-
5 28-
e 30-
T
1 0
Displacement (in)
Li

0.4 “—
10 LPI
L
15 26-
5 28-
e 30-
Li

0.2 Li

0.5 T
5

Page 494 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-03 Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Illi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,000 - 0.8
v Analysis PGA: 0.39 ' Liquefaction 12.0-
7 Y 8 0.7- 11.0-
\
9 - PA

10.0-
Cl e O

0.6-

9.0-
100 -

8.0-

0.5-
1;' 7.0- R.
% a 0.4-
2 F 6.0-
5 O o 5.0-
ils &

0.3-
10 - U

4.0- 4
j

0.2-

3.0-2.0-

0.1 -
2 1.0-
No Liquefaction -
T o I I I 1—n-1—Tur—r"|—I I I ।—I I I ।—I I I ।—I I I । I I I ।—I I I ।—I I I 0.0 1 10 0 20 40 60 80 120 140 160 180 200 0 6 1 7 8 10
Normalized friction ratio (%) Thickness of surface layer, Hl (m) Input parameters and analysis data
13 A-24 of 32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to O4.clq 100
Qtn,cs
o2 d
C
Q
o0)
inO
1-

0.1 Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

O
o
/
Z
4 .CL.

X
C
U)
Ux
o
oD
in
U)9
in
Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Ko
applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands only
NoN/A
Mui. UCC.
.togat
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:

15.00 ft
5 2.40
Based on SBTNoN/A
T
C
(
0)
O
©
O
Mdx.CCC.
4300gal
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
own
8 g
0 (
O
T
3 g
T
2 \
\
V
£
N
x
T
4 ,1
/
T
9 T
5 T
3 ‘4
-J
ti :............: -
5 f i ...

I i
I Ma- oee > .

O ‘ 400-500gal
N(oEo
Z

Page 495 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-03 Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
Norm. cone resistance Grain char, factor Corrected norm, cone resistance SBTnIndex Liquefied Su/Sig'v 0 5 2-
14- 14- 14- 14- 14-
24-J 24- 24- 24- 24-
d d
32 44- 44- 44- 44- 44-
ss
| — Peak Su ratio -
—1---
1 ---- 1---
1 --- 1---
1 --- 1—1 T 1
I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 --- 1
200 0 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 4 0 200 0 1 4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Ie (Robertson 1990) Su/Sig'v
Input parameters and analysis data
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
14 A-25 of 32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to O4.clq 46-
48-
50-52-54-
46-
48-
50-52-54-
16-18-
20-22-
56-
58-60-
16-18-
20-22-
56-
58-
60-
16-18-
20-
22-
56-
58-60-
16-18-
20-
22-'
32-34-36-38-
40-
42-
16-18-
20-
22-
32-34-36-38-
40-42-46-48-
50-52-54-
26-28-30-32-34-
36-
38-
40-42-
34-|36-38-
40-
42-
56-
58-60-
56-
58-
60-
46-48-
50-52-54-
46-48-
50-52-54-
0-
2-
0-2-
0-2-
26-
28-
30-32-34-36-38-
40-42-
0-
2-
Q
Q
5 6
Kc
Q
a
Q
C
Q
C
Q
C
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu):
4-6-8-
10-12-
4-6-8-
10-12-
4-
6-8-
10-12-
N/A
YesYes
Sands onlyNoN/A
4-
6-8-
10-12-
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height:

Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Kg applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
4-6-8-
10-12-

52.40Based on SBTNoN/A
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
26-
5 28-
e 30-1
26-
2 28-
2 30-
-----1----
100
Qtn,cs
26-
5 28-
e 30-
L
50 T
3 L
50 T
2 “I—
100 Qtn
Li
150
Li
150

Page 496 of 1065 ends

Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*) Depth (ft) ( O O 5 5 • O

2.4579 5
AD cos —
Qom. —
AY
o O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O (
O00
J___11____ L_____ L_____ L_____ L_____ I__ I__ I__ I___I__ I___ I__ I__ I__ I__ I__ L_____ L_____ L_____ L_____ L_____ I__ I___I__ I__ I__ I__ L C (D ( CH Q O
Q
(D O cn
o “ O
Q
Q0. o
O
o - 20%)
IQ .s
o'
o “
UZ2
Q O Ch N
F
§ 1
U1 LH U1
NOC0 (D
O CD
00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — () 6 TTVMM-u
Q t 0
O o
0 H ( =5
n CD
in
C PGG 0 0
2 p d s s
<—O""
w C C3
<(DOI
co - o 2s34 CD — (
0 (
CD
to
U1 U1 U1 o'
O A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 cn cn
00 -
‘ 6' o FP F
5 T T T T T If
6'
Bl
d 3
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
55055 d030
O
o —Ul
o Q 2
$85
L L I I I 111 O
o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I () Q
O S' < 0
- 3
S 0
2 9 O o'
O o
5 2 r C 0 O (
N
o
A
9 Q 3
g 8 0
D I
CD _ Q ()
0 — (
O
CD = (.
o
o 4 Q O. CD
(Q o'
$0.0
( —
O
( CD ( . • CD
o _ O
CD o CD CD CD (D QJ
O
CD -
o 00 O
S' CD'
(Q 9
5 C
o QO C)
<1
CD

O Q Q O
O.
5 o' CD
220O O CQ
O >
ru o
I
CQ
O
cn
(D8
C
N
(O
CD
O (
cn
(
(
cn
CD
cnO
IT1 m
m m
CD ()
inCD
in
CD
Q CD
3 0
CD
CDo
()
o
00 o
PP
52 O Q () • •cn
Q
O
8 3
O
U.
o
3 N
CD
OO
pw
Q
O
8 -OO
5 o'o
8 CD inCD
8 i
s
oo

9. o' “
CQ
O
CD
oQ
NUl
n
(
O
7 m
O
O
7 5
0 O.
o
7 o
QO.

P
N
O)
o
CD C
D CD
(D
inin3
3 "
CD
O
g
Q
—O
88 C
Q
7 7
•
O
o
E
2 - o
O
5 (A i
o.

ONNCO NN
— O O ( O O
CO
O
8 (
■ ID'
3 •
. Il'
m
9 O
O
0 o
n 2'
OOC
—O.

C C -D — o
o
O
D
-
cn
oo
ao
(O
CD O3CD G)
5 2 O
S 0
Z
-s
II
UTUUUm--
CONOCO
G)
5 CD2
O
I । I ।J H
C
Q
Q 1O o
< CO coO —
CDg
d
in
O
DCD
UUUuu-- COONOCO
50 o
1 0 D
g 2
§ 8
9 9
( O
0 0
D Q.O 5
()
o
& 8
U) — 8 9
2 >
>—
s
□
O
>MMQ2.E’
OO)
—2
M
m' s L
. 3
o
_ 9
()
O
■ o
G. T12
29 o
2 5 af s
CD H
2h Ul
2 o
C
in CDcn
C.
$6802
CD CD 2 2
(0PD
>z>
2 o
29O _
U ©
7 —
O
5 O
o
x
p
cn
>z
O
cm ■n>
o
□
C —
( 9

0.69*

G) ( CD OD ST CD (D
S P — o
- Q
- S’
O
D
Q
CD
O O
2 Go
1 7 2 O (D Q O© o
* 4
c 22 8
899
o ( CD
<(D
O D
8 s
385 QJ @882% O 2 o 3
CQ — O □
5 O
EC)
— ()
g I
9 3.
p] ) / / I
0□
D•
3 O
: (
8 O "
8 O
................1
5 8 o
8882
"8" ■■
8 9
8 §
1 15
d d
( S
& O C
9 8 CQ
Q
CCD
S’
n
8 o
o' ft
08 o — C cn
-T0)
O-20
>3
ov
0 99
88— 2
c o

Page 497 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-04 CPT basic interpretation plots
Friction Ratio Soil Behaviour Type
_____ HAND AUGER 0
6- 6- 6- 6-
2-
8- 8- 8- 8-
10- 10- 10- 10-12- 12- 12- 12- 8-
14- 14- 14- 14-
Insitu. 16- 16- 16- 16-
18- 18- 18- 18- 14-
20 - 20- 20 - 20-
22- 22- 22- 22-
20- Clay
24- 24- 24- 24-26- 26- 26- 26-28- 28- 28- 28-
26-
30- 30- 30-32- 32- 32-
C1
a 34- 34 - 34- 34-
36 - 36 - 36 - 36-
38 - 38 - 38- 38- 36-
40 - 40 - 40- 40- Clay42 - 42 - 42- 42-
42-
44- 44-
44-. 44-
46- 46 - 46 - 46- Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay
sleysasJ&
Silty sand & sandy silt 48 - 48 - 48 - 48- E 48-
50 - 50 - 50 - 50-52 - 52 - 52 - 52-54 - 54- 54- 54- 54- 56- 56- 56- 56-
Sand & silty sand
I ■ I ■ I ■ I • 14 | i | i
58- 58- 58 - 58-

T T T T 'I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 I
1 1 * I
1 1
1 I TInn
300 0 10 -10 1 4
Rf (%) Ic(SBT)
Input parameters and analysis data
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
| | 7. Gravely sand to sand
16 A-27 of 32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to O4.clq 50-52-
38-
40-
56-
58-
16-18-
22-24-32-34-
10-12-
| | 5. Silty sand to sandy silt • 8. Very stiff sand to| | 6. Clean sand to silty sand • 9. Very stiff fine grained Q
C
4-
6-
Q
C
c
C
o
a
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu):

SBT Plot
__ HAND AUGER
N/A
YesYes
Sands onlyNoN/A
44-46-
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height:

Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Kg applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

52.40Based on SBTNoN/A
• 2. Organic material • 3. Clay to silty clay
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
K
TI
3 £ 30-
S 32-
TI
2 Cone resistance
______ HAND AUGER
SBT legend
| | 1. Sensitive fine grained • 4. Clayey silt to silty 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
— 28-
C
6 30-
Pore pressure
_____ HAND AUGER
SfCs&n’X s
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand 100 200
qt (tsf)
T
4 HAND AUGER
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay---i-i
Clay & silty clay
T o
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sand
E ay & silty clay
n---------
o
u (psi)
T
6 T
2 L
10 T
8

Page 498 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-04 interpretation plots (normalized)CPT basic
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
0 6- 6- 6- 6-
2-
8- 8- 8- 8-
10- 10- 10- 10-12- 12- 12- 12- 8-
14- 14- 14- 14-16- 16- 16- 16-18- 18- 18- 18- 14-
20 - 20 - 20 - 20-
22- 22- 22- 22-
20-
24- 24- 24- 24- Clay
26- 26 - 26 - 26-28-1 28- 28-4 28-
26-
30 - 30 - 30-32 - 32- 32-
[
Cl
a 34- 34 - 34 - 34-
36 - 36 - 36 - 36-38 - 38 - 38- 38- 36-
40-1 40 - 40- 40- Clay
42 - 42 - 42 - 42-
42-
44- 44- 44- 44-
46-' 46- 46-: 46-
48 - 48 - 48 - 48-
48-
50 - 50 - 50 - 50-
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
52 - 52 - 52 - 52-
1 54 - 54- 54 - 54- 54- clayasnkg silt
56- 56- 56- 56- Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
I ■ I ■ I ■ I • 14 | i | i
58- 58- 58 - 58-
T T 'I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 I
1 1 * I
1 1
1 I TInn
0 200 0 10 -0.2 1 1
Fr (%) Ic (Robertson 1990)
Input parameters and analysis data
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
| | 7. Gravely sand to sand
17 A-28 of 32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to O4.clq 50-52-
38-
40-
56-
58-
16-18-
22-24-32-34-
10-12-
| | 5. Silty sand to sandy silt • 8. Very stiff sand to| | 6. Clean sand to silty sand • 9. Very stiff fine grained Q
C
4-
6-
Q
C
c
C
o
a
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu):

Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Kg applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands onlyNoN/A
SBTn Plot
___ HAND AUGER
44-46-
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height:

0.4 0.6Bq

52.40Based on SBTNoN/A
• 2. Organic material • 3. Clay to silty clay
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
TT
3 £ 30-
S 32-
TI
2 SBTn legend
| | 1. Sensitive fine grained • 4. Clayey silt to silty Norm, friction ratio
________ HAND AUGER_______
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
1 4
Norm, cone resistance
__________HAND AUGER_
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt
— 28-
C
o 30-
Nom. pore pressure ratio

RAND AUGER
T
4 HAND AUGER
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay -
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clayClay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sand
E ay & silty clay
T
0 T
6 L

0.2 Li

0.8 T
2 L
50 Li
150
—L
100
Qtn
T
8

Page 499 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-04 Liquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results) Total cone resistance
__________ HAND AUGER_____
Norm, cone resistance
___________ HAND AUGER____
Grain char. factor Corrected norm, cone resistance

HAND AUGER
6- 6- 6- 6- 6-
8- 8- 8- 8- 8-
10- 10 - 10- 10- 10-12- 12- 12- 12- 12-14- 14- 14- 14- 14- 16- 16- 16- 16- 16-
18- 18- 18- 18- 18-
20 - 20 - 20- 20 - 20 -
22- 22- 22- 22- 22-
24- 24- 24- 24- 24-26 - 26 - 26- 26 - 26-28 - 28 - 28- 28- 28 - d d 30 - 30 -
32 - 32 -
O O
a 34- a 34- 34- 34 -
36 - 36 - 36- 36- 36-38 - 38 - 38- 38- 38-
40 - 40 - 40- 40 - 40-42 - 42 - 42- 42- 42-
44- 44- 44-
44- 44-
46- 46- 46- 46- 46-
48 - 48- 48- 48- 48-
50- 50 - 50- 50- 50-
52 - 52 - 52- 52 - 52 -54 - 54- 54- 54- 54 -
56- 56- 56- 56- 56-
58- 58- 58- 58- 58-
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 30C 0 200 1 4 0 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 0 200
Ic (Robertson 1990)
Input parameters and analysis data
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
18 A-29 of 32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to 04.clq O
Q
Q
C
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu):

Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Kg applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands onlyNoN/A
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height:
4 5 6
KC

52.40Based on SBTNoN/A
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
SBTnIndex
_____ HAND AUGER
£ 30-
S 32-
£ 30-
S 32-
£ 30-
£32-
CD
a 34-
T0
T
3 —L
100
Qtn
—i—
100
Qtn,cs
L
50 T
2 L
50 “I----------------
100
qt(tsf)
Li
150
Li
200
Li
150

Page 500 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-04 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRR plot FS Plot Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements Lateral displacements o 0 0 0 0
2- 2- 2- 2- 2-4- 4- HAND AUGER HAND AUGER HAND AUGER 4 HAND AUGERHAND AUGER 6- 6 6-
8- 8 8- 8- 8-
10- 10 10- 10- 10-12- 12 12- 12- 12-14- ▼ 14 14- 14- 14- During, earthq ing 16-
18-
20 - 20 20 - 20- 20 -
22 -
24-
26 - 26 26- 26- 26 -
d d
28-
c
8 30-
36 - 36 36 - 36- 36-
38 - 38 38 - -1 38- 38 -
40 - 40 40 - 40- 40 -
42 - 42 42 - 42- 42-
44- 44-46- 46 -
48 - 48 48- 48 48-
50-52- J
sl 54- 54 54- 54 54-wuiin
acalil
56- 56-
58- 58-
T
0 0.6 0 2 0 20 0 0.05 1.5 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
CRR&CSR Factor of safety Settlement (in)
Input parameters and analysis data F.S. color scheme
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
19 A-30 of 32
Cuiil
iiffniiftni
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to O4.clq 50-
52-
16-18-
16'18
44-46-
28-
30-
Dry: 0.00
Wet: 0.25
22-
24-
32-
34-
5658
16-18-
56-58-
2224
50525658
22-24-32-
34-
28-30-32-34-
3234
22-
24-
32-
34-
50-
52-
5052
4446
4-
6-
Q
Q
4-
6-
□□□■
Q
C
Q
Q
CD
C
16-18-
O
C
LPI color scheme
■ Very high risk
• High risk
□ Low risk
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu):

Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Kg applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands onlyNoN/A
Almost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
44-46-
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height:

52.40Based on SBTNoN/A
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
— 28
C6 30
— 28-
C
6 30-
T
1 0
Displacement (in)
Li

0.4 “—
10 LPI
L
15 Li

0.2 Li

0.5 T
5

Page 501 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-04 Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Illi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,000 - 0.8
Analysis PGA: 0.39 V ' Liquefaction 12.0-
7 8 0.7- 11.0-
. PA

10.0-
Cl c O

0.6-

9.0-
100 - 0

8.0-

0.5-
-
J 7.0- R.
% a 0.4- F 6.0-
O 5.0-
ils &

0.3-
10 - U O 4.0- 4
j

0.2- 3.0-

2.0-

0.1 -
2 1.0-
No Liquefaction -
1 T 0 i i i 1—n-1—pn—r-j—i i i ।—i i i ।—i i i ।—i i i । i i i ।—i i i ।—i i i 0.0

0.1 10 0 20 40 60 80 120 140 160 180 200 0 6 7 8 101
Normalized friction ratio (%) Thickness of surface layer, Hl (m) Input parameters and analysis data
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
20 A-31 of 32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to O4.clq 100
Qtn,cs
o2d
CQ
o0)
inO
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

O
o
/
Z
4 .CL.

X
C
U)
Ux
o
oD
in
U)9
in
Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Ko
applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands only
NoN/A
Mui. UCC.
.togat
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation: Use fill:Fill height:
5 2.40
Based on SBTNoN/A
T
C
(
0)
O
©
O
Mdx.CCC.

NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value7.10

0.39 15.00 ft
8 g
0 (
O
T
3 g
T
2 \
£
N
X
1—Illi
1 T
4 9
T
9 T
5 T
3 ‘4
-I
ti :............: -
5 f i ...

I i
I Ma- oee > .

O ‘ 400-500gal
N(oEo
Z

Page 502 of 1065 ends

This software is licensed to: Yeh and Associates CPT name: 25CPT-04 Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
Corrected norm, cone resistance Liquefied Su/Sig'v
HAND AUGER 0
6- 6- 6- 6-
2-
8- 8- 8- 8-
4- HAND AUGER
10- 10 - 10- 10- 6-
12- 12- 12- 12- 8-14- 14- 14- 14- 10-16- 16- 16- 16- 12-18- 18- 18- 18- 14- 20 -20 - 20- 20-
16-
18-
22- 22- 22- 22-
20 -
24- 24- 24- 24-
22-
26 - 26 - 26- 26-
24-
28 - 28 - 28- 28-
26-
d d 30 -
28 -
32- 30-
O O
a 34- a 34- 34- 32-
36 - 36 - 36 - 36- 34 -
38- 38 - 38- 38- 36 -
40 - 40 - 40- 40- 38 -
40 - 42 - 42 - 42- 42-
42- 44- 44- 44- 44-44-
46- 46- 46- 46-
46 -
48 - 48- 48- 48-
48 -
50- 50 - 50- 50-
50-
52 - 52 - 52- 52-
52-
54 - 54- 54- 54- 54-
56- 56- 56- 56- 56-
| — Peak Su ratio -
—1---
1 ---- 1---
1 --- 1---
1 --- 1—1
--- 1
58- 58- 58- 58- 58-
T 1
I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 200 0 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 4 0 200 0 1 4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ie (Robertson 1990) Su/Sig'v
Input parameters and analysis data
Depth to water table (erthq.): 15.00 ft
21 A-32 of 32
CLiq v.3.5.3.15 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/30/2025, 3:02:29 PM Project file: C:\Users\jking\Yeh and Associates, Inc\223-400 Prado Road IC - General\3.2 CPT\223-400 Prado Road IC Liquefaction CPT-01 to O4.clq Q
Q
5 6
Kc
Q
C
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu):

Fill weight:

Transition detect, applied:

Kg applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands onlyNoN/A
Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height:

52.40Based on SBTNoN/A
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value

7.100.39

15.00 ft
Norm, cone resistance
___________HAND AUGER_
Grain char, factor
_________HAND AUGER
SBTn Index
_____ HAND AUGER
P-a
£ 30-
S 32-
$ 30-
£32-
CL)
a 34-
£ 30-
S 32-
T0
—I—
100
Qtn,cs
L
50 T
3 L
50 T
2 “I—
100
Qtn
Li
150
-i
-
150

Page 503 of 1065 ends

APPENDIX B - RELEVANT PREVIOUS DATA

Page 504 of 1065 ends

W ) 1 ii
I • DNE I
-
C6l6rd‘ONonnysa"n2Ba)2 6Z z 62
mafg O6/- 6 P 2dNa sHisog scuvalansa oogavorog— aenioS ,| ulnoata 970o/or2M ouvs Ainis CNvs Ans F 80 I7IS AONYS ka
1 4 aoa 1531 JO 90
tshrtot vw %4% 9NI 1 —
fomeve
$
DNiHOG 3805
(onou shoe i
2-51
eNsSOL/O ovos yNNOGVN
"T2 DM80G Lar t
“e
- S E coveyuereoos. aocot. J
— 07 —ov
("W “ “n) “ 2
y
- . ILWU - -“77; NV “Y 5PLP
_Pep0D0
(% te
d*4 "gtpvertp-t . Mas— 7 4 gg 4 A ■ ammS127 TV
(YP/Mt" "" f” — d Pur, ?)— Uu. rw-erN 2 org a ‘F9 V “MP? ,3unos o 4 coo
a: vineoeres so eavLe
iyocur” uevloyd“a anvs /
73wo“QL
I,
aN-B 13 9o dor
I Adu 0 i
-. T § .. • puo
31ON J tvmIvw HXWV3 JO onasan oNI s o Q
do Wolvodis$V15 s N so co-- Nga o
DR
a J vo — C 3
t
2 752N FV2 SwO2 aw 3 oMv9 “TONtD*1705 ;
—ArLonA-yovear .
i
j I 24— 22 OC woaatzy
iy
1 "VIPe
~P=377
s-p2-5 I is-z-a
•
I 12 3%e
E. ,
i _
r"
I I
aW3 ow J9‘sO 12
2A9 SNOI1238003 2 I ± 1
007 -' AC '
|
SSES/ A9/ /arele
44 WII
4 oo o’so 44.07
1 -oaw32irs-,3 */,4/0 •

3.1 Sul
CE-S lg 2 Ol
177 0/7 we f-fm/= “fours Ar yourel
puprer--0r u*% fuerayF

1. - O3/ 2 03/
*** I
I d ens s
A)
#
08, :O£7
i
I
l' I
"=* ““
l |
4 wo5 Ruoos e. =voo?
sgee 6:
1 — ow/— L .1
135 Ames "tl I is hoher •
ill. Beee * 2277.54
2$Enb
" os/ Stt 1 I h al 1 SAP
jtlt ■ -2E 2
■ T J 37 :

I I

1. J I 5
09r ml 097
0 1 2 s
, : ' ” 7
8 /Io
P N2 $39 e N2nrd s7 70 I. $75 P20
£94 SRFKO”0 sazeIss75 p3d .sapw70 )-G t
2cs ONOAK7 -azL* 1
# Cosa0.1 $9125
O C167 • I $$ 73
: FAK7 wo ao.

I
077713 $170 4/77/7
e terc I £175
289/1 ISSY70 :.-”P95. $77/2/77/7
•2% • 1ss*75
i
-IIf9 ' — 7. " ? J
. 792 * Issv25 1$? 78 27Pe// 26 of
n-d 4P9 . s aiz II S$F72 33d
770 079907 cy 4400.9 44 Iss75 5a. er 3-i
?
4 777 ""SoNo — 77 20
1, SAr 4 £• : POFO 7 7 7′0 w&rig EM
.7 F euuoprri^ 7
. |
• x 37d 039P07 S A9 0
1 5A 0

8. d 6
.2
I
.•■I 4 i nEFe
2 I
-
- -
"et I ; s S
iI
£967 FMMC ■
2-rpen0-E9—
I
r
as g. ABAn5
4o AD ANS
I ■
|
-
HZ
1 II
SMO
Ler
06 TVA
3I
T
TiTT
।
-
I
।
. 2-5ip
OP 4
7 9
8 CD 3J
8m8
3 2
11VQ
ON ISVd:N03
A-erena
(no) onitos woyes
G3M) onraou Aavod os
(A9) P909 “A"s 5
aaiycinsd aNo.*2 de
azanourzuad 0
22 2gl'2Base
_____
-
/ 00 i of. • I
e
■
13 %)on oo.
f
/rc
zile
del
:
ail._________
in V
i's AB*v5 pra
8 A¥1D AlTs Ld
sllwi
—-szis zovan cavanvis
v
72 JalIVW S1ewc
“Dv iVid
vCues jecwiw anewlnywos
“sroe
1 ww .wnardo,want a sinnow t"y.
anevipasdoy. MI LSSsue n uneo 4 SEC
Tawen 29013 30 NOLYMIW V
W ■
J '
AYsp •
___
■ - °
B
lwas,. Ak.cu fau^Oun
aselaSF.% S 114 - ( Off C cumn)
• -o - ** —
1 -
A9SHSSiSo5
HATSV
1____ ii
--
Un
*0 """ •
*208 AavanawGS •
*ou ShoaND, gig
y
5 oi *3asd T9AY*P ony 19
INvs saisosao oiazen wan “
J3nts. oay .wniosn, Lacavos.

Sw83i 3H1 zonvs ATISAY*, <
ZIA ‘aru seenp a o1 gncov 30
- ~=
Ta
l axy owevg swor
&£ 129 ft Of f/ •
! UT
“c mo f F awes
P
T
8nsd m sam Noln@10) azt aovur so 4
covwi€3 wo- sicva ami nmawone wesvic
m is we cavong wo oxva 11
: . me/
(d C mu
Ah
ood sye
T
-
J
T
■ 6- ie owde wos
70NTOF7
PP22A—-_____ -
TTT8 SV

Page 505 of 1065 ends

U.S. 101

EXISTING LIFT STATIC
O
10 2+00
2+40 2 + 60
1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 0+60 1+00 4
0 4
1 10.08m NORTH
0 16 32 M
1:800
s 8 FT
J
8 Js57s. % PROPOSED LIFT STATION
8 1-3
s
8 #
s ■20
ro
so
6,
4,
‘o
LEGEND
NORTH © DH-1 Approximate Location of M Hole
o % 0 16 32 M
1:800
3 o42
N2709‘52°E
207.71m “

SLO WWTP

ACCESS ROAD

PROPOSED FORCED

MAIN ALIGNMENT
N7209‘52*E

19.89m
Approximate Location of SGD 1988
Dra Hole
©
H-2
DH-1
(NOV. 1988)
2+20
o
PLATE 2
B-2 of 97
November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411
i
J
) I
N
1 8

DRILL HOLE LOCATION PLAN
Laguna Lift Station
San Luis Obispo WWTP
APPROXIMATE LOCATION Of

EXSTNC FORCE MAIN
0+80
•DH-2
(NOV. 1988)
•DH-1
(NOV. 1988)
-
-fumwn
8 |
O

Page 506 of 1065 ends

TuGRO
38 General Notes
20 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
2T
Well graded GRAVEL (GW)
25 -12 2 ■
Poorly graded GRAVEL (GP)
s • Symbol for
-14 4 2 (25) 1
Well graded SAND (SW)
2 I
-16 6
3 (25) 3 Poorly graded SAND (SP)
-18 8 4
!
i (25) 4 Silty SAND (SM)
-20 10
Clayey SAND (SC)
-22 12
Silty, Clayey SAND (SC-SM)
14 6-24
I
Elastic SILT (MH)
-26 16
7 SILT (ML)
-28 18
; 508/
8 610 Silty CLAY (CL-ML)
> mm 86/280
-30 20
*4 Fat CLAY (CH)
9 (25)
-32 22
50/152 Lean CLAY (CL)
24 - Ref/76 -34 i 10

CONGLOMERATE
-36 26
: 11

SANDSTONE
-38 28

SILTSTONE
-40 30

MUDSTONE
-42 32

CLAYSTONE
34------- -44
SHALE Water Level Symbols
-46 36===

GRANITE
-4 NL -48 38
-0-o L
Paving and/or Base Materials

KEY TO TERMS & SYMBOLS USED ON LOGS
PLATE A-1
B-3 of 97
1&
Initial or perched water level
Final ground water level
Seepages encountered
457/
726
mm
R
0 C
K
C
O
A
R
S
E
762/
762
mm
508/
610
mm
Y
X
N
Blows/ft
25 KEY (90420411.GPJ/OH-01)
11/3/99 (3:28:53 PM)
November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 SPT Sampler, driven

34.9 mm ID, 50.8 mm OD
CA Liner Sampler, driven

60.3 mm ID, 76.2 mm OD
CA Liner Sampler, disturbed

60.3 mm ID, 76.2 mm OD
Thin-walled Tube, pushed

73.0 mm ID, 76.2 mm OD
Bulk Bag Sample (from cuttings)
Hand Auger Sample
CME Core Sample
Lexan Sample
Pitcher Sample
Vibracore Sample
No Sample Recovered
Geologic Formation noted in bold font at
the top of interpreted interval
Strength Legend
□ = Unconfined Compression
u * Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial
t = Torvane
p = Pocket Penetrometer
m = Miniature Vane
Sampler Driving Resistance
Number of blows with 140 lb. hammer, falling
30-in. to drive sampler 1-ft. after seating
sampler 6-in.; for example,
w
u
_i
Q
I
0 Samplers and sampler dimensions (unless
otherwise noted in report text) are as
follows:

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is the
sum of recovered core pieces greater than
102 mm divided by the length of the cored
interval.

Soil Texture Symbol
Sloped line in symbol column indicates
transitional boundary
LOCATION: The drill hole location referencing local
landmarks or coordinates
SURFACE EL: Using local, MSL, MLLW or other datum
Description
25 blows drove sampler 305 mm
after initial 152 mm of seating
After driving sampler the initial
152 mm of seating, 36 blows
drove sampler through the
second 152 mm interval, and 50
blows drove the sampler 128 mm
into the third interval
50 blows drove sampler 152 mm
after initial 152 mm of seating
50 blows drove sampler 76 mm
during initial 152 mm seating
interval
EmuS
Blow counts for California Liner Sampler
shown in ()
Length of sample symbol approx- imates
recovery length
Classification of Soils per ASTM D2487 or
D2488
F
l
N
E
o
z
u
•
Q
3C

I- E ZE
O ui
92 is-J ui
co C
v E ' -4 PL
G
R
A
I
N
E
D
G
R
A
I
N
E
D
E
X'
F
CL
u
O
E
Z
O
ILU
U

Page 507 of 1065 ends

[uGRU
LOCATION: Proposed Lift Station
Oul
38 SURFACE EL: 37 m +/- 0.2 (rel. assumed datum) tuz 2. Q* Cm U Q,- us - — tu DE FE 0. 92
2W

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(19) ..17.... ... PP.215.
■36 B
2 (27) 184* “T4.8 24 PP215
■35 2
3 (27) Fat CLAY (CH): very stiff, dark brown, moist 19.1 15.4 24 '62' 34 ' PF 172 ■34 3
■33 4
4 19.1 30 -49 28- PP24
.. IY.21.
■32 5
V
5 .

NR 13 -31 6
5 (5) 18.2* -43:7 • •33** 8f- ... -fV-21-
■30 7-
6 (8) 18.4 13.8 33
-29 8-
■28 9- (6) 18.7 13.9 35
■27 10
X
8 5 37 TVTO
•26 11
12-' 9 (18) -25 20.0 14.3 39 TV8+
$&3
$
si
aa
COMPLETION DEPTH: 12.3 m
DEPTH TO WATER: 4.4 m
BACKFILLED WITH: Cuttings
DRILLING DATE: October 25,1999
Lean CLAY (CL): stiff, olive brown, wet, with organic
pockets
- with interlayered SILT with sand (ML) at 9 to 10.5
meters
- with interlayered loose Clayey SILT (CL-ML) at 6
meters
Topsoil/Artificial Fill (Af)
Lean CLAY with gravel (CL): hard, black, dry, with
roots
November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411
OH LOG (BS42041 1 .GPJ/DH-01)
11/4/09 (0:22:50 AM)
- with light gray mottling and black organic pockets at

7.6 meters
- with shale gravel layer at 1.6 meters____________
Alluvium (Qal)
Fat CLAY with gravel (CH): very stiff, black, moist
E
Z
o
6 z
sW
E
r
o. tu
Q

14.5 BGS = el. 107.5'
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): soft to firm, dark brown,
wet, with subrounded and subangular gravel to
approximately 3 mm diameter
wLU
18 aS
*
&H 0
K
LU□
CL
3co
(8)--
PLATE A-2
B-4 of 97
DRILLING METHOD: 203 mm diameter Hollow Stem Auger
DRILLED BY: S/G Testing, Inc.

LOGGED BY: CLLovato
CHECKED BY: GSDenlinger
The lg and data preserked are a simplification ofacual conditions encountered at the time of drilling at the drilled location. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and with the passage of time.

LOG OF DRILL HOLE NO. DH-1
Laguna Lift Station
San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant
15 83
38m
Ex

0.§
W Wo‘
—u 59
3 2
Q. tl
84 8d ZE
0022
0 "E
22 $8O
s
5?
tx
se
20 3 LU
5

Page 508 of 1065 ends

TuGRi
LOCATION. Station 2+90, Right 5 meters
s s
38 Q* SURFACE EL: 39 m +/- 0.2 (rel. assumed datum) C2
a00et Dm DE “2 hx OS
— tz OC
50 (14) 19.3.. ............26. PP86
-38 1-
2 (15) .18.9 14.8.....27.... ... PP.48.
-37 3 (19) 19.2 15.1 28 PP.148 2-
4 (12) .19.2. ..15.3. ...25... PP.57..

P X -36 3 10 PP-124
- with subrounded shale clasts to 6 mm at 3 meters
-35 4-
•34 5-
-33 6-
■32 7-
-31 8-
-30 9-
-29 10-
■28 11 -
-27 12 -
]
62 1
A
—
U
L
November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411
COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.4 m
DEPTH TO WATER: Not encountered
BACKFILLED WITH: Cuttings
DRILLING DATE: October 25,1999
DH LOG (99420411 .GPJDH-02)
11/4/99 (8:54:56 AM)
E
Z
O
E
T
nLU
O
20 OS
s
W
er
iu
_J
Q
s
0 6
2 u •
Q.
z
0 Op
— LU 35
5 PLATE A-3
B-5 of 97
DRILLING METHOD: 203 mm diameter Hollow Stem Auger
DRILLED BY: S/G Testing, Inc.

LOGGED BY: CLLovato
CHECKED BY: GSDenlinger
The log and data presented are > simplification of actual condtiom encountered at the time of drilling at the drilled location. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and with the passage of time.

LOG OF DRILL HOLE NO. DH-2
Laguna Lift Station
San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant
S&.8 g
O m
8%
80 Zr
iO
*
UZ
so
22 nE "8
§809ID
__________MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
F Artificial Fill (Af)
76 mm Asphalt Concret Pavement (AC):____________
406 mm Aggregate Base:________________________
Alluvium (Qal)
Fat CLAY with gravel (CH): stiff, black, moist, with
angular red chert to 25 mm
— - with shale clast at 1.5 meters_____________________ Fat CLAY with gravel (CH): stiff, dark brown and
mottled light gray, moist
- medium stiff at 2.7 meters
QIU
6000) is
82 Ee
•uj Ox
32O

Page 509 of 1065 ends

1 GRD
LOCATION: Station 5+00
"E
he Ea SURFACE EL: 40 m +/- 0.2 (rel. assumed datum) sLw Q* D a1... a X C.9 tu 1? 18 85 _ CM —1
fax

0. a* m
1 (26) .19.6.. ..16.6....18...... PP.215
■39 1-
2 (13) .15.7. 13.6.,...15.. PP.215
3 (37) 20.1 16.9. 43. pp 215 •33 2-
4 (21) ...19.7.-15.8. .25. PP.134
X
-37 3- 5 12 PP-120
-36 4-
•35 5-
-34 6-
■33 7-
■32 8-
-31 9-
-30 10-
-29 11-
-28 12-
November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411
OH LOG (99 42041 1.GPJ/DH-03)
11/4/99 (8:55:07 AM)
3 COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.4 m
DEPTH TO WATER: Not encountered
BACKFILLED WITH: Cuttings
DRILLING DATE: October 25, 1999
E
2 O
E
X —

0. Ul
□
- medium stiff at 1.2 meters
Alluvium (Qal)
Fat CLAY with gravel (CH): very stiff to hard, black,
moist
- grades to dark brown
- stiff with light gray mottling below 2.4 meters
29 Du
3 W
Q.

Ul
_1
a.

I a C
Ul
DRILLING METHOD: 203 mm diameter Hollow Stem Auger
DRILLED BY: S/G Testing, Inc. LOGGED BY: CLLovato
CHECKED BY: GSDenlinger
The log and data presentad are a simplification of actual conditions encountered at the time of drilling at the drilled location. Subsurface condtions may differ at other locations and wih the passage of time.

PLATE A-4
B-6 of 97
LOG OF DRILL HOLE NO. DH-3
Laguna Lift Station
San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant
d
Z
LU
-J
O. 2
t
—
&E8
a
65 Eu
O
8% 84 Zr u( 22
OS§6
(u 8 3%
2058
"E
&2
Pe
—u 55
3 _______ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION_______
Artificial Fill (Af)
Sandy Lean CLAY with gravel (CL): very stiff, brown,
dry
- moist below 0.6 meters
CL32

Page 510 of 1065 ends

I
&
O z
a O LOCATION 9 < 2.

SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION CORROSIVITY TESTS I O.)
s,U
i DEPTH, m LL% Pl% Cell Pre R i pH CI SO.
! kPa
i
EDH-1 Lean CLAY with gravel (CL) M
1 ! 0.6
DH-1 P
B 17.3 15

0.6 I I H
Lean CLAY with gravel (CL)DH-1 T
2 1.5 18 15 24 I
DH-1 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH) T. A
3 I 62 I 2.7 19 I 15 | 24 34
i DH-1 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) T. A, D
4 30 13

4.3 19 I 15 | 30 49 _ 28
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)DH-1

5.8 DH-1 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) T. D
5 21 14
18 14 61 I 6.7 33
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)DH-1 T
I
6 |
18 I 14 I 7.3 33
DH-1 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
7 I 88 I ■
DH-1 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) M
8 I I 10.4 37
O
Compaction Test Test Listing Abbreviations

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
O
Laguna Lift Station, San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant B-7 of 97
SAMPLE
NUMBER
UDW
kN/m’
DIRECT
SHEAR

TEST TEST

LISTING
UWW
kN/m1
MAX DD = Maximum Dry DensityOPT MC = Optimum Moisture Content

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
TESTS
MC
%
1 l
|
OPT
MC
%
C
kPa
i
l
i
Direct Shear TestC = Assigned Cohesion, kPa
PHI = Assigned Friction Angle, degrees
1 Compressive Strength Tests
Qu = Unconfined Compression
Su = Undrained Shear Strength
u = Unconsolidated Undrained
p = Pocket Penetrometer
t=Torvane
m = Miniature Vane
FINES
%
UID
3a:

Classification Tests
UWW = Unit Wet WeightUDW = Unit Dry WeightMC = Moisture ContentFines = % passing #200 Sieve LL = Liquid LimitPI = Plasticity Index
Corrosivity Tests
R = Resistivity, ohm-cm, satur.pH = pHCI = Chloride, ppmSO, = Sulfate, ppm ! PHI
i deg

COMPACTION
TEST
I
Qu
kPa
... I _17
Lean CLAY with gravel (CL)
.1m
□
D = Direct Shear Test
C = Consolidation TestCo = Corrosivity TestsCU = CU TriaxialU = UU TriaxialR = R-value (saturated)E = Expansion Index 1i
(o co
(o CD
D
o
M * Moisture Content
T = Total & Dry Density
S * Sieve Analysis
F=% Passing #200 Sieve
H = Hydrometer Analysis
A = Atterberg Limits
P = Compaction Test
o
§
I
CD
r
m
!i
i
I
I
MAX
DD,
kN/m
to toa 3
8 2
Z4L
250
05 OUI

Page 511 of 1065 ends

LOCATION
SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION CORROSIVITY TESTS u. O.

S,
: PHI Cell Pro
C DEPTH,m LL% PI% R pH Cl SO.
kPa deg kPa
kPa
Lean CLAY (CL)DH-1 T
9 I
20 I 11.9 14 | 39 [
DH-2 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH) T
1 19 1 15 | 26 | 0.6 I
1 1 DH-2 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH)
A

0.6 I II
DH-2 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH) T
1 2

1.2 19 1 15 I 27 J I
DH-2 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH) T
■
a
19 | 28 | I 1.8 15
DH-2 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH) T, D
4 30 14

2.4 19 | 15 25 |
DH-2 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH)
I 5

2.9 DH-3 Sandy Lean CLAY with gravel (CL) T
1 |

0.6 20 I 17 I 18 7
DH-3 Sandy Lean CLAY with gravel (CL) T
2 1.2 16 14 ■I 15 1
DH-3 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH) T
3 20 | I .... 19 J I

1.8 17
Test Listing Abbreviations
m
co

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
i O
Laguna Lift Station, San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant B-8 of 97
SAMPLE
NUMBER
UWW
kN/m‘
TEST

LISTING
UDW
kN/m1
OPT
MC
%
MC
%

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
TESTS
DIRECT
SHEAR
TEST
|i
Z
o
!
Compaction Test
MAX DO = Maximum Dry Density
OPT MC = Optimum Moisture ContentDirect Shear festC = Assigned Cohesion, kPaPHI = Assigned Friction Angle, degrees Classification Tests
UWW = Unit Wet WeightUDW = Unit Dry Weight
MC = Moisture Content
Fines = % passing #200 Sieve
LL = Liquid Limit
PI = Plasticity Index
O
(
Compressive Strength TestsQu = Unconfined CompressionSu = Undrained Shear Strength u = Unconsolidated Undrainedp = Pocket Penetrometer
t = Torvane
m = Miniature Vane
FINES
%
Corrosivity Tests
R = Resistivity, ohm-cm, satur.
pH = pH
CI = Chloride, ppm
SO. = Sulfate, ppm

COMPACTION
TEST
Z
5 D = Direct Shear Test
C = Consolidation TestCo = Corrosivity TestsCU = CU Triaxial U = UU TriaxialR = R value (saturated)
E = Expansion Index
MAX
DD,
kN/m
ii
I"C
m
a
a
M = Moisture Content
T = Total & Dry DensityS = Sieve AnalysisF = % Passing #200 SieveH = Hydrometer Analysis A « Atterberg Limits
P = Compaction Teat
(o CO(o CD
L
NJ
O
Z4W
50 05
o
CU
UJ
D3
Qi
s
X
I11
O z
£ <
Ch Ch
9 3
e‘P
I
s
3

Page 512 of 1065 ends

I
• ---
S
O 2
o o LOCATION 2 i SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION CORROSIVITY TESTS tau.

O.1
()5
!
U
DEPTH,m LL% Pl% R pH Cl SO.
kN/m %
! Fat CLAY with gravel (CH)DH-3 T
4 2.4 20 | 16 1 25 | I
DH-3 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH)
5 29 1
|
I I
I
I
|
I I
i
I
I I I 1 I
I
O
5 m
।

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Q
Laguna Lift Station, San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant B-9 of 97
SAMPLE
NUMBER
UDW
kN/m’
DIRECT
SHEAR

TEST TEST

LISTING
FINES
%
MC
%

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
TESTS
O
in
|
MAX : OPT
DD,i MC
n
7 : □
c
kPa
D = Direct Shear TestC = Consolidation TestCo = Corrosivity Tests CU = CUTnaxlal
UsUUTriavial
: PHI i deg
Compaction TestMAX DD = Maximum Dry DensityOPT MC = Optimum Moisture Content Compressive Strength TestsQu = Unconfined CompressionSu = Undrained Shear Strength u = Unconsolidated Undrainedp a Pocket Penetrometer
t = Torvane
m = Miniature Vane
Classification Tests
UWW = Unit Wet Weight
UDW = Unit Dry WeightMC = Moisture ContentFines = % passing #200 Sieve LL = Liquid LimitPI = Plasticity Index
Corrosivity Tests
R = Resistivity, ohm-cm, satur.pH = pHCl • Chloride, ppmSO. = Sulfate, ppm I
II
|
Direct Shear TestC a Assigned Cohesion, kPaPHI = Assigned Friction Angle, degrees

COMPACTION
TEST
| |
|
o Su
2“ CetIPrs
ra ; kPa
Test Listing Abbreviations
M = Moisture Content ~ ~ ~
R = R-valua (saturated)
E = Expansion Index
I | I
i
T = Total & Dry Density
S = Sieve Analysis
F = % Passing #200 Sieve
H = Hydrometer AnalysisA = Atterberg Limits
P = Compaction Test
UWW kN/m’
Is
&
I
ZoL
250 eres
i0
LU
D
s
C to CD
to CD
1©
1 1
O
।
I
o o
a 3
8 Q
□o
I

Page 513 of 1065 ends

$
TuGRO
100
90 80
70 60
CH or OH
50 -
40 P.
0 30
i
a D CLor OL
20 MH or OH 7

10.....
2221427 MLor OL
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

CLASSIFICATION
0 J
PLATE B-2
_______ C 0*7 D-TOora?
LIQUID

LIMIT(LL)
0/
0 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)

PLASTIC

LIMIT(PL)

PLASTICITY

INPEX (PI)
28 21
34 28
November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411
62 49
PLASTICITY CHART (99420411.GPJ/DH-01)
11/3/90 (9:18:10 PM)
LEGEND
(location)
DH-1
DH-1
(depth.m)

2.7 4.3
C
X
LU
Q
2 E
O
5 5
Q.

PLASTICITY CHART
Laguna Lift Station
San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant
i
1

Page 514 of 1065 ends

Tu e GRO
200
180
160
140
120
100
80 60
40 r T 20
u i
0 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 0 20 6040 80 100 120 140 NORMAL STRESS, kPa
EFFECTIVE COHESION, kPa 30
13 EFFECTIVE ANGLE OF
INTERNAL FRICTION, deg
November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411
DIRECT SHEAR (89420411.GPJ/DH-01)
1 1/1/99 (8:20:51 PM)
PLATE B-3a
------- B-11of97
DH-1

4.3 30

14.7 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Driven Ring

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Laguna Lift Station
San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant
£
oco
in •
n—co
E
in
I
co

LOCATION
DEPTH, m
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
UNIT DRY WEIGHT, kN/m3

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SAMPLE CONDITION

Page 515 of 1065 ends

P TuGRO
200
180
160
140
120
100
80 60
40 20
E J
0 40 8060 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 0 20 NORMAL STRESS, kPa
EFFECTIVE COHESION, kPa 21
14 EFFECTIVE ANGLE OF
INTERNAL FRICTION, deg
DIRECT SHEAR (99420411.GPJ/DH-01)
11/3/99 (8:20:53 PM)
November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411
(
CL
X
CD()
LU
I.—CD
n
5 5
PLATE B-3b
------- B-12ol 97
DH-1

6.7 33

13.7 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Driven Ring

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Laguna Lift Station
San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant

LOCATION
DEPTH, m
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
UNIT DRY WEIGHT, kN/m3

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SAMPLE CONDITION

Page 516 of 1065 ends

3 TuGRD
200
180
160
140
120
100
80 60
40 T
20 s
w. 6
0 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 0 20 40 60 80 NORMAL STRESS, kPa
EFFECTIVE COHESION, kPa 30
14 EFFECTIVE ANGLE OF
INTERNAL FRICTION, deg
November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411
DIRECT SHEAR (9942041 1.GPJ/DH-02)
11/3/99 (8:20:58 PM)
DH-2

2.4 11

15.3 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH)
Driven Ring
PLATE B-3c
---------- --

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Laguna Lift Station
San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant
CT
0- —
6 W
in
ft
W
C
IU
T
W

LOCATION
DEPTH, m
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
UNIT DRY WEIGHT, kN/m3

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SAMPLE CONDITION

Page 517 of 1065 ends

"IZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES 2.(Gs=2.65to
rest Method:
21 ■■
20 19
18 G
17 16
r
0 5 10 15 20 25
MOISTURE CONTENT, %

CLASSIFICATION
O 17.2Lean CLAY with gravel (CL) 15

COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
PLATE B-4
-B-14of97

MAXIMUM UNIT
DRY WEIGHT, kN/m3
COMPACTION (METRIC) (99420411.GPJ/DH01)
11/4/99 (8:51:45 AM)

OPTIMUM WATER
CONTENT, %
...........j......i
ASIM 01557
November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411
(depth,m)

0.6 LEGEND
(location)
DH-1
s
2 2
Laguna Lift Station
San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant
E(
in
s— K
a
2 3
“JUGRO

Page 518 of 1065 ends

542 ■■
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
10 100 1000
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE PRESSURE, kPa
PLATE B-5a
— B-15of97
12L
1 November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411
&
Z
<
P
co
CONSOLIDATION (99420411 .GPJDH-02)
11/3/99 (8:17:19 PM)......._............

DH-2

1.2 27
15 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH)
Driven Ring

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Laguna Lift Station
San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant

LOCATION
DEPTH, m
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT, %
UNIT DRY WEIGHT, kN/m3

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SAMPLE CONDITION
Tuprn

Page 519 of 1065 ends

TuGRU
O'
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 t* 8
9 10
11 ......
12 10 100 1000 1
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE PRESSURE, kPa
3 UNIT DRY WEIGHT, kN/m

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SAMPLE CONDITION
November 1999
Project No. 99-42-0411

LOCATION
DEPTH, m
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT, %
CONSOLIDATION (99420411.GPJ/DH-02)
11/3/99 (1:17:24 PM)
DH-2

2.4 25
15 Fat CLAY with gravel (CH)
Driven Ring

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Laguna Lift Station
San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment Plant
PLATE B-5b
--------------- B-16of 97
&
z
2— (

Page 520 of 1065 ends

LABORATORY REPORT
California Test Methods : 532,643
204524 DH-1-2 @ 6' 3,449 7.28
“Milliliters Water Added100 200 250 300 350 40050 150
•— Resistivity Ohn-cn ---
Sample No.

DH-1-2 @ 6' 35213630 3812 3630 3630 3449 3812 3739
- s
" T
Analyst(s) : EDRef :

Reviewed by:

Thomas Shultz
Q.S
Director, Janie
Technical Approval:

Laboratory Director, Janie Steednan-Lyde
10771 Noel St., Los Alamitos, CA 90720 714/220-3922 FAX 714/220-2081 [email protected] Subnitter
Sample Number
Resistivity
ohns/cn
Sulfate
ppn
pH
Units
’ Auto
L 1 No.

Chloride
ppn
Sample Description : 1- Bulk Soil
Project :

Report Number : 100338
Purchase Order :

Job No. 99-42-0411
California ELAP No.: 1406
AIHA Accreditation No.: 172
NVLAP Accreditation No.: 101384
4 AIHA ELLAP Accreditation No.: 10985
LACSD Lab No.: 10125
Date Received : 29-0CTDate Conpleted : 05-NOV
Date Sent : 05-NOV-99
Page # 1 of 1
ealth Science
Associates

CHRIS LAVATO
FUGRO WEST INC.
1012 PACIFIC ST. SUITE A
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 94301
, Renarks : Sample(s) and sampling data as provided :
by : C. Wockner
$
Attachment
This report pertains only to the samples investigated and does not necessarily apply to other apparently identical or similar materials. This report is s for the exclusive use of the client to whom it is addressed. Any reproduction of this report or use of this Laboratory’s name for advertising or publicit purposes without written authorization is prohibited. D-1 / OT 3 / 7homao Shut -2

Page 521 of 1065 ends

GRO
w2U
/
■101:

B-102
8 /
1-11
1 j.

C-1
L
i
B-201,
Hopkins Ln.
\ I
B-501
B-502
J
C-6 Rd.
\
1 48-404 C-T 8-4D8
d
8-601.

B-104% “B-50:(3 Tank Farm Rd.
2 —.1 i
P B-70 SC-11
l >11
t
— Caila Joaquin mouuyery
FF
8301 /

1. ' I
I Uk
I E
X
I J
I---- 1—1

LEGEND I BORING LOCATION PLAN
Pipeline Alignment NORTH
0 BOOM
1:20,000 PLATE 2a
B-18of 97
Amurssin
Brown & Caldwell
Project No. 01-52-0721
/
1 1
1 1
Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
■
ir
B-304
293
B-10!
—1
S II
“10 Approximate Location of Special Pipe Crossings
“e Approximate Location of Borings
——
A
J
ss
r
I
i
l
x
2 % a"

Page 522 of 1065 ends

GRO
C
L‘
*
NSTAL 12' SINGLE
i
--- /
4 L
n |
j
i
■ 7 r
I
(0 |
--- n □ 4 t
- 1 I
i
3 u CPTt
rutne
N)
B-306 CPT-7 CPT-1 il COAGULANT
j I.
- 707 Xl
j AAs felhWir
10 re
45 ■
I
3 L...
i
1 1
ex SK[ PATH
merau — a —K COOLIIG

TOWERS )
r “i r "
I : I

BASE MAP SOURCE
LEGEND
B-30!e
NORTH
VUSit New A.C. Pavement
20 40
CPT-5
EM Unpaved Area (Turf)
:.
1 Concrete Pavement 0 120
Existing A.C. Pavement FEET
Y0 2:1 Slope
PLATE 2b
B-19of 97
wer
Approximate Location of Cone
Penetration Tests (SGD 1990)

RECLAWEO WATER STORAGE TANK(N)
COOLIG

TOWLRS(F)
CCNNIC: iO
"XISIINC CATL Pt
METERS
60 WKED

EFL UENT DNERSOK

CWMDER(E)
Brown & CaldwellProject No. 01-52-0721
fLTe
G)
Laguna Pump
Station
Site Plan and Security Fence Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, Waler Reuse Project (Brown and Caldwell, 2002)
INK
t 0
MEER & VALVE »VAULT (N) i
tocanowreo
V
I
FUTURE

EQUALZATION
PONDS
31 g
it?
6B-305
(-60 meters (200 feel)
southwest of site)
0 E=
EBSTWG

EDUAL EATION
Pois
CONNECT ’

COANEA P
7 S58TC
OIN
SiATCM
2 “llle
L in
FUTURE

RECLE WATER

STORAGE TANK (NIC)
; i
!
5 CHAN tIN, 5 *RE CUTICCER
StCumTY -TNC[ (M
N

CHLORATION

FED STATION
(N)
ddllk
2 BORING LOCATION PLAN
Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
P(Fugro 1999) DH1 m

1. " ‘ . Me.., 4
Approximate Location of Borings

FEED SYSTEM
| 00| Page 523 of 1065
Thick-walled modified California split spoon sampler driven 12 inches (305 mm) using the rig's kelley.

Thin-walled Shelby Tube sampler that is pushed into the ground using the rig's hydraulics.

Sand Cone Sampler
Hand driven modified California sampler with liners.

Bl
NR
Consistency of Cohesive Soil: Relative Density
Consistency
I
I
D&(O]
B-20 of 97
Bulk sample obtained from drill auger flights, backhoe cuttings or hand excavation.

No recovery
Undrained strength (t = torvane, uu=uu triaxial, pp = pocket penetrometer, h = hand vane) Initial depth to groundwater
Groundwater level after drilling

LEGEND FOR

TRENCH LOGS
The logs represent the interpretation of field classifications and testing, interpolation between sample intervals, results of laboratory tests, and the conditions observed at the time of exploration. The transitions between soil types and strata are approximate and can be gradual.

Soil and rock materials vary in type and other geotechnical properties between points of observation and exploration. Groundwater and soil moisture conditions vary seasonally and for other reasons.

Explorations and services have not been requested nor performed to assess the presence of absence of hazardous or toxic materials.

Notes:

Soil classification and descriptions are performed in general accordance with ASTM D-2487 and ASTM D-2488 based on the Unified Soil Classification System.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split spoon sampler having a 2-inch (50 mm) O.D., 1 3/8-inch (35 mm) I.D. and without liners. Sampler is driven in three 6-inch (305 mm) increments by dropping a 140-lb (63 kg) weight 30 inches (760 mm). The reported blow count is the sum of the blows for the last two increments.

Modified California split spoon sampler having a 3-inch (76 mm) O.D., 2 3/8-inch (60 mm) I.D. with liners.

Sampler is driven in three 6-inch (305 mm) increments by dropping a 140-lb (63 kg) weight 30 inches (760 mm).
very soft
soft
firm
stiff
very stiff
hard
of Granular Soil:

Consistency
<250
250 - 500
500 -1,000

1.000 - 2.000
2,000 - 4.000
> 4,000
< 12
13-25
26-50
51 - 100
101 -200
>200

TIIT HAND IIIL
Cal
N-Value
0-2
3-6
7-12
13-22
23-45
>45
SPT
N-Value
0-4
5-10
11-30
31 -50
> 50
Cal
N-Value
0-6
7-15
16-45
46-75
>75
SPT
N-Value
0-1
2-4
5-8
9-15
16-30
>30
very loose
loose
medium dense
dense
very dense
IICAL
QU

III SHELDY III
San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
Project No. 01-52-0721
Figure A-1
1 CAL
I
Undrained Shear
Strength (Su)
psf kpa
IO
O
o
U
O
W
5 5
c
or
§
4 8
2 C
2 a
£
o
5 O
LU
C
tuu,pp,h
?
y

Page 524 of 1065 ends

Groundwater: Initial depth: After drilling:

Depth
) DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION C
O
)
+
Af
4 1 29 Qal
1-
12 2 32 --5
SPT 7 3 29.4 2-
3--1C 18 4 -stiff 30.2 pp=2.5 ksf
Total Depth = 11.0 feet (3.4 meters)
4-~
-15
5-
7--
-25
8-"
w1
(8E2(0)
B-21 of 97
Other
Tests
119
(18.8)
118
(18.6)
BORING NO. B-305
SLO WWTP Property
Sta. 0+860, CL of Pipe
oO
Comments: Groundwater was not encountered
Backfill Material: Cuttings
Drilling Method: 8-1/4 in (210mm) Hollow-Stem Auger
Driller: SZG Testing
Logged by: G. Fiegel
Hammer Type: 140 lb Autotrip CME with 30-in drop
Date: February 12, 2002
Completion Depth: 3.4m (11.01) Ground Elevation: 36.5m (119.7*) 12 Q
d
S
(
O
O
E
(U
W I
Q
O
ex
E
TO
W
1 ()
d
O
E (
C
—
5 03
o
g
2 ■
c
co
8 8
O
5 S
o O
O
8 2
O
o
Artificial Fill:
3" (75 mm) Asphalt Concrete over 15" (375 mm)
(Base Material (sand and gravel)
Alluvium:

Fat CLAY (CH): soft, dark green, moist, orange
staining, with trace amounts of gravel
- medium stiff, dark gray, brown and gray mottles,
blocky structure
- orange staining
'SPT
c
D
o
8 8
(
CAI
I
C o
o $ 30
o g
38co O
San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
Project No. 01-52-0721
Figure A-16
930
gl
6--2C
I
T
CAL
_L
c)
E
as
55(o &
o —
Fo
g
6 s
Q c 2 o

Page 525 of 1065 ends

Depth
C DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION .9 0
o —— C 2 o
O
Qal
40 1
1-
--5
80+ 2
2-
3--1C
- yellow brown, orange staining, manganese specs
32 3 - medium stiff, occasional gravel
4-
-15
HAND] 36 4 No Recovery
5-
7-
-25
8-
9-
-3(
!
t(0]
B-22 of 97
Other
Tests
BORING NO. B-306
SLO WWTP Property
Reclaimed Water Tank
- black, occasional gravels and sands, subrounded,
gray silt partings
- gray, orange staining, manganese specs
Date: March 19,2002
Completion Depth: 4.9m (16.0') Ground Elevation: 36.6m (120.0') Groundwater: Initial depth: 4.6m (15.0') After drilling: 4.4m (14.5') Comments:

Backfill Material: Cuttings
Alluvium:

Fat CLAY (CH): stiff, dark brown, moist, occasional
roots, orange staining
- dark gray
Drilling Method: 6 in (150 mm) Hand Auger
Driller: Fugro
Logged by: G. Fiegel
Hammer Type: 5 lb Hand Hammer
Q
O
u.

O
CL
E (
0)
0 oo
S
()
0)
CL
E
(U
CO
0) >
Q
0 2
800
8 0
0 (A
O
Q.

E (
C
—
5 CD
I
/
C
D
0 C
0 O
(1)
0 - black, occasional sand and gravel particles, orange stains
- soft, brown, increasing gravel and sand
- medium brown, wet, with sand__________________
Total Depth =16.0 feet (4.9 meters)
s
S
8 0
8 o
u
8 §
O o §8
88co O
San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
Project No. 01-52-0721
Figure A-17
6“-2C
o)
E
_ c
EY 2 5
ra O
s
g
9 s
5 —

Page 526 of 1065 ends

Groundwater: Initial depth: After drilling:

Depth
De C DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION .9 0
.O’
O
5 H
Af
8 1 /
SPT 19.3
1- N/ Qal BULK Compaction Eh --5 CAL 17 18.5
2- SPT 8 3 I
3--1C
CAL 19 4 - stiff, occasional decaying roots 22.6
4-" 1
Total Depth = 13.5 feet (4.1 meters)
-15
5-
i
7--
-2f
8-
i tag)
B-23 of 97
Other
Tests
122
(19.1)
119
(18.6)
A
2 12
O o
5 Comments: Groundwater was not encountered
Backfill Material: Cuttings
Date: February 5, 2002
Completion Depth: 4.1m (13.5') Ground Elevation: 40.5m (132.8') C
D
o
o O
o
O
0 Drilling Method: 8-1/4 in (210mm) Hollow-Stem Auger
Driller: S/G Testing
Logged by: G. Fiegel
Hammer Type: 140 lb Autotrip CME with 30-in drop
O
CL
E (
0 Artificial Fill:
10" (250 mm) Asphalt Concrete over 8" (200 mm)
Base Material (sand and gravel)___________________
Lean CLAY (CL): medium stiff, dark brown, moist
Alluvium:

Fat CLAY (CH): stiff, dark brown, moist, some
orange staining
- dark gray
(
O
CL
E (
0 2
5 0
22 O c
O
8 L.
9~-3C
BORING NO. B-401
Prado Road, Sta. 0+525
CL of Pipe
(
O
CL
E (
0 •I
O
San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
Project No. 01-52-0721
Figure A-18
S &
o —
()
+ Cs
EX o o%
5 .
c o
O —
o Q39
m JO
6 ‘-2C
8 S
§
§
o
o
N§
§o
0 2
C
o
CD
&
8 —

Page 527 of 1065 ends

Depth
c o
DiO CD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
0 §
Af
SPT 13 1 12.6
1-
--5
17 2 15.1
2-
Qal
3-
SPT 10 3
4-
- with medium grained sand layer -15
17 4 18.2
5-
6-
SPT 15 5 - with 3" (75 mm) thick sand layers
7--
-25
32 6 22
8-
9- Lean CLAY with sand (CL): stiff, orange brown, wet
SPT 12 7
IC2(]
B-24 of 97
Other
Tests
119
(18.6)
114
(18.0)
123
(19.3)
co=o,
VOC=0.5,
H2S=O,
LEL=0,
pp=1.0 ksf
Atterberg
Limits, UU
CO=0,
VOC=0.2,
H,S=0,
LEL=0,
pp>4.5 ksf
Drilling Method: 8-1/4 in (210mm) Hollow-Stem Auger
Driller: S/G Testing
Logged by: N. Derbidge
Hammer Type: 140 lb Autotrip CME with 30-in drop
(2
Q o
S
Alluvium:

Lean CLAY (CL): stiff, dark brown, moist
Well graded GRAVEL with clay and sand (GW-GC):
medium dense, light brown, moist
Date: February 8, 2002
Completion Depth: 15.3m (50.3') Ground Elevation: 41.5m (136.1) Groundwater: Initial depth: 7.5m (24.5’) After drilling: 7.5m (24.5’) Comments:

Backfill Material: Cement bentonite grout
CO=1,
VOC=0.8,
HjS=0,
LLL=0,
pp>4.5 ksf
Grain Size
co=o,
VOC=0.5.

HjS=0,
LEL=0,
pp>4.5 ksf
ro O.

L Oot
O
CL
E ( to
Artificial Fill:
7" (175 mm) Asphalt Concrete over 4" (100 mm)
(Base Material (sand and gravel)________________
Fat CLAY (CH): stiff, light to dark brown, moist, with
few pieces of subrounded gravel to 3/4" (75 mm)
diameter
- with pieces of plastic
OCL
E
(U to
y
□
m
CO=1,
VOC=0.5,
HjS=0,
LEL=0,
pp>4.5 ksf
co=o,
VOC=0.5,
H2S=0.

LEL=0,
0)
0)
U.

C
O
CL
E
C
C
o >
5 I
CAL
T
CAL
88 C
D
o
o
o
o
O
0 BORING NO. B-402
Prado Road
Sta. 0+760, CL of Pipe
CAL
I
CD JO
3 N
3 5
1 5D
5 33
San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
Project No. 01-52-0721
Figure A-19
§
S
3 o
3 c)
E
- c
EX o o If
Q 2 2 o
U

Page 528 of 1065 ends

1 Depth — 3-a $804= o o Di " 8
O t

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
2 b
O
O
$
pp=1.0 ksf
10—
-35
41 8 19.4 11 -
12 —
SPT 20 9
13 -
35 10 22.7 pp>4.5 ksf
KJfm
/
16 -
-5f
17—
1 l ■
18-
-60
19—
E2(0)
B-25 of 97
128
(20.2)
Fat CLAY (CH): very stiff, moderate light gray brown,
moist, with pieces of gravel to 3/4" (75 mm) diameter
Other
Tests
138
(21.6)
O
O
LL
Poorly graded SAND with clay and gravel (SP-SC):
medium dense, orange brown, wet
Lean CLAY with sand (CL): stiff, orange brown, wet
(Continued)
Date: February 8, 2002
Completion Depth: 15.3m (50.3’) Ground Elevation: 41.5m (136.1') Groundwater: Initial depth: 7.5m (24.5) After drilling: 7.5m (24.5') Comments:

Backfill Material: Cement bentonite grout
Drilling Method: 8-1/4 in (210mm) Hollow-Stem Auger
Driller: S/G Testing
Logged by: N. Derbidge
Hammer Type: 140 lb Autotrip CME with 30-in drop
J
gl
□ —
CO=1,
VOC=0.5,
H2S=0,
LEL=0
CAL
I
W
O
CL
E
(0
co
J
5 CD
-4
14 —
</>
s
O
S
O
CL
E (
w
CO=1,
VOC=0.8,
HS=0,
LEL=0
Franciscan Formation:

CLAYSTONE - "Fat CLAY (CH)": moderately hard
rock, moderately weathered, light gray brown
Total Depth = 50.3 feet (15.3 meters)
8CL
£
(U
C
o
>
Q
|
J
CAL
_L
!
!
i
BORING NO. B-402
Prado Road
Sta. 0+760, CL of Pipe
o
O
d
8 o
o
8 c &
in
o
2 o
GO
8 8
11 CD O
C
D
o
6 Q
o
Q
0 San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
Project No. 01-52-0721
Figure A-19
g&Sg
()
- C
s
Ex
15-
-50 :si ref/3‘

Page 529 of 1065 ends

Depth
£ O
— - 8 Di. O V) O DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION (o Q
L... - o +
k
Q
S
+
Af .Artificial Fill:
9" (225 mm) Asphalt Concrete J
9 1 9.9
1-
--5
21 2 13.3 Direct Sheai
2-
3-
SPT 2 3 - piece of gravel stuck in sampler shoe
Qal 4-
BULK A
-15
28 4 19.3
5-
6-
SPT 8 5 - orange brown, with few black specs
)
7— Sandy lean CLAY (CL): stiff, light brown, moist
-25 T
11 6 -wet 28.1
8-
Fat CLAY with sand (CH): stiff, light brown, wet
9-
SPT 12 7
2[d]
B-26 of 97
Other
Tests
124
(19.5)
Atterberg
Limits, UU
pp=2.0 ksf
131
(20.6)
118
(18.6)
Drilling Method: 8-1/4 in (210mm) Hollow-Stem Auger
Driller: S/G Testing
Logged by: N. Derbidge
Hammer Type: 140 lb Autotrip CME with 30-in drop
Lean CLAY with sand (CL): stiff, dark brown, moist,
with pieces of brick, concrete, and asphalt up to 3" (75 mm) diameter
UU, CO=1,
VOC=0.2,
H2S=O,
LEL=O,
pp>4.5 ksf
Date: February 8. 2002
Completion Depth: 15.7m (51.5') Ground Elevation: 41.5m (136. T) Groundwater: Initial depth: 7.6m (25.0') After drilling: 7.6m (25.0') Comments:

Backfill Material: Cement bentonite grout
Alluvium:

Fat CLAY (CH): very stiff, light brown, moist, with
trace amounts of subrounded to rounded sand and
gravel
CO=1,
VOC=0.5,
H2S=O,
LEL=0,
pp=2.0 ksf
tn
L.

Q o
S
c
D
o
o
o
8 (
0)
O
E
ro
C
tn
O
CL
E
(
C
—
□
£O
o
O
U.

CO=2,
VOC=5.0,
H3S=0,
LEL=0, pp=?
ksf
CO=2,
VOC=0.5,
H,S=0,
LEL=0,
T
CAL
1 CAL
BORING NO. B-403
Prado Road
Sta. 0+820, CL of Pipe
11cn O
tn
O
Q.

E
(
w
o >
C
O
San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
Project No. 01-52-0721
Figure A-20
(
8 0
0 0
a
W
U
C
N8
8 S
2cr
2 8
8-J
O 9
11 5 0
O
SPT
rt
E
- cEX
CAL

Page 530 of 1065 ends

Depth

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
CT
O
s
pp=2.0ksf
10-
-35
12 8 - without sand 31.1 11—
12-
SPT 8 9 - medium stiff
13 -
-45
14 10 - stiff 20.5 pp=2.0 ksf 14——
15-
SPT 35 11 - very stiff, with frequent charcoal inclusions i
Total Depth = 51.5 feet (15.7 meters) 16 -
-5f
17 -
I-I
88—
-60
819-
y
IC2(0)
B-27 of 97
Other
Tests
131
(20.5)
co=o,
VOC=0.5,
H,S=0,
LEL=0,
pp=1.0 ksf
120
(18.9)
1 Date: February 8, 2002
Completion Depth: 15.7m (51.51) Ground Elevation: 41.5m (136.1) Groundwater: Initial depth: 7.6m (25.0') After drilling: 7.6m (25.0') Comments:

Backfill Material: Cement bentonite grout
Fat CLAY with sand (CH): stiff, light brown, wet
(Continued)
Drilling Method: 8-1/4 in (210mm) Hollow-Stem Auger
Driller: S/G Testing
Logged by: N. Derbidge
Hammer Type: 140 lb Autotrip CME with 30-in drop
UU, PP=1.0
ksf
CO=1,
VOC=0.5,
H2S=O,
LEL=0,
pp>4.5 ksf
i
O
go
S
9 §
co
u.
o
8 IL
O
Q
E (
W
C
D
o
J
8 0
CAI
_L
(
O
CL
E
(U
0 o >
5 CAL
(
OCL
E
(U
0 —
□
0 O
§
o
I
8co
O
8 BORING NO. B-403
Prado Road
Sta. 0+820, CL of Pipe
San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
Project No. 01-52-0721 ■
Figure A-20
c o
30 8 %
88 0 O
o o%
3 5
s §
O
c)
E
.. c
EX
2 5
go Q

Page 531 of 1065 ends

Atterberg Limits
70 V
60 a
WO
.V
2 106-201 el 50 - CH or OA
304-3 X
C 40
30 104-^
303-5
02-2 MH or OH
CL oi
20 2034^.
402-4 03-6
502-2
10 ML or OL
CH-ML
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit - %
Sample
PLATE B-1
B-28 of 97
Project:

Test Method:
101-2
104-2
106-2
201-3
203-4
204-3
303-5
304-3
402-4
403-6
502-2
702-2
704-2
Description and
Classification
Brown and Caldwell
Project No. 01-52-0721

4.5 4.5

4.0 6.5

14.5 9.0

19.0 9.0

15.0 25.0

4.0 4.0

4.0 Liquid
Limit
(%)
70 49
74 42
37 42
56 70
39 32
31 44
54 704-2
□
Depth
(ft)
City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
ASTM D4318
Plastic
Limit
(%)
21 22
25 21
19 20
25 27
20 18
18 20
19 Plasticity
Index
(%)
49 27
49 21
18 22
31 43
19 14
13 24
35 Fat CLAY (CH)
Lean CLAY (CL)
Fat CLAY (CH)
Lean CLAY (CL)
Lean CLAY (CL)
Lean CLAY with sand (CL)
Fat CLAY (CH)
Fat CLAY (CH)
Lean CLAY (CL)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Lean CLAY (CL)
Fat CLAY with sand (CH)
5 e
S
&
y
' 204-3 *
20K^
"flJGRO Egmpeai
ci"sxnreznSusei fAP2‘,Tis MSREEUF

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California

Page 532 of 1065 ends

-ru eler
ki VE.

GRG
& A evnt .V. "at—"he‘s
PTWWL42
Mechanical Sieve Analysis Results
100
80 O
60 2
O)
S
0 V)
(U 40
20 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size - mm

GRAVEL SAND
SILT or CLAY
coarse fine medium coarse fine
Symbol Sample Description and Classification
402-6 25.0 2.8 124
PLATE B-2d
B-29 of 97
Well Graded GRAVEL with
Clay and Sand (GW-GC)
Brown and Caldwell
Project No. 01-52-0721
Project:

Test Method:

Depth
(ft)
City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
ASTM D422
C
Q
I
Ce Cu
EIEes
n" murTen WACSMSA5L

MECHANICAL SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
■
<0
W
s

Page 533 of 1065 ends

Ei a l
2 Compaction Test Results
116
114
112
110
108
106
10 16 18 20 12 14
Water Content - %
Symbol Sample
♦ 401A 3 to 6 Fat CLAY (CH)
Description and
Classification
Brown and Caldwell
Project No. 01-52-0721
Depth
(ft)
Project:

Test Method:

UGRJ BYAreven
Optimum Water
Content
____

15.0 City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
ASTMD1557
Maximum Dry
Unit Weight
__ (pcf)_
113.5
PLATE B-3e
B-30 of 97

COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
•‘smanesez 9AARO ——wg
5 b
Q
O
a
—
s
2

Page 534 of 1065 ends

-hu —Yme
GRD
Consolidation Test Results
Consolidation Stress - psf
102 103 104 105
0 2
I 4
6 C 2
V
8 10
12 SampleSymbol
404-2 4.5 Fat CLAY (CH)
PLATE B-4d
B-31 of 97
Description and
Classification
Brown and Caldwell
Project No. 01-52-0721
Project:

Test Method:

Total Unit
Weight
(pcT)
127.4
Depth
(ft)
Water
Content
%)

23.6 City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
ASTMD2435

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
mmmasrsne L.Arore

EWRETECEA
S
2 C)
s
5

Page 535 of 1065 ends

-hi Eg ASK
GRO
ESK22
eYnnasaoorosn oa.acrnClouur.

Direct Shear Test Results
4 3
0)
2 1
0 0 1 2 3 4 5
Normal Stress - ksf
Friction Angle, Symbols Sample
403-2 5.0 0.1
PLATE B-5c
B-32 of 97
Description and
Classification
Brown and Caldwell
Project No. 01-52-0721
Project:

Test Method:

Depth
(ft)
City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
ASTMD3080
Cohesion,
c
(ksf)
%
s
0)
L
S
o
d
(degrees)
Lean CLAY with sand 37
(CL)

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California

Page 536 of 1065 ends

"fuCRO H ■ Etent s"uasedyan we.aerans -- een 5Reetn‘sa
UU Test Results
5 T T T T T T T T T
Sample 203-6'
4 ()
O
b 3
Sample 204-6
2 .0 Sample 203-4 -
1 L L — L i 1 1 x i
4 8 12 16
Axial Strain - %
Sample
203-4 14.5
203-6 24 2.4 2.0
204-6 24 2.4 1.2
PLATE B-6a
B-33 of 97
Lean CLAY (CL)
Lean CLAY (CL)
Fat CLAY (CH)
Description and
Classification
Brown and Caldwell
Project No. 01-52-0721
Undrained
Shear
Strength
(ksf)

0.8 Project:

Test Method:

Cell or
Confining
Stress
(ksf)

1.9 8
S
C)
L
o
Depth
(ft)
City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
ASTM D2850
Q
Q
0 0

UU TRIAXIAL TEST RESULTS
Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California

Page 537 of 1065 ends

GRO
UU Test Results

3.0 T T T T T T T T T T
Sample 102-4

2.5 Sampt 1403-4
b
। 2.0 S Uf/iple 403-8
b

1.5 Sample
•S 1.0

0.5 L L X X 22 2 2 X 2 2 X
4 8 12 15
Axial Strain - %
Sample
15402-4
403-4 15 1.9 5.1
403-6 25 3.0 0.8
403-8 35 3.6 0.9
PLATE B-6c
B-34 of 97
Description and
Classification
Brown and Caldwell
Project No. 01-52-0721
Undrained
Shear
Strength
W

3.7 Cell or
Confining
Stress
(ksf)

1.9 Project:

Test Method:
5 CO
L.9
Depth
(ft)
Q
Q
City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
ASTMD2850

0.0 0

UU TRIAXIAL TEST RESULTS
Water Reuse Project
San Luis Obispo, California
Lean CLAY (CL)
Fat CLAY (CH)
Sandy Lean CLAY
(CL)
Fat CLAY (CH)
K ' msasse"st E. AXOAEEaewL SMVaEEA

Page 538 of 1065 ends

COASF&R"sOxFPNCADOM LECEND.OP. BORING OPERATIONS
I
idin te u to the Slondue 0
on lest (
EH’unas • foe)
Perelsnlion ASIM D-1586) Hluarm.o) Ga “t a
&
element (1s1m‘
“l
Gorda •ai-u •“?
3 23 GMLzta nu • J
4 E i2
pat 55 ru
f*ter ""ads) T ! "**r*
14 H-M Eisc*iZMc CDNE Mln
01 PENETROMETEHTEST
i
u ““
ELEVATION (meters)
51 ol [

DJ IT I
o
I
o
0 Slumuuru Penetruliom Tust sumpler: I.D. 35mm, O.D. 50mm l l
t
C1
i ♦ iI;
5 3
n S
o C
S
j = |-1 I
d
39 X h 3
Ch Sio 13+20
hsSEE S SSI"
cn
g10mi LL €
2 o
7 P
t E
00© II
Ul
r n EF
CD
P.
52 lie P 4 a
s
§ a
A as
$8 h 3, Hi
3 ’
II C A, 1
It
5 2
12 I
6 2 s
Br
7 - ;m 1l Ml
.18 i
o
2 ! Pi
o 8 &
i 1J
n o
2 u
o O o 4 a
3 ?
70 I
o'
O
IL m a
n UP
88 I
9 8 0 3
3 II I
g1
E. 5
- § I
o 8—
§ 6/*
P8
2 3
?
3 % S t V gn e8
11, 19
II
3 § T
C E 55
© ©e © ©
1 I"
3 3 11 33
i i • J 3 ” a"
3u it E
za
5 5
116
3 7 8
d% 153
S
h o
z % 28
$ 339
S dee
m 3 —A Js"
h (E 5 * ,
o 8
Z at
£ V
n 3 o 9 f
3 9
55% a 2 O1a E 1
h
C C 6,4
5 I
m D 851 3
7 2
9io O
1 R
I
w
y "
s 8 -i
2 C o 2
-I o
o I
“I 0m
I
8 8 s’ 3
I
o P N L
0 - & 12 2 1 C
*
9 ELEVATION (meters)
P 9
CD
SillllllltllyW;
IN-SilU, LAB & FHLD

ISLDSGINS
( AlUNR IE
O
G)
I
2 S
£
£
D
o
o
C
O
O
Ef
©
©
Co
O
"O
2 sl
3 s
U+
G
C
cn
o
a
O
7 g
0 2
4 1
i
kulak wun
turns in I
m
C)
S
ce.
d
uin 541'
•WOTAA
ufuca Mirs
tosacsno
toaralt
ti $
Cy
Modified Californio Sompler: ID. = 64mm; OD = 76mm
Hommer Assembly A 63.5 kg hommer with o 762 mm drop
(Rope & Pulley)
D
o
8 6
Bh
t
I
g
2 8
&
I
§
r
&
LONOL. D&lu w I 215 (uScs)
BASEO CH ASIu 02487, 0?488
8 +
Te
wans c
BM
2J m
O
3 i 3
57 cem Cor
FENIRAi BLANG
8 f
r
in
70 O
70 oC)
C
Z
0 Sun
wepaa
2 ga EX
70 o
o
8 *
fLictotc tot
MWOE
was and
11 ■-
Ln
oC
$it
M-#

FOII FRMM
s un
won
UHib
UuTn
TO
O
C.
2 03 —w00*
1I50ODENCS
SPancur
KKIANI
nd
M
D
8 8
i it
wedmecrt
ididI2assa walng ।
sBzmatrt
(
= in
~ 9
33 Es
n
ii
*s
»
2 M
38 $8
IEN
o
3 3
i
Hi
l
3 33 1
b 8
D
7 F 225538 1 ; 355 se 16 ; :zi528
(12za j-ipibe .8 58 ‘8; ae53.
= uilnto B
( Ncl St
wyuaas xisi
rB
4 BVN
g i’lMT
HP
nuitip
j*
3 E
i
s 0
8%
883F
E coers/ooanis
i MM MX
■WT*
1 45
— ucuin hus
t I MM
[eS
s8
e
0 £ 70
: Z
!
3 2
2 s
f
2 $3
h -s
If I!
n (8 2. 4g
90 220
2 Z5
l.
, 131
§es3
2151 9 5
g
3 N: mxz"..
dhawala/B57mn kise
n
f
)
iB88je i 288 25s” *
K H ( — -a.
c Mil-gut
A It fca
g-/Dl-DA0 —P[Aadi (]
MSN’c)
Mosthazaat.
"= • aid 11 " M* -
i. n
I!
3 4,
5 9
1”
13 is
24 s2
h
Is
Q—
2 S a
1 5 4 2
si:
4 =
1 3 ;22508
saalilhit,
Miihmnii
it hfl
2 8 s
25 eAl
V1
53 &p *2 g $ 26 ge
‘2 1.955 g — E 2
Hhhj
1 • il i
$ 2, 5,
1115s n
% a s
1 1
di
S
f A §
‘5— a
“ E
l a
5

Page 539 of 1065 ends

UUSC 5.0 Results and Findings
Figure 5-3 Cross Section Transect Lines Map
A
i
B-4
B-6
B-10
B-8 -9
B-14 B-11R
B' B-15 B-16
B-12
B-17 )
20 B-21
San Luis Ranch Well No. 2.

B-18R
B-29
B-32
N
in
B-34 0 0.25
A'
| 5-12
B-36 of 97
Remedial Investigation Report
City of San Luis Obispo
Maximum Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Concentration
MCL 2 5.0 ug/L
O Non-Detect
• s 2.5 ug/L
• 2.5 - 5.0 Ug/L

5.0 - 10.0 pg/L
• 10.0 - 20.0 pg/L
• 2 20.0 pg/L
Note:

MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
ug/L • microgram per liter
B-13
B
B-31
O
B-33
o
B-1
B.2
B-25 o
CB-19
X B
B-22
k B-23
9o B-24
c Legend
— Cross Section Transect

0.5 mi
J
",
x
}) g)

Page 540 of 1065 ends

UUSC 5.0 Results and Findings
Figure 5-4 Cross Section A-A'

NORTH SOUTH
A A’
220 ’ - 220
200 - - 200
Section B-B
180 - - 180
Section C-C‘
160 “ - 160
—
ND 8
140 - • 140
I
120
7m ? - 120
1 ND - .

ND -: 1
37 - • 100 3.4 -
7 ND - J ND -
1-2 -
B0 "
- 80
KJim 3.5 —
Jsp

3.2 ND
63 - ? - - 60
—43 20
?
40 - - 40
KJim
20 - ■ Xuim - 20
T r
2000 10000
Distance (ft)
GEOLOGIC UNITS BOREHOLE LITHOLOGY Water Sample Resuts DPT Data Cross section: A-A’
23 | | Hard Auger 3 SM 2 GP Jsp I ?
Sands & SM MD
UIm Gravels
Source USGS (2010) cocuamna’ *ve Note CeoFgur5 3 tr iocton ef omee cochin0 UUSC | 5-13
B-37 of 97
§ ’00 -
3 Totalcore
a
1 1
1 S
a
c
sdi
Not detected above
leboratory reporting limit
20 -
1 0 -
Remedial Investigation Report
City of San Luis Obispo
Serpentinizeduitromafic rocks
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
concentration (ug/L)
FranciscanComplex melange
SLO PCE Plume
Characterization Project
□ SP IB Cemented Sand□ sw ■ Eedrock
□ GC
S
If
t
s §
l
JiTt
I
16000
it
<L
3g2
III
nos: Se Apoenox M me samp ng n resa
Dee Acperax N fa CFT o
2 1
-I
12000
S ct□ MLii SC
a
I
o
c
CM
2 -3
s
2 3
O§
I
6000
ND --
noE
resistance
(q)
5 O
I
O
s
3 2
11 5
3 1
■ NP
ca
g
I.
14000
I
8000
I
4000

Page 541 of 1065 ends

UUSC 5.0 Results and Findings
Figure 5-5 Cross Section B-B'

WEST EAST
B B‘
— 260
240= 240
200 - - 200
Section A-A
100 - 180
160- —160
I
140- * 7 - 140

2.0 -
7 Jsp
.9 120 - . * - 120

2.3 -
Ho
100 - 184 - 100
10 -
>, ND -
80 - - 60
60 - - 60 o
KIm
40] • - 40
rit
20 = - 20
K.lm
Distance (f)
GEOLOGIC UNITS BOREHOLE LITHOLOGY Water Sample Results C PT Data Cross section: B-B’
□ Hand Auger QJ

2.3 sp Clays
SM El GP
Sands & Sit ■ Cl
□ ND
ML Kim Gravels
Source USGS (2010)
Eil SC Ncte See Fore $3 to ioczon c CDs tecion 0 UUSC
| 5-14
B-38 of 97

NDND ND
SLO PCE Plume
Characterization Project
Serpentinized
ultramafic rocksFranciscanComplex melange
Remedial Investigation Report
City of San Luis Obispo
Nites SeeActends V ke sarpirg to enints
Jee AIpeCNLHE (
Bod sicates vale aoove manm coramtrant we
Not detected above laboratory reporting limit
T etr achicroethyiene (PCE)
concentration (ug/L)
!
1 I
I
I
0 SP ■ Cemented Sand
□ SW ■ Bedrock
□ GC
2 g
=
r
3 a
A
o
ID
s
- Total
cone
resistance
(4)
in
d a
l l
T
2000
"T2500
U
3500
T
500
I
1500
ch
I
I
3000
1 1000
I
i Page 542 of 1065
UUSC 5.0 Results and Findings
Figure 5-6 Cross Section C-C

NORTHWEST IN SOUTHEAST
z
C C’
Secton A A'
160 — — 160
m
140 - I I • 140
-
15 120 - - 120

0.5 I. 3.1 - ND 37 ND -
7 100 - HO -* - 100
2 3.0 -
12 -
ND - 35-
t $ 3 B - ) 7 ND -
r
L

4.0 — ND -- - 60 ND -
6 - .

L
? ND
BPe.

El - 60
Jsp
JJP
40 - • 40
dwp
20 - - 20

T T T T
1000 2500 4000 4500
Distance (ft)
GEOLOGIC UNITS BOREHOLE LITHOLOGY Water Sample Results CRT Data Cross section: C-C 2.3
• Hand Auger E5 SM 2. GP
Total Jsp 3
Sanos & Silt
ND
Kitm Gravels
Source USGS(2010) icle See Figure 5-3 f loczon cf ooss tecton UUSC | 5-15
B-39 of 97

1.0 -1 0 -
8 m
Remedial Investigation Report
City of San Luis Obispo
Franciscan
Complex melangeSerpentinized ultramafic rocks
SLO PCE PlumeCharacterization Project
Not detected above
iacoratory reporting limitTetrachloroethylene (FCE)
concentration (ug/L)
Notes Dee Accens Ni sarpeg un resusSee Anpenoi N for CPT Dg Boid inccales vate aotve mam corsartramt ee
0 SP 859 Cemented Sand□ sw 5 Bedrock□ sc
1 g a.
□ MLiil sc
co
I
c
t
l
4 )
Im
I
3c
3 2
s 80 -
g
Xiil
cone
resistance
()
ah
1 IC
I
3500
&
I
T
503
C.
g
I
I
2000
1 8
I

2. -
E
tn
“T
3000
T
5500
T
5000
T
1500

Page 543 of 1065 ends

EGG CPT: B-18R
[ ]
CLIENT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SITE: VARIOUS LOCATIONS, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA Total depth: 73.33 ft, Date: 6/27/2022 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Friction ratio SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 0 0 0

HANO AUGER HANO AUGER HANO AUGER HANO AUGER
5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 -
10 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 10
15 - 15-| 15- 15- 15
Clay
20 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 20
25- 25- 25 - 25- 25
30 - 30 - 30 - 30
GW Sam le
35 - 35 - 35 - 35 - 35
t. Clay
£ AO45 45 45 - 45- 45 -
GW Sam lie
50 50- 50 - 50 - 50
55- 55- 55 - 55 - 55 - Sand & silty sand
GW Sam Me
60 - 60 - 60 - 60 - 60
65- 65 - 65 - 65 - 65 -
GW Sam le
70 - 70 - 70- 70 - 70-=
75- 75- 75 - 75 - 75 -
80 80 1
I ' I
1 I
1 I । I
1 I ' I । 80 80 80 i—I—'—T'—I—T—I—।—T 1
I
1 I
1 I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I
1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 8 10 12 0 100
Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf) N60 (blows/ft)
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 7/1/2022, 3:05:22 PM 5 B-40 of 97
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clayClay & silty clayQay & silty clay

GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILUNG.COM
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy sil
O
O
0)
Q
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 | 5. Silty sand to sandy silt □ 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand□ 6. Clean sand to silty sand □ 9. Very stiff fine grained E
S 40
CL
• 2. Organic material
• 3. Clay to silty clay
$40-
Q
£
£40 -
Q.

O
o
Q.O
a
Very dense/stiff soil
- Very dense/stiff soil
1 Very dense/stiff soil
6 Rf (%)

HANDAUGER
Silty sand & sandy sil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Q.0)
C
Silty sand & sandy sil
Qay
Silly sand & sandy sil Sand & silty sand
“I—r
60 d
5 40 -
FIELD REP: BOBBY B.

Cone ID: GDC-19
SBTn legend
| l. Sensitive fine grained 9 4. Clayey silt to silty clay | | 7. Gravelly sand to sand 30- ’
7 -I
20 I
40 —T
600
“T
80 —r
-
200
—T
400

Page 544 of 1065 ends

EGG CPT: B-22
[ ]
CLIENT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SITE: VARIOUS LOCATIONS, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA Total depth: 53.64 ft, Date: 3/24/2022 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Friction ratio SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 0 0 0
5 - HANO AUGER HAND AUGER HANO AUGER HANO AUGER 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - < 10 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 10
15 - 1S- 15 - IS V IS
20 - 20 20 - 20 - 20
Clay
25 - 25 25 - 25- 25
Clay A silty clay
30 - 30 30 - 30 - 30
35 - 35 35 - 35 - 35
E — $ E Clay
£40- £40- £40- £40-
45 - 45 - 45 - 45 - 45
50 - 50 - 50 - 50 - 5055 - 55- 55 - 55- 55-60 - 60 - 60 - 60 - 60 - 65 - 65 - 65 - 65 - 65 -
70- 70 - 70 - 70 - 70-
75 - 75- 75 - 75- 75 -
80 80 80 80 80 1
I
1 I ' I
1 I ' I ' I ' I '
1 I
1 I
1 I ' I ' I । 1
I ' I..................I ' I...................
0 0 2 4 0 2 4 8 10 12 0 100
Tip resistance (tsf) N60 (blows/ft)
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 7/1/2022, 3:33:13 PM GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILUNG.COM
Clay A silty clay
Clay & silly clay
Silty sand & sandy silSand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy sil Sand & silty sand Fl 5. Silty sand to sandy slit F1 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand□ 6. Clean sand to silty sand | | 9. Very stiff fine grained £
£ 40
• 2. Organic material
| 3. Gay to silty clay
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
Q.

Q
0 CL
Q
0 HAND AUGER
Silty sand & sandy sil
Clay & silty clay
ClayClay & silty clayClay
Clay & silly clay
Clay & silty clay
C0)
Q
Gay
Gay & silty clay
Q.

O
O
Q.

O
Q
6 Rf (%)
SBTn legend
| 1. Sensitive fine grained II 4. Clayey silt to silty day □ 7. Gravelly sand to sand 1 6 8 10 12 14 16
Friction (tsf)
FIELD REP: BOBBY BROWNING
Cone ID: GDC-31
45 B-41 of 97
I
20 —T
40 -I600
-I
80 —T400
—I200
-T
60

Page 545 of 1065 ends

EGG CPT: B-23
[ ]
CLIENT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SITE: VARIOUS LOCATIONS, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA Total depth: 47.24 ft, Date: 3/25/2022 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Friction ratio SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 0 0 0
5 - HAND AUGER HAND AUGER 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - HAND AUGER HAND AUGER 10- 10- 10- 10 - 10-
15 - 15 - Y 15 - Y 15 - 15 V
20- ‘ 20 - 20 - 20- 20
25- 25- 25 - 25 25
30- 30 - 30- 30 - 30
35 - 35 - 35- 35
E E E
40 - £40- $40-
45 - 45 - 45 - 45- 45
50 - 50- 50 - 50 - 50-
55 - 55- 55- 55- 55-60 - 60 - 60 - 60 - 60 -65 - 65 - 65 - 65 - 65 - 70- 70 - 70- 70-70 -
75 - 75- 75 - 75 - 75 -
80 ................I ■ I ■ I ' I ■ I ■ 1 80 ' I
1 1
1 1 ' I ' I
1 80 80 ■ I ■ .. ...........................I................. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 8 10 12 0 100
Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf) N60 (blows/ft)
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 7/1/2022, 3:33:15 PM GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM
E
£ 40
a
O
0 Silty sand & sandy sil
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy sil Silty sand & sandy sil Clay & silty clay Very dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 1 5. Silty sand to sandy silt | | 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand□ 6. Clean sand to silty sand Li 9. Very stiff fine grained □ 2. Organic material • 3. Clay to silty clay
6 Rf (%)
Q.O
0 Q.

O
o
QQ
o
Q.

O
C
SBTn legend
• 1. Sensitive fine grained 0 4. Clayey silt to silty day □ 7. Gravelly sand to sand 49 B-42 of 97
FIELD REP: BOBBY BROWNING
Cone ID: GDC-31
I600
“T"
20 I
80 —r400
—r
-
200
35-
£
S 40 -
—T
40 ""i
60 HANDAUGER
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silSilty sand & sandy sil
Silty sand & sandy silSilty sand & sandy sil
Clay & silty clay
ClayClayClay
80 -
0

Page 546 of 1065 ends

EGG CPT: B-24
[ ]
CLIENT: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SITE: VARIOUS LOCATIONS, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA Total depth: 66.27 ft, Date: 3/31/2022 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Friction ratio SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type 0 o 0 0 0
5 - HAND AUGER HAND AUGER 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - HANDAUGER HAND AUGER HAND AUGER 10 10- 10 - 10 - 10
( No Recov ery
15 _ 15 - 15 - V V 15 - 15
20 20 - 20 - 20 - 20
25 25 - 25 - 25 - 25 -
• No Recov ery
30 30 - 30- 30 - 30
GW Sam le 35- 35 - 35- Clay & silty clay
t.
-
d — d
40 - $40- S40-
45 45- 45 - 45-
• No Recov ery 45
50 - 50 - 50 - 50 - 50 -
GW Sam le
55 55- 55 - 55 - 5S'MI
60 60 - 60 - 60 - 60
65 - GW Sam ile 65 - 65 - 65 - 65 -
70- 70 - 70 - 70-70 -
75 - 75 - 75- 75 - 75 -80 80 ' I । I
1 I ' I ' I । I । I । 80 ■ 1
1 I ■ l ■ l ’ t ■ 80 80 । I ' I
1 I ' I ' I । I ' I ' I '
0 0 2 4 0 2 4 8 10 12 0 100
Tip resistance (tsf) N60 (blows/ft)
CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 7/1/2022, 3:33:16 PM

GREGG DRILLING, LLC
WWW.GREGGDRILUNG.COM
Silty sand & sandy sil Silty sand & sandy sil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
O
O
Silty sand & sandy sil
Clay & silty day Clay & silty clayClay & silly clay
Silty sand & sandy sil
Clay & silty day
Silty sand & sandy sil
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
ClayClay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 1 5. Silty sand to sandy silt □ 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand □ 6. Clean sand to silty sand □ 9. Very stiff fine grained d
Q
a
Q.

O
O
0 2. Organic material
• 3. Clay to silty clay
Q.

Q
6 Rf (%)
Q.

O
C
Clay & silty day
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silClay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay
1 6 8 10 12 14 16
Friction (tsf)
53 B-43 of 97
SBTn legend
| 1. Sensitive fine grained | 4. Clayey silt to silty clay | | 7. Gravelly sand to sand FIELD REP: BOBBY BROWNING
Cone ID:
—T
40 -r
20 35
$
$40 -
-r
80 —r60
—1—
400
—Tr
600
—r—
200
35 -
£
£ 40-
Q

Page 547 of 1065 ends

Page 1 ends

CHG GE O L O G ISIS
* A N LUIS OBISPO, C A

EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
G
X X x (0-1) Artifical Fill
X X X (1-2) Clay (from CPT).
(2-4) Clayey Silt (from CPT).

X X X
(4-6) Sandy Silt (from CPT). 5 X X X
(6-8) Silty Sand (from CPT). X X X
, a subrounded, poorly sorted gravel to 1.5-inch diameter. 10 10 YR 6/6 GM
■ - 3.2 D
t
10 YR 6/6 SC
10 YR 4/4 CL
15 - 26.4
(1619.5) Sandy Silt and Clayey Silt(from CPT; no sample recovery).

X X X
(19.5-20) Clayey Sand with Gravel; yellowish brown; coarse. subangular and angular 7 2 sand; fine gravel, soft clay. 10 YR 5/8 SC 20 - 0.8 (20-24.5) Sandy Silt and Clayey Silt (from CPT; no sample recovery).

X X X
25 10 YR 5/6 CL
B-44 of 97
Lithologic Description
(depth interval in feet)
50 c
(12-13) Clayey Sand with Gravel; brownish yellow; fine to coarse sand; gravel to 0.75 inch diameter.

0. D
C
-ed
CL
Q
C
(13-16) Sandy Clay trace gravel; dark yellowish brown; hard clay; mostly fine to medium sand; trace coarse sand and fine gravel
PROJECT:

BOREHOLE ID:

LOCATION:

DRILLING RIG:

DRILLING COMPANY:
2 e
=

0. U
9 c
s

SLO PCE
B-21
El Mercado
MARL 30-ton CPT push rig
Gregg Drilling
©
()
C
5 s
DATE:___________________
SAMPLER TYPE:

BOREHOLE DIAMETER:

TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE:

LOGGED BY:
s
ft.

O.
a
B.

V
' (8-12) Gravelly Sand with Clay; brownish yellow; fine to coarse sand; angular to 3/23/22
Macrocore MC5

2.25-inch
52 feet
C. Springer (WSC)
.2
e
Q.
£
C

Page 548 of 1065 ends

Page 2 ends

CHG
SAN LI! IS OBISPO, C.A

EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
7 10 YR 5/6 CL

0.9 (28-31.5) Sand (from CPT; no sample recovery).

X X X
30 - 1.2
10 YR 6/6 SC
10 YR 6/6 CL
35 - 0.2
(36-37) Sandy Silt and Clayey Silt (from CPT; no sample recovery).

X X X
10 YR 6/6 SC
10 YR 5/6 CL
10 YR 6/6 CL
40 - 0.5
10 YR 5/6 CL
10 YR 6/6 CL
(41-44) Clay trace sand; brownish yellow; linn clay; trace fine sand. 10 YR 5/4 SP-SC 45
10 YR 6/6 CL
10 YR 6/8 SC
- 0.5
(48-51.5) Sand (from CPT; no sample recovery).

XX X
50 B-45 of 97
Lithologic Description
(depth inteval in feet)
(24.5-28) Sandy Clay with Gravel; yellowish brown; soft to very soft clay; fine to coarse. subangular to subrounded, poorly sorted sand; fine. angular to subrounded gravel to . (47-48) Clayey Sand trace Gravel: brownish yellow: mostly coarse, rounded to subangular, sand; hard clay; trace subrounded to rounded gravel to 0.75-inch diameter. ( 1. E A TH-ARRI S

GEOLOGISTS
(37-38) Clayey Sand trace Gravel; yellowish brown; very soft clay; coarse sand: trace subangular to subrounded gravel.
(38-39) Sandy Clay; yellowish brown; soft clay; fine to medium. very well sorted sand. (44-45.5) Sand with Clay trace gravel; yellowish brown; mostly coarse, subrounded to subangular. moderately well sorted sand; trace fine grave) to 0.5-inch diameter. (45.5-47) Clay trace Sand; brownish yellow; soft clay; trace mostly fine sand. (39-40) Sandy Clay trace gravel; brownish yellow; soft to very soft clay; fine to coarse, very poorly sorted, angular to subangular sand.
(40-41) Sandy Clay with Gravel; yellowish brown; soft to very soft clay; fine to coarse sand, angular to subangular gravel.
(31.5-32) Clayey Sand trace Gravel; brownish yellow; very soft clay; coarse, rounded to subrounded quartz, metavolcanic sand; fine, subrounded to rounded quartz, metavolcanic gravel clasts.
(32-36) Clay trace Sand; brownish yellow; very hard clay; trace fine sand.

C—
e
-L
C
Q
C
U.

0. D
PROJECT:

BOREHOLE ID:

LOCATIONDRILLING RIG:

DRILLING COMPANY:

0. E
3 s
50 C
J
s
a.
a.
asm
A.

DATE:___________________
SAMPLER TYPE;
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:

TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE;
LOGGED BY:
•
o 3
w
C.

U
U
c
s
.2
e

3. 3—
C

SLO PCE
B-21
El Mercado
MARL 30-ton CPT push rig
Gregg Drilling
3/23/22
Macrocore MC5

2.25-ineh
52 feet
C. Springer (WSC)

Page 549 of 1065 ends

Page 3 ends

G E O 1. OGIS 1 S
S 4 N LUIS n B t s P O , C A

EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
C
00 C o
x x X
10 YR 6/6 SC
(52-57) Mostly Sand (from CPT).

X X X
55 B-46 of 97
Lithologic Description
(depth inteval in feet)
(51.5-52) Clayey Sand trace Gravel; brownish yellow; mostly coarse. rounded to subangular, sand; hard clay; trace subrounded to rounded gravel to 0.75-inch diameter.

CP 1 went to 5 / leet. Water Sample was collected at 56 feet.

Direct Push refusal at 52 feet
-C
ied
CL
Q
C
Q
C
5 s
C.

0. D
.2
=
PROJECT:

BOREHOLE ID:

LOCATIONDRILLING RIG:

DRILLING COMPANY:

C i X —
C
DATE:

SAMPLER TYPE:

BOREHOLE DIAMETER:

TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE:

LOGGED BY:
3/23/22
Macrocore MC5

2.25-inch
52 feet
C. Springer (WSC)
E
a.
a.

C
CL
a.
s■

0. u
9 a
s

SLO PCE
B-21
El Mercado
MARL 30-ton CPT push rig
Gregg Drilling

CLEATH-MARRIS

Page 550 of 1065 ends

Page 1 ends

CHG
$ A N LUIS OBISPO, C.A

EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
K
X X X (0-1) Artifical Fill (asphalt/road base)
X X X (1-2) Clayey Silt (from CPT)
(2-4) Sandy Silt (from CPT).

X X X
(4-6) Silty Clay (from CPT).
5 X X X
(6-8) Clay (from CPT).

X X X
(8-16) Clay trace sand; yellowish brown; hard clay; trace line to coarse, subrounded sand. 10 -
- 0.1
10 YR 5/6 CL
15 -
X X X (16-17) Clay and Silty Clay (from CPT; no sample recovery). 10 YR 5/6 CL -(17-17.5) Clay trace Sand; yellowish brown; soft to firm clay; trace fine to coarse sand. 10 YR 5/6 CL - 0.2
20 10 YR 5/6 CL
(23-23.5) Sandy Clay trace gravel; brownish yellow; firm clay; fine to coarse sand; trace fine subrounded to subangular shale and metavolcanic gravel.

J (23.5-24) Gravelly Clay with Sand: brownish yellow; soft to firm clay; fine to coarse sand: fine subrounded gravel.

X X X
25 (24-26) Sandy Silt and Clayey Silt (from CPT: no sample recovery).

B-47 of 97
Lithologic Description
(depth interval in feet)
( 1. E A TH-HARRI S

GEOLOGISTS
CL
CL
(17.5-20) Sandy Clay trace Gravel; yellowish brown; very hard clay; fine to coarse, poorly sorted sand; trace subangular to subrounded gravel to 0.5-inch diameter. (20-23) Clay trace Sand; yellowish brown; hard clay; trace subrounded and subangular, very well sorted coarse sand.
10 YR 6/8
10 YR 6/8
C
-Led
C
Q
C
U.

0. D
PROJECT:

BOREHOLE ID:

LOCATION:

DRILLING RIG:

DRILLING COMPANY:
50 c
J
o
E

0. -
9 s
©
c)
C
□
s
s
a.
a.
a
A.

DATE:___________________
SAMPLER TYPE;
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:

TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE:

LOGGED BY:
3/31/22
Macrocore MC5

2.25-inch
60 feet
C. Springer (WSC)

SLO PCE
B-24
Prado Road
MARL 30-ton CPT push rig
Gregg Drilling
.2
e
Q.
%
G

Page 551 of 1065 ends

Page 2 ends

CHG
$ A N LUIS OBISPO, ( \

EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
X xx
7 10 YR 5/8
(27-28) Gravelly Clay with Sand; brownish yellow; very hard clay; fine to coarse 10 YR 6/6 CL / / sand; subangular to rounded gravel to 0.75-inch diamater. - 0.2
(28-31) Clay and Silty Clay (from CPT; no sample recovery).

X X X
30 (31-32) Clayey Gravel with Sand; dark yellowish brown; firm clay; fine to coarse 10 YR 4/6 GC 4 • sand; subangular to subrounded. mostly volanic gravel clasts to 0.75-inch diameter.

X X X (32-34) Clay and Silty Clay (from CPT; no sample recovery). 35 - 0.5
10 YR 5/8 GC a a
44 10 YR 6/8 SC
40 (40-42) Sandy Silt (from CPT; no sample recovery).

X X X
10 YR 6/8 SC
- 0.2
10 YR 5/8 SC
45 10 YR 5/8 CL
10 YR 6/8 CL
(48-50) Sandy Silt and Clayey Silt (from CPT; no sample recovery).

X X X
50 1() YR 5/8 SC /
B-48 of 97
Lithologic Description
(depth interval in feet)
(34-39) Clayey Gravel with Sand; yellowish brown; soft clay; fine to coarse sand; fine, subrounded to subangular volcanic, shale, metavolcanic gravel to 0.5-inch diameter. ( 1. E A TH-HARRI S
> GEO 1. OGIS 1 S
.2
e
(42-43) Clayey Sand with Gravel; brownish yellow; soft clay; fine to coarse sand; fine. subrounded to rounded volcanic and quartz gravel to 0.5-inch diameter. (39-40) Clayey Sand with Gravel; brownish yellow; soft clay; fine to coarse sand; fine. subrounded to subangular volcanic, shale, quartz gravel to 0.5-inch diameter. (43-45) Clayey Sand with Gravel; yellowish brown; soft to very soft clay; fine to coarse, poorly sorted sand; subrounded to angular volcanic, shale, and chert gravel to 0.5- inch diameter.
(45-47) Sandy Clay trace gravel; yellowish brown; firm clay; fine to coarse sand; trace subangular to subrounded fine gravel.
(47-48) Sandy Clay; brownish yellow; very hard clay; mostly fine to medium sand, trace coarse sand.

C
-Led
C
Q
a
(26-27) Sandy Clay trace gravel; yellowish brown; firm clay; fine to coarse sand; fine subrounded gravel.
” •
U
U.

0. D
PROJECT:

BOREHOLE ID:

LOCATION:

DRILLING RIG:

DRILLING COMPANY:
a
E
0 -
9 es
s
©
0)
c
□
s
s
a.
a.

C
A.

DATE:___________________
SAMPLER TYPE:

BOREHOLE DIAMETER:

TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE:

LOGGED BY:
3/31/22
Macrocore MC5

2.25-inch
60 feet
C. Springer (WSC)
SLO PCE_________________
B-24
Prado Road
MARL 30-ton CPT push rig
Gregg Drilling
. 50 2 o

Page 552 of 1065 ends

Page 3 ends

GEOLOGIS 1 S
SAN LUIS HISPO, C.A

EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
—
10 YR 5/8 sc ■
- 0.0 10 YR 6/8 CL
(50.5-52) Sandy Clay; brownish yellow; very hard clay; mostly fine to medium sand. — 10 YR 6/8 SC
55 (56-60) Clay trace sand: brownish yellow; soft clay; trace mostly fine sand. 10 YR 6/8 CL
- 0.0
60 -
(60-66) Sandy Silt (from CPT).

X X X
65 B-49 of 97
Lithologic Description
(depth interval in feet)
(50-50.5) Clayey Sand with Gravel; yellowish brown; soft clay; fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded, poorly sorted sand; gravel to 0.6-inch diameter. (52-56) Clayey Sand with Gravel; brownish yellow; soft clay; fine to coarse, subrounded to rounded, poorly sorted sand; subrounded to subangular, shale and volcanic gravel clasts to 0.8-inch diameter.
x:
-
CL
Q
C
CPT went to 66 feet. Water Sample was collected at 63 feet.

Direct Push refusal at 60 feet
U.

0. □
50 C
PROJECT:

BOREHOLE ID:

LOCATION:

DRILLING RIG:

DRILLING COMPANY:

O
C2
c
3 s
E -J
(
3/31/22
Macrocore MC5

2.25-inch
60 feet
C. Springer (WSC)
SLO PCE_______________
B-24
Prado Road
MARL 30-ton CPT push rig
Gregg Drilling
i
C. &
a
2 6
E
co

0. L. 9
c
s
DATE:___________________
SAMPLER TYPE:

BOREHOLE DIAMETER:

TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE:

LOGGED BY:
.2
e
Q.
- C 1 E AT 11 -HARRI S CIIG

Page 553 of 1065 ends

DIST COUNTY ROUTE
05 SLO X
\
24E-01 RkzROFESS/o,, REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
O 99
4'
w EECHUCN/
, . A 18o cALloC
YA
B-1 B-2 24E-02
110
PRADO ROAD 6” 6” 112 113 115 116
+ ”PRA” UNE + + + 4”
9 + + s
4’ (O “
4” 22RC-01
22RC-02
0)
^B-3»
6 BOREHOLE LOCATION TABLE BOREHOLE LOCATION TABLE
"PRA” Line
HOLE ID Northing HOLE ID Northing Easting Easting
24E-01 2289765.3 5764999.1 21.5 Rt

DRAWN BY
J. ROSS PRADO ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

CHECKED BY
J. KING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TEST BORING LAYOUT
I
REVISION DATES | SHEET |
■pwaa| -| | | X |
GS GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF TEST BORINGS SHEET (ENGLISH) (REV. 03/14/12) UNIT: X PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE: X CONTRACT NO.: X
FILE => Z:\Projects - Grover\216-323 Prado Road Bridge Repl (MOVED TO SHAREPOINT)\1.1 LOTB\216-323 LOTB.dwg B-50of97
DISREGARD PRINTS BEARINGEARLIER REVISION DATES —

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
(O
(O
SHEET
No
orLu
TOTAL
SHEETS
ul
Z

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES

FOR REDUCED PLANS
N)
(O
2289739.5 2289680.2 2289609.9
2289581.0
2289712.6 2289621.9
2289511.0
O
X
5764595.1
5764711.1
5764618.5 5764751.7 5764581.2
5764745.7
5765017.0
LO
(O
O
0)Lil Lil
Q
This Test Borings Layout was prepared in accordance
with the Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2022).

See 2024 Caltrans Standard Plans A1OF, A10G for Soil Legend and A1OH for Rock Legend.

YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
391 FRONT STREET, SUITE D

GROVER BEACH, CA
11/25/2025
DATE
Station
112+69.3 113+99.6
113+49.1
114+80.9 112+69.2 114+56.9 117+45.0
Station
66+33.0
Rt/Lt
Lt Lt
Rt RtRt Rt
Lt
PLAN:
1” = 30’
JUDD J. KING
2903

EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC/YEH & ASSOCIATES
FIELD INVESTIGATION BY:

DATE: MARCH 2015/JANUARY 2022/SEPTEMBER 2024

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
The County of San Luis Obispo or its officers or agents shall not be responsible for the accuracy or
completeness of scanned copies of this plan sheet.

BENCHMARK
301"FD 3.5BC USGS”Elev 138.67’N 2289684.32’E 5764715.74’Vert: NAVD88Horiz: NAD83

PREPARED FOR THE

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
117
—
Offset (ft)

19.819.9

84.9 50.0

10.516.3

21.4 QZE
”HIG” Line
Offset (ft) Rt/Lt
B-1
B-2B-3
B-4
22RC-01
22RC-02
24E-02
LO
2 o
X

DESIGN OVERSIGHT
X

SIGN OFF DATE
0 %
1 o
%
O
7 x

PROJECT ENGINEER
111
—
BRIDGE NO.
49C0107

POST MILES
X
4j
—B-4
6”

Page 554 of 1065 ends

DIST COUNTY ROUTE
05 SLO X
PROFILE:

RROFES$/o,,, REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER

PLANS APPROVAL DATE

SOIECNCN
I "tocalloP"
YA
B-1 Elev.139.0’140 140
Elev. +/-138‘
•SANDY lean CLAY (CL); brown; moist; few to little GRAVEL; (ALLUVIUM). 24 | 2.4
130 130
13 11.4 M)PI)200(PP)
12 PA)
21 2.4
120 - M)UWDS) —Poorly graded SAND Poorly graded SAND (SP); gray brown; loose; trace silt; trace 120 \ gravel; (ALLUVIUM).

CLAYEY SAND (SC):

WS
13 26
GWS •CLAYEY SAND (SC); dark brown; medium dense; moist; trace MJUV
(CUPP)•SANDY lean CLAY (CL); medium stiff; brown. 25
110 MYUWC 110
------ Stiff.

CR)
------ Very stiff; trace fine to medium, subrounded GRAVEL. 56 32 — 100 100
■METASEDIMENTARY ROCK (CLAYSTONE); brown:
black and tan chips; (FRANCISCAN MELANGE).
decomposed; very soft;
25 11.4 & ‘ CR) Some gravel.

METASEDIMENT
50/5 1.4 _
■METASEDIMENTARY ROCK
[REF/41.4 _ 50/2 1.4 — very weathered; clayey
90- Moderately soft. •90 ——Intensely weathered; soft.

I 50/5 | 1.4 = 50/1.5
REC=100%[REF/42,MYUV 50/6 1.4
80 -80
= M)UWUU)
70 70
■ = UQ
PP) = M)UWUC)
60 = PP) -60
=== PP)
50 50
= ug
40 40
2 30 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 30
112+00 112+25 112+50 112+75 113+00 113+25

STATION (FEET)
NOTES:

1. 5. ”90/11” indicates partial drive having number of blows over depth interval noted.

6. All blow counts are uncorrected field blow counts.7. See 2024 Caltrans Standard Plans A1OF, A1OG, and A1OH for legend of soil and rock classification and boring notations.

2. "1.4" Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler has a 1-3/8 inch inside diameter and a 2 inch outside diameter. f

8. 3. "2.4" Modified California sampler has a 2-3/8 inch inside diameter and a 3 inch outside diameter with brass liners.4. "ref/2" indicates drive exceeded 50 blows during initial 6-inch seating.

DRAWN BY
J. ROSS PRADO ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
LOG OF TEST BORINGS (1 OF 4)

CHECKED BY
J. KING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SHEET
I 3

REVISION
IG ---------------------——r------- = 8/28/2022 -
REVISION DATES GS GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF TEST BORINGS SHEET (ENGLISH) (REV. 03/14/12) UNIT: X DISREGARD PRINTS BEARING PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE: X CONTRACT NO.: X EARLIER REVISION DATES FILE => Z:\Projects - Grover\21 6-323 Prado Road Bridge Repl (MOVED TO SHAREPOINT)\1.1 LOTB\216-323 LOTB.dwg B-51 of 97
O0@@e@00
HORIZ.: 1” = 5’VERT.: 1” = 10’
REC=92%
RQD=30%
TOTAL
SHEETS
Auger boring B-1 excavated with a Mobile B-53 drill rig equipped with 6-inch hollow stem augers and an automatic trip hammer weighing 140 pounds falling 30 inches with estimated 80% efficiency. Boring 22RC-01 excavated with a CME- 55 Track-Mounted drill rig equipped with 4-inch solid stem augers, mud rotary equipment, HQ rock coring equipment, and an automatic trip hammer weighing 140 pounds falling 30 inches with estimated 75% efficiency.

REC=94%RQD=35%REC=31%RQD=31%

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES

FOR REDUCED PLANS
This Log of Test Borings (LOTB) was prepared in accordance with the Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2022).

Elev. 11 3.0’
03-02-15
REC=94%RQD=38%
Elev.118.5' 01-18-22
11/25/2025
DATE
•ASPHALT CONCRETE.■AGGREGATE BASE.■CLAYEY SAND (SC); dark brown; medium dense; moist; (FILL).•Gray brown; slightly moist; some coarse serpentinite gravel.•Trace gravel.•Some gravel.

YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
391 FRONT STREET, SUITE D GROVER BEACH, CA

EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC/YEH & ASSOCIATES
FIELD INVESTIGATION BY:

OATH: MARCH 2015/JANUARY 2022_____________
JUDD J. KING
2903
REC=100%
RQD=56%
The County of San Luis Obispo or its officers or agents shall not be responsible for the accuracy or
completeness of scanned copies of this plan sheet.

BENCHMARK
301"FD 3.5BC USGS’Elev 138.67’N 2289684.32’E 5764715.74’Vert: NAVD88Horiz: NAD83 22RC-01
A—

PREPARED FOR THE

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
_X.
§
------ Hard.

CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND (GC); brown; moist.

Loose; fine to medium, subrounded to subangular GRAVEL.

L0
( (SANDSTONE); olive brown; soft; moist;
(FRANCISCAN MELANGE).
fine gravel.
-Some fine gravel. -------------------------------------------------------------------SANDY lean CLAY (CL); brown; stiff; moist; trace gravel.•Wet.-CLAYEY SAND (SC); brown; medium dense; very moist; trace gravel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X____________

DESIGN OVERSIGHT
X____________

SIGN OFF DATE
•Black; moderately weathered; moderately soft.•Intensely weathered; intensely fractured; clay seams up to 1/4". •Fracture plane at 65 degrees.•METASEDIMENTARY ROCK (GRAYWACKE); gray; intensely weathered; moderately soft; intensely to moderately fractured; clay infill fractures. •Weathers to sandy lean CLAY (CL), vertical trace fractures with iron stains and calcite.
•Highly sheared zone, closed fractures.■METASEDIMENTARY ROCK (CLAYSTONE); black; very soft; very intensely fractured; very sheared, clay matrix - hard.
•Block of GRAYWACKE SANDSTONE from 73 to 73.5.•Clay matrix - hard.•Intensely weathered; very sheared.■Block of GRAYWACKE SANDSTONE from 86.5 - 88.5.---------■METASEDIMENTARY ROCK (GRAYWACKE); some 2-4” blocks, very intensely sheared zones.
•Gray; intensely to moderately weathered; moderately fractured.■1/2” clay seam, closed fractures.

PROJECT ENGINEER
RQD=25%REC=88%
RQD=62%
REC=100%RQD=78%
------ CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC); medium dense; brown; moist; fine to medium, subangular GRAVEL.
------ CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (Sc); medium dense; brown; moist; fine to medium, subangular to subrounded GRAVEL.

BRIDGE NO.
49C0107

POST MILES
X
REC=100%
RQD=68%
REC=100% _
ROD=24%
03-02-15
Terminated at Elev. 82.0’
ERi = 80%
!
01-19-22
Terminated at Elev 39.0'
ERi = 75%

Page 555 of 1065 ends

DIST COUNTY ROUTE
05 SLO X
PROFILE:

HORIZ.: 1” = 5’ RROFES$/o,,, REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEERVERT.: T = 10'

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
SIECNC
"tocalloe"
YA
140 140
Elev. +/-138’ Elev. +/-138‘
130 E -130
18 M)UW)
120 -120
8 2.4 18 2.4
•CLAYEY SAND (Sc); brown; loose; wet; some gravel.
12 3WS CR)GWS
110 110
37 2.4 •CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (Sc); brown; medium dense; wet. M)UW) •Stiff; increasing sand content; trace fine to coarse gravel. •SANDY lean CLAY (CL); brown; stiff; moist. CR) 10
100- 100 •Increasing gravel.
50/31.4 2e 15 | 2.4 M)UW(C
50/3.5 1-4 = 42 CRJ
90- •Moderately soft; slightly moist. -90
50/2 1.4 28
80- -80
50/3 1.4 —
70- -70
60- -6050- -5040- -40
i
30- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -30
113+25 113+50 113+75 114+00 114+25 114+50

STATION (FEET)
NOTES:

1. 5. ”90/11” indicates partial drive having number of blows over depth interval noted.

6. All blow counts are uncorrected field blow counts.

2. "1.4" Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler has a 1-3/8 inch inside diameter and a 2 inch outside diameter.

7. See 2024 Caltrans Standard Plans A1OF, A1OG, and A1OH for legend of soil and rock classification and boring notations.

3. "2.4" Modified California sampler has a 2-3/8 inch inside diameter and a 3 inch outside diameter with brass liners. 2

8. 4. "ref/2" indicates drive exceeded 50 blows during initial 6-inch seating.

BRIDGE NO.

DRAWN BY
J. ROSS PRADO ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
LOG OF TEST BORINGS (2 OF 4)

CHECKED BY
J. KING
DATE: MARCH 2015 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
I

REVISION DATES I SHEET I
GS GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF TEST BORINGS SHEET (ENGLISH) (REV. 03/14/12) UNIT: X DISREGARD PRINTS BEARING PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE: X CONTRACT NO.: X EARLIER REVISION DATES FILE => Z:\Projects - Grover\21 6-323 Prado Road Bridge Repl (MOVED TO SHAREPOINT)\1.1 LOTB\216-323 LOTB.dwg B-52of97
000
TOTAL
SHEETS
•SANDY lean CLAY (CL); orange brown; stiff; moist.•Very stiff; trace fine gravel.

B-3
r0
This Log of Test Borings (LOTB) was prepared in accordance with the Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2022).

B-2
Hs]

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES

FOR REDUCED PLANS
Auger borings B-2 and B-3 excavated with a Mobile B-53 drill rig equipped with 6-inch hollow stem augers and an automatic trip hammer weighing 140 pounds falling 30 inches with estimated 80% efficiency. •CLAYEY SAND (SC); brown; medium dense; moist; trace fine gravel; (ALLUVIUM).
•Increasing clay content.

SANDY lean CLAY (CL); brown; stiff; moist.
•Medium stiff; wet.

YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
391 FRONT STREET, SUITE D GROVER BEACH, CA
11/25/2025
DATE
The County of San Luis Obispo or its officers or agentsshall not be responsible for the accuracy or completeness of scanned copies of this plan sheet.

Elev.114.0‘
03-03-15

EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC
FIELD INVESTIGATION BY:

JUDD J. KING
2903
Elev.116.5‘
02-18-15
-ASPHALT CONCRETE.-AGGREGATE BASE.-CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (Sc); gray brown; medium dense; moist; (FILL).

BENCHMARK
301"FD 3.5BC USGS’Elev 138.67’N 2289684.32’E 5764715.74’Vert: NAVD88Horiz: NAD83 •SANDY lean CLAY (CL); gray brown; hard; moist; (RESIDUAL SOIL)._____________________________________
X

PREPARED FOR THE

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
■METAMORPHIC ROCK (METAVOLCANIC ROCK); brown/gray/white mottled; very soft; moist; severely weathered; (FRANCISCAN MELANGE). ________________________________
Soft.
§
METASEDIMENTARY ROCK (SANDSTONE); light olive brown; soft; moist; clayey; (FRANCISCAN MELANGE).

X_________

DESIGN OVERSIGHT
X

SIGN OFF DATE
X

PROJECT ENGINEER
49C0107

POST MILES
X
4 02-18-15
Terminated at Elev. 87.5’
ERi = 80%
03-03-15
Terminated at Elev. 77.0’
ERi = 80%
•CLAYEY SAND (SC); dark brown; medium dense; moist; some coarse gravel; (FILL).

SANDY lean CLAY (CL); dark brown; medium stiff; moist;
(ALLUVIUM).------------------------------------------------------ •Gray brown; stiff.•Light brown; medium stiff.•Soft; very moist.

Page 556 of 1065 ends

DIST COUNTY ROUTE
05 SLO X
RROFES$/o,,, REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER

SOIECNCN
-
YA
140 139.0' 140
Elev. +/-138’
); brown and red; moist; fine
; red color possibly decomposed
bricks; (ARTIFICIAL FILL).
dark brown; 23 MUW)
130 130
-Debris. 2
| 36 | 2.4 57 (MXOWCRYPD)
------ -Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); very stiff; brown; moist; trace fine GRAVEL. PI)PA)
20 | 1.4
120 ■120
(@
------ CLAYEY SAND (SC); loose; brown.
110 MXUVElev. •110
------ Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); very stiff; red brown. ‘3® -Trace fine gravel.

I
------ CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; brown; fine to coarse SAND. 18 | 2.4
100- M)UWDS) ■100
------ Lean CLAY (CL); medium stiff; red brown. 10 1 1.4 (x) 10 | 1.4------ Stiff. 26 | 2.4 90 M)UW(UC) 90
49 11.4 ——Hard; brown.
46 @ I 81/7 | 2.4
-
80- .80
0)
-SANDY lean CLAY (CL); hard; brown.
| 90/12 | 1.
82/11.5 1.4
REC=22% — =
RQD=9%
50/21.4 _
1 70
REC=90% = MXUWUC) -70
RLO-.0/ RQD=43% •Black/gray; 35 to 65 degree fractures, 1" seam of soft clay. 50/1.5
weathered; 60- -60
moueraieiy S01I, tutetSc) to Ye
mittent 6 inch layers of shale.
•Medium stiff clay seam from 77.2 to 77.5.
------ METASEDIMENTARY ROCK (CLAYSTONE); black; intensely weathered; 50- -50
very soft; intensely sheared.
01-20-22
40- -40
2 30 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -30
114+50 114+75 115+00 115+25 115+50 115+75

STATION (FEET)
NOTES:

1. 5. "90/11" indicates partial drive having number of blows over depth interval noted.6. All blow counts are uncorrected field blow counts.

2. ‘1.4" Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler has a 1-3/8 inch inside diameter and a 2 inch outside diameter. 7. See 2024 Caltrans Standard Plans A1OF, A1OG, and A1OH for legend of soil and rock classification and boring notations.

3. "2.4" Modified California sampler has a 2-3/8 inch inside diameter and a 3 inch outside diameter with brass liners. 8.

4. "ref/2" indicates drive exceeded 50 blows during initial 6-inch seating.

DRAWN BY
J. ROSS PRADO ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
LOG OF TEST BORINGS (3 OF 4)

CHECKED BY
J. KING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
I
IC -------- EVSCDADP5-------1 SHEET------- C 8/24/2022 | | | X | GS GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF TEST BORINGS SHEET (ENGLISH) (REV. 03/14/12) UNIT: X DISREGARD PRINTS BEARING PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE: X CONTRACT NO.: X .X.

EARLIER REVISION DATES
FILE => Z:\Projects - Grover\216-323 Prado Road Bridge Repl (MOVED TO SHAREPOINT)\1.1 LOTB\216-323 LOTB.dwg B-53of97
TOTAL
SHEETS

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
Auger boring B-4 excavated with a Mobile B-53 drill rig equipped with 6-inch hollow stem augers and an automatic trip hammer weighing 140 pounds falling 30 inches with estimated 80% efficiency. Boring 22RC-02 excavated with a CME—55 Track-Mounted drill rig equipped with 4-inch solid stem augers, mud rotary equipment, HQ rock coring equipment, and an automatic trip hammer weighing 140 pounds falling 30 inches with estimated 75% efficiency.

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES

FOR REDUCED PLANS
SHEET
No
REC=100%
RQD=24%
REC=68%
RQD=20%
REC=28%
RQD=0%
REC=28%
RQD=16%REC=16% , ROD=16%
REC=84%RQD=18%
This Log of Test Borings (LOTB) was prepared in accordance with the Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2022).

B-4
Hs]
11/25/2026
DATE
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
391 FRONT STREET, SUITE D GROVER BEACH, CA

EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC/YEH & ASSOCIATES
FIELD INVESTIGATION BY:

PATH: MARCH 2015/JANUARY 2022______________
JUDD J. KING
2903
•45 degree fracture.-GRAYWACKE block from 67’ to 68’.

BENCHMARK
301"FD 3.5BC USGS”Elev 138.67’N 2289684.32’E 5764715.74’Vert: NAVD88Horiz: NAD83

PREPARED FOR THE

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
@e@e
@

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
The County of San Luis Obispo or its officers or agents shall not be responsible for the accuracy or
completeness of scanned copies of this plan sheet.
22RC-02
—
-CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (Sc); medium dense;
moist; (ALLUVIUM). ------------------------------------------- -Very loose.
§
<
oF cauirOC"
X____________

DESIGN OVERSIGHT
X____________

SIGN OFF DATE
------ SANDY lean CLAY with GRAVEL (CL); hard; brown; fine to medium, subangular GRAVEL.
■CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC);
to medium, subangular GRAVEL;
■METASEDIMENTARY ROCK (GRAYWACKE); gray; intensely __
moderately, soft; intensely to very infensely fractured; inter- -SANDY lean CLAY (CL); brown; very stiff; moist; some fine to coarse grained sand; trace caliche deposits; (ALLUVIUM). -Brown/light gray mottled; medium stiff.-Wet; perched.-Stiff; moist.

PROJECT ENGINEER
BRIDGE NO.
49C0107

POST MILES
X
-CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (Sc); dark brown to gray brown; loose to medium dense; moist; abundant concrefe, brick rubble, and debris; (FILL).

Terminated at Elev 48.0‘
ERi = 75%
-CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC); brown/olive brown mottled; “ dense; moist; fine gravel.
•Medium dense; increasing fine to coarse gravel; serpentinite gravel.
•METAMORPHIC ROCK (METAVOLCANIC ROCK); olive brown;
very soft; fractured; sheared; intensely weathered;
(FRANCISCAN MELANGE).
■Soft.■METASEDIMENTARY ROCK (SANDSTONE); olive brown; soft; moist; weathered.
•Gray; moderetly soft.
|
•METASEDIMENTARY ROCK (CLAYSTONE); black/brown; intensely weathered; soft; very intensely fractured; with 4 to 6 inch blocks of GRAYWACKE; (FRANCISCAN MELANGE). |
02-10-15
Terminated at Elev. 67.5’
ERi = 80%
PROFILE:

HORIZ.: 1” = 5’VERT.: 1” = 10’ Page 557 of 1065

DIST COUNTY ROUTE
05 SLO X
PROFILE:

RROFES$/o,,, REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER

PLANS APPROVAL DATE

SOIECNCN
"tocalloP"
YA
24E-01
140 140 140—------ 140
139.0’ af
24E-02
135
135.0’
•135 135---------
1124 @W@@@ 135
R 13 2.4
130.
-Very stiff. 130 130---------- 130
21 | 1.4 3®®
125 18 1 1.4 PIYPP) 125 125---------- 125
■Hard.
120- 120 120-------- 120 19 11.4 PP)
■Hard.
5 115 115 115
110 110 110 110
105 105 105 105
100 ■ 100 100 100
95- 95 95- 9590- 90 90- 90
2 85 + + + + 85 85- + + + + + 85
117+25 117+75 66+25 66+75
NOTES:

1. 5. ”90/11” indicates partial drive having number of blows over depth interval noted.

6. All blow counts are uncorrected field blow counts.

2. 1.4" Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler has a 1-3/8 inch inside diameter and a 2 inch outside diameter.

7. See 2024 Caltrans Standard Plans A1OF, A1OG, and A1OH for legend of soil and rock classification and boring notations.

3. "2.4" Modified California sampler has a 2-3/8 inch inside diameter and a 3 inch outside diameter with brass liners. f

8. 4. "ref/2" indicates drive exceeded 50 blows during initial 6-inch seating.

DRAWN BY
J. ROSS PRADO ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2024 LOG OF TEST BORINGS (4 OF 4)

CHECKED BY
J. KING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
I
GS GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF TEST BORINGS SHEET (ENGLISH) (REV. 03/14/12) UNIT: X PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE: X CONTRACT NO.: X EARLIER REVISION DATES FILE => Z:\Projects - Grover\216-323 Prado Road Bridge Repl (MOVED TO SHAREPOINT)\1.1 LOTB\216-323 LOTB.dwg B-54of97
Borings 24E-01 and 24E-02 excavated with a CME-55 Track-Mounted drill rig equipped with 4-inch solid stem augers and an automatic trip hammer weighing 140 pounds falling 30 inches with estimated 75% efficiency. 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE.-15” AGGREGATE BASE.

YEH & ASSOCIATES
FIELD INVESTIGATION BY:

TOTAL
SHEETS

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
This Log of Test Borings (LOTB) was prepared in accordance with the Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2022).
7" ASPHALT CONCRETE.
•7” AGGREGATE BASE.■Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); (ALLUVIUM).•Stiff; brown; moist.

SHEET
No

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES

FOR REDUCED PLANS
■Fat CLAY with SAND (CH); very stiff;
brown; moist.
11/25/202£
DATE
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
391 FRONT STREET, SUITE D GROVER BEACH, CA
JUDD J. KING
2903

BENCHMARK
301"FD 3.5BC USGS’Elev 138.67’N 2289684.32’E 5764715.74’Vert: NAVD88Horiz: NAD83 •Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); (ALLUVIUM).

SANDY lean CLAY (CL); very stiff; brown;
moist.
•Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); very stiff;
brown; moist. ----------------------------
HORIZ.: 1” = 5’
VERT.: 1” = 5’
The County of San Luis Obispo or its officers or agents shall not be responsible for the accuracy or
completeness of scanned copies of this plan sheet.

PREPARED FOR THE

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
§
x________

DESIGN OVERSIGHT
X_________

SIGN OFF DATE
117+50

STATION (FEET)
<
x

PROJECT ENGINEER
BRIDGE NO.
49C0107

POST MILES
X
66+50

STATION (FEET)
09-12-24
Terminated at Elev 118.5’
ERi = 75%
09-12-24
Terminated at Elev 122.5’
ERi = 75%
2 REVISION DATES | SHEET I
DISREGARD PRINTS BEARING ------------1----------1--- —--- 1----------r-------------- — ----------- =====—I—I—I—I x
I Page 558 of 1065

GROUP SYMBOLS AND NAMES FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS
Graphic / Symbol Group Names Graphic / Symbol Group Names C Consolidation (ASTM D2435)
Well-graded GRAVEL CL GW
Well-graded GRAVEL with SAND CP
CL
0080o
Poorly graded GRAVEL CR 000
GP
Poorly graded GRAVEL with SAND CU Oc1
Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT DS
GW-GM
Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND El

CL-ML M
•• GW-GC OC
P
09C < Poorly graded GRAVEL with SILT PA Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D422-63 [2007]) a &d0 GP-GM
O 0 Poorly graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND PI
ML
PL Point Load Index (ASTM D5731)
o PM Pressure Meter
3 C. 3
04 SILTY GRAVEL PP Pocket Penetrometer
Q2 GM
OO SILTY GRAVEL with SAND R R-Value (CTM301) C
OL RS Torsional Ring Shear (ASTM D6467)

CLAYEY GRAVEL
GC SE Sand Equivalent (CTM 217)
CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND
SG Specific Gravity (AASHTO T100) o

SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL SL GC-GM
SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND SW
OL
Well-graded SAND TV Pocket Torvane
SW
Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL UC
A A
Poorly graded SAND UU SP
Poorly graded SAND with GRAVEL
CH UW
Well-graded SAND with SILT
SW-SM VS Vane Shear (AASHTO T 223-96 [2004])
Well-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL -200 200 Wash (ASTM D1140) Well-graded SAND with CLAY (or SILTY CLAY)
sw-sc Well-graded SAND with CLAY and GRAVEL degrade SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS (or CLAY and GRAVEL)
MH
Poorly graded SAND with SILT
SP-SM Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (2" O.D.) Poorly graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL SP-SC
Standard California Sampler (2.5" O.D.)
OH

SILTY SAND
SM 8
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL
Modified California Sampler (3" O.D.)

CLAYEY SAND
SC I
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL
OH Shelby Tube Piston Sampler

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND
SC-SM
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL I
Rock Core : : Grab Sample

PT PEAT
■
7 OL/OH
) A Bulk Sample Other (see remarks)
000 A

DRILLING METHOD SYMBOLS WATER LEVEL SYMBOLS
V First Water Level Reading (during drilling) 7Auger Drilling Rotary Drilling < Diamond Core y Static Water Level Reading (short-term) ▼ Static Water Level Reading (long-term)
11Yeh and Associates, Inc
Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services
B-55 of 97
Collapse Potential (ASTM D5333)
Compaction Curve (ASTM D1557)
Shrinkage Limit (ASTM D427)
Swell Potential (ASTM D4546)
Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)
Organic Content (ASTM D2974)
Permeability (ASTM 5084)
Dynamic Cone
or Hand Driven
Unconfined Compression - Soil (ASTM D2166)
Unconfined Compression - Rock (ASTM D7012)

PROJECT NAME
Prado Road Bridge Widening
00 70_
SILT
SILT with SAND
SILT with GRAVEL

SANDY SILT
SANDY SILT with GRAVEL

GRAVELLY SILT
GRAVELLY SILT with SAND
ORGANIC lean CLAY
ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND
ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY
SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL
GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY
GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND
ORGANIC fat CLAY
ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND
ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY
SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVEL
GRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY
GRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND
ORGANIC elastic SILT
ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND
ORGANIC elastic SILT with GRAVEL
SANDY elastic ELASTIC SILT
SANDY ORGANIC elastic SILT with GRAVEL
GRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT
GRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND

REPORT TITLE

LEGEND FOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION

COBBLES
COBBLES and BOULDERS

BOULDERS

SILTY CLAY
SILTY CLAY with SAND
SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL

SANDY SILTY CLAY
SANDY SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL

GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY
GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY with SAND

ORGANIC SILT
ORGANIC SILT with SAND
ORGANIC SILT with GRAVEL

SANDY ORGANIC SILT
SANDY ORGANIC SILT with GRAVEL

GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT
GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT with SAND

ORGANIC SOIL
ORGANIC SOIL with SAND
ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL

SANDY ORGANIC SOIL
SANDY ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL

GRAVELLY ORGANIC SOIL
GRAVELLY ORGANIC SOIL with SAND
Fat CLAY
Fat CLAY with SAND
Fat CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY fat CLAY
SANDY fat CLAY with GRAVEL
GRAVELLY fat CLAY
GRAVELLY fat CLAY with SAND
Elastic SILT
Elastic SILT with SAND
Elastic SILT with GRAVEL
SANDY elastic SILT
SANDY elastic SILT with GRAVEL
GRAVELLY elastic SILT
GRAVELLY elastic SILT with SAND
DATE
10/10/2024
Corrosion, Sulfates, Chlorides (CTM 643; ASTM D4972,
ASTM G187, ASTM D4327)
Consolidated Undrained Triaxial (ASTM D4767)
Direct Shear (ASTM D3080)
Expansion Index (ASTM D4829)
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index
(ASTM D4318)
Lean CLAY
Lean CLAY with SAND
Lean CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY lean CLAY
SANDY lean CLAY with GRAVEL
GRAVELLY lean CLAY
GRAVELLY lean CLAY with SAND
Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial
(ASTM D2850)
Unit Weight (ASTM D4767, ASTM D7263)
SHEET
1 of 1
Poorly graded SAND with CLAY (or SILTY CLAY)
Poorly graded SAND with CLAY and GRAVEL
(or SILTY CLAY and GRAVEL)
Well-graded GRAVEL with CLAY (or SILTY CLAY)
Well-graded GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND wAs
(or SILTY CLAY and SAND)
Poorly graded GRAVEL with CLAY
(or SILTY CLAY)
Poorly graded GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND
(or SILTY CLAY and SAND)
2820. 6d0o GP-GC
800/
o o o C

Page 559 of 1065 ends

ROCK GRAPHIC SYMBOLS BEDDING SPACING

IGNEOUS ROCK

SEDIMENTARY ROCK

METAMORPHIC ROCK
Chemical Weathering-Discoloration-Oxidation Texture and Solutioning Preserved
Decomposed Discolored of oxidized
throughout, but resistant
minerals such as quartz may
be unaltered; all feldspars and
CORE RECOVERY CALCULATION (%) ROCK HARDNESS
Criteria
x100
Very hard
Hard
ROD CALCULATION (%)
x100
Soft
Very Soft

FRACTURE DENSITY
Criteria
Very Intensely Fractured
Ki
B-56 of 97
All fracture
surfaces are
discolored or
oxidized
SHEET
1 Of 1
Descriptor
Unfractured
Very Slightly Fractured
Slightly Fractured
Moderately Fractured
Intensely Fractured

PROJECT NAME
Prado Road Bridge Widening
Descriptor
Extremely Hard
Descriptor
Massive
Very thickly bedded
Thickly bedded
Moderately bedded
Thinly bedded
Very thinly bedded
Laminated
Solutioning
No solutioning
Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services DATE
10/10/2024
Texture
No change
Descriptor
Fresh
Note: Combination descriptors (such as "slightly weathered to fresh") are used where equal distribution of both weathering characteristics is present over significant intervals or where characteristics present are "in between" the diagnostic feature. However, combination descriptors should not be used where significant identifiable zones can be delineated. Only two adjacent descriptors shall be combined. "Very intensely weathered" is the combination descriptor for "decomposed to intensely weathered".

Z Length of intact core pieces > 4 in.

Total length of core run (in.)

REPORT TITLE

LEGEND FOR ROCK CLASSIFICATION
Fe-Mg minerals are
completely altered to clay
Thickness or Spacing
> 10ft
3 to 10 ft
1 to 3 ft
3-5/8 inches to 1 ft
1-1/4 to 3-5/8 inches
3/8 inch to 1-1/4 inches
< 3/8 inch
Moderately
Weathered
Slightly
Weathered
Intensely
Weathered
Complete separation of
grain boundaries
(disaggregated)
Generally
preserved
Discoloration or oxidation is
limited to surface of, or short
distance from, fractures; some
feldspar crystals are dull
Fracture Surfaces
No discoloration
or oxidation
Minor to complete
discoloration or
oxidation of most
surfaces
Resembles a soil; partial or
complete remnant rock structure
may be preserved; leaching of
soluble minerals usually
complete
Moderately
Hard
Moderately Soft
Partial separation of
boundaries visible
Soluble minerals
may be mostly
leached
Leaching of
soluble minerals
may be complete
General Characteristics
Hammer rings when crystalline
rocks are struck.

Hammer rings when crystalline
rocks are struck. Body of rock
not weakened.

Minor leaching of
some soluble
minerals may be
noted
Can be granulated by hand.

Resistant minerals such as
quartz may be present as
"stringers or "dikes".

Partial separation; rock is
friable; in semi-and
conditions, granitics are
disaggregated
Hammer does not ring when
rock is struck. Body of rock is
slightly weakened.

No fractures
Lengths greater 3 ft
Lengths from 1 to 3 ft, few lengths outside that range
Lengths mostly in range of 4 in. to 1 ft, with most lengths about 8 in.

Lengths average from 1 in. to 4 in. with scattered fragmented intervals with lengths less than 4 in.

Mostly chips and fragments with few scattered short core lengths Altered by
chemical
disintegration
such as via
hydration or
argillation
Z Length of the recovered core pieces (in.)
Total length of core run (in.)
All fracture
surfaces are
discolored or
oxidized: surfaces
are friable
Mechanical Weathering
and Grain Boundary
Conditions
No separation, intact
(tight)________________
No visible separation,
intact (tight)
Body of Rock
No discoloration, not oxidized
Specimen cannot be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick; can only be chipped with repeated heavy hammer blows
Specimen cannot be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick; breaks with repeated heavy hammer blows
Specimen can be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick with heavy pressure; heavy hammer blows required to break specimen Specimen can be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick with light or moderate pressure; breaks with moderate hammer blows
Specimen can be grooved 1/6 in. with pocket knife or sharp pick with moderate or heavy pressure; breaks with light hammer blow or heavy hand pressure Specimen can be grooved or gouged with pocket knife or sharp pick with light pressure, breaks with light to moderate hand pressure
Specimen can be readily indented, grooved, or gouged with fingernail, or carved with pocket knife; breaks with light hand pressure Dull sound when struck with
hammer; usually can be broken
with moderate to heavy manual
Pressure or by light hammer
low without reference to planes
of weakness such as incipient or
hairline fractures or veinlets.

Rock is significantly weakened.

WEATHERING DESCRIPTORS FOR INTACT ROCK
Diagnostic Features
Discoloration or oxidation
extends from fractures usually
throughout; Fe-Mg minerals
are "rusty"; feldspar crystals
are "cloudy"
Discoloration or oxidation
throughout; all feldspars and
Fe-Mg minerals are altered to
clay to some extent; or
chemical alteration produces
in situ disaggregation (refer to
grain boundary conditions)

Page 560 of 1065 ends

GROUNDWATER DURING DRILLING AFTER DRILLING (DATE)
READINGS 20.5 ft See Report
DESCRIPTION C CD Remarks
Q O = CDR CD ( E CD
Cl2o
0) Q
1 —
A
137 2
3 135 4
5 —
H
Hard. 1 17 100 17 98 >4.5PP -200 (13% G, 37% S, 50% F)
133 6 —
7 —
131 8
9 0
129 10 2 13 78 12 2.75PP
— OO
11 . C 127 12
13 -
125 14 —
—a0
15 M
3 100 25 98 21 C
123 16
o
17 121 18
19 0
119 20 4 13 100 Switched to mud rotary
21 117 22
23 115 24 -
25- i
(continued)
B-57 of 97
Aaak

LOGGED BY
R. Hooke
Sand
around
slotted
screen
9 8
13 8
5 8
2 5
8 BEGIN DATE
1/18/22
5 6
11 Bentonite
Chips
6?
SHEET
1 of 4
CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC); medium
dense; brown; moist; fine to medium,
subangular GRAVEL.

E c
C D 0) or

BORING NUMBER
22RC-01

REVISION DATE
9/12/2022
Loose; fine to medium, subrounded to
subangular GRAVEL.
-200 (29% G, 27% S, 44% F)
PI (42 LL, 19 PL, 23 PI)
0 at
m
ID
ZE
LU
CD
o E
CD 5
Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services

COMPLETION DATE
1/19/22

PROJECT NAME
Prado Road Bridge Widening

PROJECT NUMBER
216-323
Solinst Level Logger installed on
1/20/2022
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC);
medium dense; brown; moist; fine to
medium, subangular to subrounded
GRAVEL.

C
9 N
o
CO
0 ( O
0).

CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND (GC);
brown; moist.
2 CD
O
CD
CD
Q
<
LU
_I
LU
0 %6 oc
O
O
o
(
§
o
co
()
§
o
CD
E
2 CD(
0 0
s
OO
C
D
at
o
C
O
O
R
<
co

FINAL BY
J. King

DRILLING METHOD
4" SSA/Mud Rotary/3.75" HQ Core

DRILLER
Geo-Ex Subsurface Exploration

DRILL RIG
CME 55 Track-Mounted Rig
7" ASPHALT CONCRETE.
6" AGGREGATE BASE.

SANDY lean CLAY (CL); brown; moist;
few to little GRAVEL; (ALLUVIUM).
8CO
O
Os

BORING NUMBER
22RC-01

SURFACE ELEVATION
139.0 ft

WEATHER NOTES
Cool, partly cloudy

BACKFILLED WITH
Monitoring Well

TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING
100.0 ft
O
9 Q
O
CL
I
UJ
<
7 Q
O
o S
SCD
C
Q Q
N
CXI
co
Q
7<
0)
0 O—CXJ
t &
C
O
GO
CD
Q
O
s
Grouted
to top
2Y 0
oX oC

HAMMER TYPE
140-lb Autotrip
BOREHOLE LOCATION (Lat/Long or North/East and Datum)
-/-
BOREHOLE LOCATION (Offset, Station, Line)

10.50' Rt. Sta. 112+69.2, "PRA" Line

LOCATION DESCRIPTION
West side of bridge, 10' west of fence
I —Q
LU
Q
0—
C
CR (pH = 6.93, r = 722 ohm-cm,
SO, = 40 mg/kg, CI’ = 15 mg/kg)
C
CD
o
CD
C
D
0 o .

LU
s
0 2
Q
o E
Z
o
E
E
s
Q
Q<
Q
2 $
z
O
CD
o..
~ C
CD O co 2
20 “c o o
20

Page 561 of 1065 ends

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllm O)
I
- —LU O
LU
O)
0 (
II
O.

II
LU Oa COT- —
20 XN
rQ
• 1 Oo
2(3 20
uonduoseg IIM ri 2 CMON 2n:00
O C 2 (
lloQ
uebed IIM 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
(%) XjaAOOsy 3
100 jad SMOIS 1 C
■ui 9 jad SMOIS CM C LO co 05
LO CD 00 05
X
— C
05 Q A 5 Ug
5 *
< 2
O— — । 00 • — • -( 0 0)

MMMMMMMMMMMMIII III
(U) HLdSC CXI CO LO 05

C CO CO LO LO
05 LO CO
(u) NOILVAH 05 05 CO
ZZ/Z 1/6 a19(ozoz lldV EA HEX) AdVdan H3A VINMOJITVO rdOZZ0Z avi QNV soon &Z&-9 IZ T13M ONIHOLINOW HUM CVO soydeJ9
euejeW
Co
O
00 CXI
cxiLO
Q
LU
LU
.C;
LO CO
o
CO
LO
i m
CXJ co
LO
O
LO
LO
O
05 CO
05 CXJ
05 05
Q
O
o 0
CD CXJ
C
E CD
or
Q. Q
LO
CXI co
O 0)
co
LO
[Q O
LO
s
05 CXJ
CO CO
LOCO
U2O
8 C O
O
CO
LO
05 00
o
0202
CXJ
LO 05
O
8 05
CD
CO 05
o05
S
co
— co co
-- — co
LU § or
0 8
s
&
8 8 8
Q. Q
LO
C
O
15 o
O
%
So
O co
° —
CD 0) Q
JqunN und
JO ajdues
uoneoo
un JO ajdues
EE
C o
Z
O aR
O
0) LU
Q

0. O
O
2 O

0. C
O
2 c
C
O
D
Co
2 '5b
o
o
05 (
§
Q
2 06
.O
0 CM-o _ O _
9 3Q
GCD
0)E8E
c
E
CD O
5 O
(Js»)
ybueus jeans
God)
tqBiaAA gun AC
(%) jujuoo
JnsIOw
(%) Gox
05 05
C
o
I0) C 05C
O ___ O(O — LO Q
09 o - o. _1
O
co
LL
2 co < o
Zr
o o
LU O
Q
II
m
2 D
Zg
29 2 1
35“orcs
I0
E
8 E
84E&
ol
oO 2 o
+ CD
E2
gg05
1 co
AC
RN
170.
#85
y o g.
8824 RO O9 2554 < OoL —o CS

2.04 “us2
2200
0020
LU — I-7
1— 0— 0059

Page 562 of 1065 ends

DESCRIPTION Remarks 0) CD O O O =5
DECQ ( E 0) ( C
( 2 O o 20
Bg 50/4" REF/4" 1 nn
10025 Switched to Wireline Coring
83 56 X —
O
57 — 2 88 X<
19 114 O CU
81 58
Fracture plane at 65 degrees. X<
o
59 X<
79 60 x
61 x
3 100 78 62 —77
x
63 X
75 64 9 127 UU
X
65 73 66 X<
4 100 68
67 — ><:
71 68 x
Highly sheared zone, closed fractures. o
69 X<
o
69 70 X:

UC
71------------------METASEDIMENTARY ROCK x.
5 100 24 4.5PP
67 72
X
73 X< 12 124 UC
65 74
><:
75 X<. 63 76 O
o Clay matrix - hard. 6 100 56 >4.5PP X 1 77 O
61 78 — X:
79 ><:.
59 80 X
81 x\
Intensely weathered; very sheared. 7 92 30 4.5PP
57 82
><:
83 —
55 84
X .
85 (continued)
B-59 of 97
Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services
Sand to
bottom
of hole
O
° E <
LU
_I
LU
CO
s
O
m
co
s
o
m
OO
C
or
co
ID
SHEET
3 of 4
Weathers to sandy lean CLAY (CL),
vertical trace fractures with iron stains
and calcite.

OO
(CLAYSTONE); black; very soft; very
intensely fractured; very sheared, clay
matrix - hard.

METASEDIMENTARY ROCK
(GRAYWACKE); gray; intensely
weathered; moderately soft; intensely
to moderately fractured; clay infill
fractures.
o
o

BORING NUMBER
22RC-01

REVISION DATE
9/12/2022
C
O N
o
CD
0 ZE
LU
CD
o
O
0 or

PROJECT NAME
Prado Road Bridge Widening

PROJECT NUMBER
216-323
O
o
N
R
<
o () O
Q
o
5 X
<
CD
o
E
2 O) (
0 d
Q 3 s
k 102
Block of GRAYWACKE SANDSTONE
from 73 to 73.5.

Q Q
N
N
CO
Q
7 <
0)
0 O—
CN
CO
CM
A
CD
20 26
C
D
D
O
ZE
UJ
<
Z
Q
O
Q
C
()
o.2
~ C
CD O.
$
I —Q
LU
Q
55-
C
o
62/
o
o
2 2
O 9
Q
O
Q
LU
s
0 2
Q
o E
z
O
E
E
s
Q
Q
Q
Z
( O 0_
Black; moderately weathered;
moderately soft.

METASEDIMENTARY ROCK
(Claystone) (continued).

Intensely weathered; intensely
fractured; clay seams up to 1/4".

O
Os
S
$
z
o
E C( D
0) C
11T
O
o
CO
8 c
C 0 oE

Page 563 of 1065 ends

DESCRIPTION CD Remarks
O O O =5
DECQ ( E 0) ( C
O O ( 2
20 20 Q Q
X<
53 86 O
8 94 38 X
87 —
51 88 X
89 ><:
49 X:
91 X<
9 94 35
47 92 X
93 O
X UC
45 94 — O
X
95 —
X
43 96
1/2" clay seam, closed fractures. 10 31 31 ><:
97 X: 41 98
X: 99 —
39 100 d
Bottom of borehole at 100.0 ft bgs
101 -
37 102 -
103 -
35 104 -
105 —
33 106 —
o
107 —
31 108 —
109 —
29 110 —
111 -
27 112 —
113 —
25 114 -
115
B-60 of 97
Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services
O
o E <
LU
_I
LU
Gray; intensely to moderately
weathered; moderately fractured.
8 0
s
o
m
OO
0 or m
LO
(GRAYWACKE); some 2 - 4" blocks,
very intensely sheared zones.

This Boring Record was developed in
accordance with the Caltrans Soil &
Rock Logging, Classification, and
Presentation Manual (2010) except as
noted on the Soil or Rock Legend or
below.
-OO

BORING NUMBER
22RC-01

REVISION DATE
9/12/2022
SHEET
4 of 4

METASEDIMENTARY ROCK
(Claystone) (continued).
o
o
C
O N
o
CD
0 E C
( D
0) C
7 LU
0)
o
O
0 or
92 PROJECT NAME
Prado Road Bridge Widening

PROJECT NUMBER
216-323
CN
O
N
R
<
o
7)
O
Q
o
s
CD
8 CO
s
Q
m
E
2 O) (
0 d
s
Block of GRAYWACKE SANDSTONE
from 86.5 - 88.5.

Q Q
N
CXI
co
Q
7 <
0)
0 O—
CM
CO
CM
A
CD
C
D
D
O
ZE
UJ
<
Z
Q
O
()
o.2
~ C
CD Q.

E
I—Q
LU
Q
85-
C
o
o
o
2 2
LU
s
0 2
Q
o E
z
o
E
E
s
Q
Q
Q
Z
9O
Q
o
R
30 ( o
0)_
O
Os
S
$
Z
O
90 ---------- METASEDIMENTARY ROCK
O
o
CO
8 c
C 0 oE

Page 564 of 1065 ends

READINGS Not measured
DESCRIPTION O Remarks O
= C () O —
Q 0) a
8" ASPHALT CONCRETE.
1 -
B
137 2
3 135 4
5 12 26 100 9 110 CR (pH = 6.69, r = 1,257 ohm-cm)
133 6
7 M
131 8
9 129 10 Very loose. 13 2 83
11 127 12
13 125 14
15 4.0PP M
14 36 100 22 102
123 16
17 —
121 18 —
19 —
119 20 — 15 15 100 2.5PP
o
21 — )
117 22 —
23 —
115 24 —
25-
(continued)
B-61 of 97

LOGGED BY
R. Hooke
p
p
2 8
12 14

BEGIN DATE
1-19-22
o
O
-200 (1% G, 23% S, 76% F)
PI (45 LL, 17 PL, 28 PI)
7 15
21 C
N
N
ox
to
0 CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC); medium dense;
dark brown; moist; (ALLUVIUM).
0)
Q
SHEET
1 of 4
Q Q
O
Ou
co
Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); very stiff; brown; moist;
trace fine GRAVEL.
4 7
8 co
or
co
LO

PROJECT NAME
Prado Road Bridge Widening

PROJECT NUMBER
216-323
.C
0 co
O
Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services
o o
20 Q
C
O)
C
O
CO
0 .

TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

91.0 ft
<
LU
_I
LU
E (
co

COMPLETION DATE
1-20-22

BORING NUMBER
22RC-02

REVISION DATE
9/12/2022
—O O
5 <
Z
Q
o
C
o
O
n

FINAL BY
J. King

DRILLING METHOD
4" SSA/Mud Rotary/3.75" HQ Core

DRILLER
Geo-Ex Subsurface Exploration

DRILL RIG
CME 55 Track-Mounted Rig
O
O
g 5
6" AGGREGATE BASE.__________________________
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC); brown and red;
moist; fine to medium, subangular GRAVEL; red color
possibly decomposed bricks; (ARTIFICIAL FILL).

O
o
o
Q
E
c
o
0 s
Q
co
CD
0 s
o
co
o
S
g0
A
s
co

BORING NUMBER
22RC-02

SURFACE ELEVATION
139.0 ft

WEATHER NOTES
Sunny, warm

BACKFILLED WITH
Grout
9O
Q
O
or
oO
LU

HAMMER TYPE
140-lb Autotrip
BOREHOLE LOCATION (Lat/Long or North/East and Datum)
-/-
BOREHOLE LOCATION (Offset, Station, Line)

16.30' Rt. Sta. 114+56.9, "PRA" Line

LOCATION DESCRIPTION
East side of bridge, 10' south of ETW

GROUNDWATER DURING DRILLING AFTER DRILLING (DATE)
$
I —Q
LU
Q
0—
CR (pH = 7.30, r = 602 ohm-cm,
SO, = 81 mg/kg, Cr = 7 mg/kg)
Q
7 <
(
0 o —
8 CM
Q
Q <Q
Z
C
O
6 O
$
z
O
O
§
z
0)
E (
0)
(
o..
~ C
CD O co 2
20

Page 565 of 1065 ends

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII O)
I
- —LU O
LU
O)
0 (
O)
CO
O)
O.

LQ
LU
O
OaQ
ydag buseo Oo
Z0
poyaw buluO 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ON 00 CL o —2 (
llo. Q
O)
C
(%) AJA00*
100J j ed SMOIS LO O) O)
CXI
■ui 9 Jd SMOIS LO co CO LO LO CO P —

CD CO O)
cxj
C
O
Q
I osl —
— 0
CD CD
OO — 0o — 0) 0 1
(U) HLdSC
mMMMM CXI CO LO 00 O)
cxj co co LO LO
O) LO co
(u) NOILVAH CD O) CO
zziz 1/6 a19(ozoz lldV EA HHX) AdVdan HSA VINMOHITVO rdOZZ0Z avi ONV soon EZE-9lZ CVONVL JsqLunN jdues
uogeo dues
soydeJ9
euejeW
Co
O
co
CXJ
C
LO
o
Cxj CD
i
m
co CXJ
CD CDco CXJ
LO CO
CXI co LO
CXI - 00
- CXI CXJ
CD CO
CD cxj
CD CD
Q.Q.

LO
cxj
CD
CXJ
s
CD co o O
coco
LOCO
co
LO
CD 00
CXJ
LO CD
U2O
8 C
ECD
or
CD
CO CD
Q
2 O
0)
LU
Q
o CD 3
S
C o
o
0202
& 8
ALO
£
E
0 2
CD
C5O
8 s
2_I
O
C
C
o
C
O
O
o
O
s
o
C5p
&
Z
O
CD
5 O

0. C
O
2 c
C
O
D
<
o
C
C
Co
CD
'5b
Q
o
O
(
O —
I n
CD co C
8 E
8 E
Q CD
Q
2 <
CD
a
s
Z
o
oN
9 Q
7 <
0)
(sx)
ubueus Jeus
God)
iqBiSM un AC
(%) IU9JU00
JnsIO
(%) gox
2 E
0 E8E
c
E
CDO
5 .cxj CD
0 N -o__j
O •
Q
LU
02 DN
20 co
2n
Zo&N
oCDC
O
CO
LL
2 co < o
Zr
o o LO
orLUm
2 D 28
28 Co
O O
O
00CD
O oo
cxj0
o
§CXI
I0
85“orcs
C§ o8
0CD
Q20 1.7
05 >0)5 c
O 8
Co
co N !

Page 566 of 1065 ends

DESCRIPTION O Remarks
ECQ
CO co 2
20 Q
83 56
57 —
81 58 —
59 -
79 60 SANDY lean CLAY (CL); hard; brown. 29 90/12'10023 >4.5PP 61 1 22 9 6277 X
63 X
75 64 X
65 X
73 66 —
2 90 43 x
67 18 120 UC
X
71 68
X
69 69 70 X
71 X
3 100 24 67 72 X
73 25 107 X CU
65 74 X
75 X
63 76
X
4 68 20 77
Medium stiff clay seam from 77.2 to 77.5. X
61 78
X
79 5 28 0
X
59 80 —
81 X
6 28 16 57 82 X
83 X
55 84
16 167 X
85 (continued)
B-63 of 97
40 50/6"
SANDY lean CLAY with GRAVEL (
fine to medium, subangular GRAVI
o
p
Q
&
CO
W
SHEET
3 of 4
C
N
N
ox
co
0 <
o
<
LU
_I
LU
co
or
co
LO
Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services

PROJECT NAME
Prado Road Bridge Widening

PROJECT NUMBER
216-323
8 CD s
Q
CO
Black/gray; 35 to 65 degree fractures, 1" seam of soft
clay.
45 degree fracture.

GRAYWACKE block from 67' to 68'.

METASEDIMENTARY ROCK (CLAYSTONE);
black/brown; intensely weathered; soft; very intensely
fractured; with 4 to 6 inch blocks of GRAYWACKE;
(FRANCISCAN MELANGE).

C
CD
8 0
s
Q
m
o
o
2 0

BORING NUMBER
22RC-02

REVISION DATE
9/12/2022
O
Q
c
0 (
O
O
O
s
<
Z
Q
o
-O O
O
o
n
()
o.2
~ C
CD O.

A
2 co
LU
C
o
ou $ O
T—Q
LU
Q
55-
5 25 Q &
103
Q QO
CN
co
Q
7 < (
0 O —
8 CN
Q
Q
Q
Z
METASEDIMENTARY ROCK (GRAYWACKE); gray;
intensely weathered; moderately soft; intensely to very intensely fractured; intermittent 6 inch layers of shale. $
Z
O
9O
Q
O
or
24 81/7" 100
31 50/1" i------------
O
§
2 CD
E (
0)
22 £
2 CD
O
O
CD
Q
O)
C
O
CD
(D — o _
C (
CD S

4.5PP
D O2 =
20 (CL); hard; brown; 21
'EL

Page 567 of 1065 ends

111 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 O)
O
O)
0)
(
E EC
O.

LU
5 Oo Soy
ydag buseo
Z0ON00
2 (
CD
O — o
or CM
CO
(%) AJA00* co
100J j ad SMOIS
■ui 9 Jd SMOIS
co
C
o
..2
1 ( — diO
ZcS O
o O
< CD— ( 5s ( O
— O
LU 9
3 Ee.

E ra Q
0) C mo 8
O*
oH(0O
2080
FSn o
III 1111 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III 11 III (u) HLdSC LO CD COO

CO O) CD CD
(u) NOILVAH
O) LO

LO CO CO O
zztz 1/6 a19(ozoz lldV EA HHX) AdVdan HSA VINMOHITVO rdOZZ0Z avi ONV soon EZE-9 soydeJ9
euejeW
JqLnN jdues
uogeo dues
o 0co o
CD
i m
Co
O
2 O
UI—
co co
CD CD
LO
C
CO
LO
CD
CO CD
C
CD
CO CD
LO CD
CD
CO
CO CO
sss
CD C
O)
CO
( CO () 0
00 CD
(2 O
o
0202
</)
8 ±
o
o
d
CD O C
O
ooE o
o
CO
LOCO
C
E 0)
or
Q
2 O
w LU
Q
8 CD CO 8
2 8
C
O
O
oO
s
8 TO
Z
O
O
5 O

0. C
O
Q
E
O
y
O
LU O
S9
Co
2 '5b
o
o
O
(
5 c
C
O
D
§
CD CD
CD CCD
Z
o
or LJJ CD
2 D
Z
CDO2
9 y
O o
R
2 <—7
LU
2 .
08 (sx)
ubueus Jeus
God)
iqBiSM un AC
(%) IU9JU00
________ JnsIO
(%) aoy
9E
ve o ° 00n C > >
R.

C
E
CD O
5 (D
. C
—C O 00 LU
4 1
LU O
LU
= OCPEo
525.92c
CL O0 -a E 4=
iS
O
co
LL
2 co < o
Zr o o
LO
to0
SCo
CD Cc88 o
I0
Q
LUCD
2 DN
20 28
Yo &N
8E8
o
Q sLU >
0) 0 < to
oS.E
PO260
C Q 0) C Q (
090265
C 54
8220 070o
8828
928 8
LU o
Q
2 (O
O O CD
O. O
Oo2
— ( C
(0— $8%
828
g80

Page 568 of 1065 ends

Rock Core Photos
Prado Road Bridge Widening
L. y
Ce M
i w A 60
1) t
6 "a”*A"—e -a"An=a
sassavrveream -- —=e==osamev. Freyaeereaanti
-Ket)
"Wl it .
: §
13 to s itl
I
T T ; r '
or eh ---------
• s
20 *
a 1 ;. (5 i rStwi-) -ong
r" s ; h
n?
M) e ■
% I 1 — _ ——
i C tt- Mad we
—
"" .$ w‘ ! e 5.
g s
f i
-eclats -i
A eeeengn
r ,
(y $: J.
65 Th 5
8 y -Al S
P s ■
- .2 (e8l-5 ===== 2 C.
w‘ a" w
a
%.
■* - ws" Sent - " e
11 B-65 of 97
what
Whs
3)
22RC-01 Run 3

61.5-66.5'
22RC-01 Run 5

71.5-76.5'
22RC-01 Run 1

55.3-56.5'
22RC-01 Run 2

56.5-61.5’
22RC-01 Run 4

66.5-71.5'
■ C. ■
o
Project No. 216-323
April 4, 2022
23%
el
hC.)
S.

Mid
h 2
ta
4 r
Y80
a l—■ --sa
■ r: ted 9 i •
=
, * as
S
Aidi
--
. a‘ r
L
55P I S —
c - d
e_ e
"y -62
a
5 per
E wet
SJu
crie dim
y
i-el
' -t
o
.i.

Page 569 of 1065 ends

Rock Core Photos
Prado Road Bridge Widening
a
g
w
g
fy useae <1'1
teeyl I
t he
6 WWEo
---------------1852F8-------------- —T--------------------------- ■— cfenni “t i < g
e. [ $ au T
s
s
*
7 --- MI’t ? |
E
" fWI “ —
1 its
r s —y roun asy
5 i
8® c. s y
C. as t
____________________’ ■ -
E -P
"SJ
TI AS
r '• JE
t
1 5
9 rauifi f 44 ie “i. Th, xe 4
V 25 V coliy 2
11 B-66 of 97
22RC-01 Run 10

96.5-100'
w
22RC-01 Run 7

81.5-86.5'
22RC-01 Run 8

86.5-91.5'
22RC-01 Run 9

91.5-96.5'
22RC-01 Run 6

76.5-81.5'
• 1
A \
—G
♦r ‘
Project No. 216-323
April 4, 2022
: 4
wrt - iay 3 O tw
3 ki'
d. -2
1 -
210* gl st*
■
■
■ “gg w24.

V.
il
m idcwA
os • 1
wi‘s
ST ‘
T ■ he ghee -
ae
Ctn
it__ 1_
= We 2
wen-y)k gl
SSUe it "I
(7
‘"Y
3t : W
‘ween.
"EmEETTWTE
we"
22" $ - .. 5 ,
——r
207,
aatis Saigsteuw. top " ou
ste siE!

Page 570 of 1065 ends

Rock Core Photos
Prado Road Bridge Widening
r 7 (2503 $9% ogyetdamme semnase
I
Tc
9 E 3 P Mi,
*
Y 4
(
aate Ca "2700 ! 3 £p
oer
dipla .(f JW 2
srsn wwtn 8 inm v
1 L
5e y ea tt 3
N
t s 4 T r CMC F
— / / ww
V A A0 X. 4 r
(
.• t
Ce
-
?
7 V — : hewdin I
ict
11 B-67 of 97
22RC-02 Run 1

61.5-66.5'
22RC-02 Run 2

66.5-71.5'
22RC-02 Run 4

76.5-79.0'
22RC-02 Run 3

71.5-76.5'
P 4
/ J
Project No. 216-323
April 4, 2022
" 1
(20 b y
"31 X
te 2 ue ■■ ast TWeaeBs
TTC
22 ■ EzAM." r
Ft S J
““7— 4 sy" M . atome
■
12)
mp 7
#4
eenwar i 2 - B.
) 17,
W SeTT SELb' 03

Page 571 of 1065 ends

us
-A
■ ■
gs
-
t
L
M
<$ (2a
4 Y
3 Hi -= -
d 27
200. saare <rE
F ? --
11 B-68 of 97
ji
22RC-02 Run 6

81.5-84.0'
22RC-02 Run 5

79.0-81.5'
Rock Core Photos
Prado Road Bridge Widening
=ar2
2 2C s
teortpn
Project No. 216-323
April 4, 2022
a —
s
w%; _
2 s
sr .
a
C
g.
4 ci -
as
“f 2
V ‘‘
55) ..

SC
—d
—
gers

Page 572 of 1065 ends

- .
7 Jo
-
ro.
.0
___ L — P. -
trP 9 Pewtss er ,, — sr h
F ole euapawe,.. 77MPh 4 K s '
A
is . ■
t
11 B-69 of 97
22RC-02 Run 7

84.0-86.5'
22RC-02 Run 8

86.5-91.0'
Rock Core Photos
Prado Road Bridge Widening
*: 4
- =.

Svatn
. —PiJ
Project No. 216-323
April 4, 2022
ECole
A, Ma. w
-
A
2 -S aenls
at .. 5 *
s'
• a

Page 573 of 1065 ends

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Sample Information Gradation Atterberg Corrosion Compaction o
O.
b0
C
60 b0
E Soil/Rock Classification
O
O
© O
( —t y — °
O £
2 o AoOS 2 O O
22RC-01 1 0.0 CAL 114 98 17 13 37 50 SANDY lean CLAY (CL) 22RC-01 2 10.0 SPT 12 29 27 44 23 42 CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND (GC)22RC-01 3 15.0 CAL 122 98 25 6.93 722 40 15 CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC)22RC-01 5 25.0 CAL 119 90 32 CU SANDY lean CLAY (CL)22RC-01 6 30.0 SPT 29 0 44 56 19 39 SANDY lean CLAY (CL) 22RC-01 7 35.0 CAL 124 99 26 SANDY lean CLAY (CL)22RC-01 8 40.0 SPT 7.00 1,444 CLAYSTONE22RC-01 11 55.0 CAL 128 102 26 CLAYSTONE22RC-01 Run 2 RCORE HQ 135 57.5 114 19 CU CLAYSTONE 22RC-01 Run 3 64.0 RCORE HQ 139 127 9 UU GRAYWACKE
22RC-01 Run 4 70.5 RCORE HQ 145 UC GRAYWACKE22RC-01 Run 5 73.5 RCORE HQ 139 124 12 UC GRAYWACKE o
22RC-01 Run 9 93.0 RCORE HQ 165 UC GRAYWACKE
22RC-02 12 5.0 CAL 120 110 9 6.69 1,257 CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC) 22RC-02 14 15.0 CAL 124 102 22 7.30 602 81 7 Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)22RC-02 15 20.0 SPT 1 23 76 28 45 Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)22RC-02 16 25.0 CAL 120 94 28 CLAYEY SAND (SC)22RC-02 17 30.0 SPT 0 20 80 Lean CLAY with SAND (CL) 22RC-02 18 35.0 CAL 123 96 28 CLAYEY SAND (SC)22RC-02 19 40.0 SPT 0 9 91 23 45 Lean CLAY (CL) 11 o REVISION DATE
B-70 Of 97
Sample
Type
9 NO
C
O
C
Depth
(ft)
0 LU0 LU
Q
C
2CD
b0
0 s
C
D
O
O
<
Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services
(
>ce
in
O
b0
0 s
u
b0
E
C
co05
o
>(
O

PREPARED BY
R. Hooke
SHEET
1 of 2
M(

PROJECT NAME
Prado Road Bridge Widening
PROJECT NO.
216-323__________________

PROJECT MANAGER
J. King______________________

CHECKED BY
J. Ross
Q
XO Q)
C C
O
N
CD
<
QZ00O
c
O
0 CO
ou
0 Boring
No.

X
s
o
A<Z
Q £
x .20
(o O
Eg
Sample
No.
or
<
2 2
CD5
O
*3
O X
O.
3 E w O
Is
er
I g
X
O
S
C
c
o
i
CroO.x
z
Q
O
XCDOC
>
raC
C o
D. O
C
(
0)
CD
3 iO
O
o S.

2.3 C
— CD M +
E5
CM
o’0)
tn (DC
O O58

Page 574 of 1065 ends

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Sample Information Gradation Atterberg Corrosion Compaction o
O.
b0
60 b0
E Soil/Rock Classification
O
O
© O
( —t y — °
O £
2 o AoOS 2 O O
22RC-02 20 45.0 CAL 126 102 24 CU Lean CLAY (CL)
22RC-02 22 55.0 CAL 125 103 21 SANDY lean CLAY with GRAVEL (CL)22RC-02 Run 2 67.0 RCORE HQ 141 120 18 UC GRAYWACKE22RC-02 Run 3 73.0 RCORE HQ 133 107 25 CU GRAYWACKE 24E-01 A 0.0 BULK 19 Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)24E-01 1 2.5 MCAL 126 104 22 5 24 72 23 44 Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)24E-01 2 5.0 MCAL 121 94 29 CU Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)24E-01 3 10.0 SPT 1 25 75 32 49 Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)24E-02 2.5 MCAL 5 7 132 115 14 31 62 17 33 SANDY lean CLAY (CL)24E-02 6 5.0 MCAL 122 97 25 2 14 84 Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)24E-02 7 10.0 SPT 2 19 79 31 51 Fat CLAY with SAND (CH)24E-03 9 2.5 MCAL 112 92 21 7 39 54 24 45 SANDY lean CLAY (CL) o
24E-03 10 5.0 MCAL 114 87 31 UU Lean CLAY (CL)24E-03 10.0 11 SPT 2 52 47 CLAYEY SAND (SC)24E-03 12 15.0 SPT 3 27 70 20 40 Lean CLAY with SAND (CL) BS-A BS-A 0.0 BULK 46 53 1 Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL (SW) BS-B BS-B 0.0 BULK 56 42 2 Well-graded GRAVEL with SAND (GW) BS-C BS-C 0.0 BULK 43 55 2 Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL (SW) BS-D BS-D 0.0 BULK 2 83 15 SILTY SAND (SM)
11 REVISION DATE
B-71 or 97
Sample
Type
9 NO
Depth
(ft)
0 LU
Q
1—
0 LUC
2CO
b0
O
s
C
D
Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services
O
O
<
(
> ce
b0
o
s
u
b0
E
C
5 o
>(
O

PREPARED BY
R. Hooke
SHEET
2 of 2
Q
X
O
Q)
C C
O
N
CD
<
Q Z00O
c
O
0 co
ou
0 M (

PROJECT NAME
Prado Road Bridge Widening
PROJECT NO.
216-323__________________

PROJECT MANAGER
J. King______________________

CHECKED BY
J. Ross
Boring
No.

X
s
o
CD0
8 o
N
n<
2 Sample
No. OE

2.20 ns as
Eg
o
2<2
2 05
O
*3
O X
Q.
s E w O
Is
er
I g
X
O
S
C
c
o
i
CroQ. X
O
C
(
0)
z or o
XCDOC
>
C
D.
raCociCD
CD
3 iO
O
o S.

2.3 C
— CD M 4-1
E5
CM
o’0
tn(DC
O O58

Page 575 of 1065 ends

DO
216-323
J. King

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Boring No. Cu C.

BS-A 0-2 0.76 Creek 0.0% 46% 53% 1% 1.96 4.29 6.61 8.70 0.80 CreekBS-B 0-2 0.0% 56% 42% 2% 0.74 2.66 5.93 7.90 10.80 1.20 BS-C Creek 0 0.0% 43% 55% 2% 0.63 2.11 4.08 5.40 8.60 1.30 BS-D 0-2 0.0% 2% 83% 15% 0.17 0.30 0.37
B-72 of 97
Creek
bank
Well-Graded SAND
with Gravel (SW)
brown, moist,
subrounded gravel
Well Graded Sand
with Gravel (SW)
brown, moist,
subrounded gravel
Silty SAND(SM)
brown, moist
Sample
No.

Project No.

Checked By
AASHTO
Classification
Prado Road Bridge

1. Blackburn/R. Atliano
Sand
(%)
Depth
(ft)
Gravel
(%)
Fines
(%)
Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services
Project Name
Tested By
Project Manager
Testing Date
J. King
9/12/2017
Water
Content
(%)
uses
Classification
&Soil
Description
Well-Graded
GRAVEL with Sand
(GW) brown,
moist, subrounded
gravel
Mechnical Sieve Analysis
Test Methods: ASTM D6913, D2487, D4718
D6o (mm)D30 (mm)Dio (mm) D5o (mm)

Page 576 of 1065 ends

GRADATION CHARTS
Boring No.: BS-A
Sample No.: Creek
Well Graded Sand with Gravel (SW)
I
Sand Fines
3' 2' No. 4 No. 10 No. 20 No. 40 No. 60 No. 100 No. 200 1“P I
90%
80%
70%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Diameter (mm)
Boring No.: BS-B
Sample No.: Creek
Well-Graded GRAVEL with Sand (GW)
Sand Fines
3' 2' No. 10 No. 20 No. 40 No. 60 No. 100 No. 200 No. 4 100%
90%
80%
70% K
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% o o
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Diameter (mm)
11 B-73 of 97
uses
Classification:
2 60%
W
“ 50%
uses
Classification:
\
\
Gravel-------------
1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8'
2 60%
w
t
X 50%
- Gravel-------------
1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8'

Page 577 of 1065 ends

GRADATION CHARTS
Boring No.: BS-C
Sample No.: Creek
Well-Graded SAND with Gravel (SW)
I I Fines 1
3' 2' No. 10 No. 4
100%
90%
80% k\
70%
\
40%
30%
20%
10%
1 0%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Diameter (mm)
Boring No.: BS-D
Sample No.: Creek bank
Silty SAND(SM)
I I Gravel
3' 2' No. 4 No. 10 No. 200 Fines I
100%
90%
80% -
70% —
C 50% —
40% -
30%
20%
10%
0%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Diameter (mm)
11 B-74 of 97
uses
Classification:

Gravel-------------
1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8'
---- Sand---------------------->
No. 20 No. 40 No. 60 No. 100
---- Sand--------------------->| <----
No. 20 No. 40 No. 60 No. 100 No. 200
uses
Classification:
o60%
c
o
0)60% C
o
V)
X 50%

Page 578 of 1065 ends

Page 579 of 1065 ends

80 70
CH or OH
60 50 svs
Y
40 CL orOL
— △
30 if 20
O
MH or OH
10 CL-ML ML orOL
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

LIQUID LIMIT, LL
Sample ID LL PL PI Classification
22RC-01 2 10.0 12 42 1944 23
22RC-01 6 30.0 29 56 39 20 19 X
22RC-02 20.0 76 2815 45 17
22RC-02 19 40.0 91 45 22 23
1 2.5 ©24E-01 22 72 44 21 23
24E-01 3 10.0 75 49 17 32
24E-02 5 2.5 14 62 33 16 17 O
24E-02 7 10.0 A 79 51 20 31
24E-03 9 2.5 21 54 45 21 24
24E-03 12 15.0 70 40 20 20 ©

ATTERBERG LIMITS
11 B-76 of 97
Boring
Number
Test
Symbol

CHECKED BY
J. Ross
PROJECT NO.
216-323
SHEET
1 Of 1
MC
(%)
CO
0 <
o
<
T
LB
Fines
(%)

PROJECT MANAGER
J. King
Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services
Depth
(ft)
0)
<_i
CL
CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND (GC)
SANDY lean CLAY (CL)
Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)
Lean CLAY (CL)
Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)
Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)
SANDY lean CLAY (CL)
Fat CLAY with SAND (CH)
SANDY lean CLAY (CL)
Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)
S9
C
2 CO

PROJECT NAME
Prado Road Bridge Widening

REVISION DATE
10/24/24_____________

PREPARED BY
R. Hooke
Q
&
CXI
CXI
o
00 LU
2 Q
O
X
LU
Q
Z
<
0)
0 o
c
C
CP
CD
CXI
0 X
LU
CO
X
LU
•&
CXI
Ou
&
5 Z
Q
X
LU
O 2
E
O

Page 580 of 1065 ends

CODPER Corrosivity Tests Summary
3/18/2022 PJ
Sample Location or ID Resistivity @ 15.5 °C (Ohm-cm) Sulfate pH As Ree. Min Sat.

Soil Visual Description
At Test
Sample, No. Depth, ft.Boring Cal 643ASTM G57 ASTM G57 ASTM G51 Temp °C ASTM D2216 22RC-01 3 15 15 40 19.9 0.0040
22RC-02 14 15 7 81 21.8 0.0081
B-77 of 97
ORP
(Redox)
EH
(mv)
ASTM G200
Checked:

Proj. No:

Sulfide
Qualitative
by Lead
Acetate Paper
Moisture
At Test
%
Date:

Project:

CTL#
Client:

Remarks:
mg/kg
Dry Wt.

ASTM D4327
Chloride
mg/kg
Dry Wt.

ASTM D4327
PJ
217.323
687-153________
Yeh and Associates
Tested By:

Prado Road Bridge
%
Dry Wt.

ASTM D4327
Dark Yellowish Brown Clayey

GRAVEL (GC)
Yellowish Brown Lean CLAY with

SAND (CL)

Page 581 of 1065 ends

C(OPER
R-Value 19
0 D E
100 • Exudation Pressure vs R-Value
■ Exudation Pressure vs. Expansion 90 ■■ ---------- ■■ ----- — ■■ ■■ — Pressure
80 -------- - — - - — 800
70 — — — 700
60 — -- ■M — -- -- 600
50 -------- ■■ H- — ■■ ■■ — 500
40 ■■ ----- — ■■ ■■ — ■■ 400
30 — - - — 300
20 -- — -- 200
10 - - — - --------- 100
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
B-78 of 97
t
■■
t
t
■■
t
t
■■
t
—
Expansion
Pressure
R-Value
CTM 301
Boring:

Sample:

Depth:

B
140
366
4599

2.60 0
134

2.03 19
21 15.0
133.1
115.8
A
60 197
2476

2.61 0
136

2.83 13
14 16.8
129.6
110.9
C
200
461
5793

2.55 30
118

3.05 23
23 14.0
134.2
117.7
687-234_______________
Yeh & Associates
216-323
Prado Rd______________
Brown Lean CLAY w/Sand
RU
PJ
10/7/2024
24E-01
A
0-5'
Reduced By:

Checked By:

Date:

Specimen Designation
Compactor Foot Pressure (psi)
_____ Exudation Pressure (psi)
_________Exudation Load (Ibf)
Height After Compaction (in)
Expansion Pressure (psf)
_______ Stabilometer @ 2000
________ Turns Displacement
R-value
Corrected R-Value
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
CTL Job No.:

Client:

Project Number:

Project Name:

Soil Description:

Remarks:

Page 582 of 1065 ends

5 A---- Effective Stress
------- Consolidation Stress: 2.1 ksf
Consolidation Stress: 3.6 ksf
4 A — Eff. Stress at User Defined Strain Consolidation Stress: 5.0 ksf 3 2
1 A
0 0 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10
A B C

2.70 2.70 2.70
minutes
<
Z
Deviator Stress Failure, ksf @
Axial Strain Failure, % @

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST REPORT
B-79 of 97

25.4%

99.9 100%

0.69 26.6%

98.0 100%

0.72 28.1%

95.8 100%

0.76 Boring Number
Sample Number
Specimen Depth
USCS Classification
0 LU
B

0.98 N/A

0.02 12.2

8.7 3.6

4.0 3.1

5.5 1.5
ND
2/24/22
Strain Rate, %/min
Cell Pressure, ksf
Back Pressure, ksf
Consolidation Stress, ksf
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pef
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Test Method: ASTM 4767 (modified for staged testing)
Project: Prado Road Bridge Expansion
Tested By: N. Derbidge, Cal Poly Geo-E Lab
Checked by: J. Cravens, Yeh and Associates
A

0.98 N/A

0.02 10.8

8.6 2.1

2.2 3.1

3.0 0.7
ND
2/21/22
C

0.98 N/A

0.02 13.7

8.7 5.0

5.8 5.1

8.0 2.2
ND
2/25/22
O‘1F, ksf
O‘3F, ksf
Tested By:

Date Tested:

28.1%

95.8 100%

0.76 2.40

4.80 Trial ID________________
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plastic Index
Passing #4 (4.75 mm)
Passing #200 (0.075 mm)
Estimated Gs
Q
LU
•
Q.
2 <
0 A

31.6%

90.4 99%

0.86 2.42

5.00 C

26.6%

98.0 100%

0.72 2.40

4.68 Trial ID___________
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pef
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in
Height, in
Trial ID
B-Parameter
22RC-01
5 26.0 ft
Sandy lean CLAY (CL):
red brown, moist
A- - Eff. Stress at Max. Obliquity: O‘= 33.4°, c- 0.12
ksf
A---- Total Stress
Q
<
LU
T
0 LU
R
Q.
0 X
R
<
2 LU
n
5 6
p' = (o‘+o‘3)/2, ksf
—<n
oil
co
p
6 II
o
z
O
F
< O
LL.
o
OT
< _I
O
50,
>
or
<
2 2
D
0

Page 583 of 1065 ends

7.0 6.0

5.0 4.0

3.0 2.0 ----------Consolidation Stress: 2.1 ksf
---------- Consolidation Stress: 3.6 ksf

1.0 ---------- Consolidation Stress: 5.0 ksf

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)

4.5 4.0

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0 -

1.5 -f
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)

3.0 u>

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 0.0
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)
Sandy lean CLAY (CL): red brown, moist

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST REPORT
B-80 of 97
22RC-01
22RC-01
22RC-01

25.0 ft

25.0 ft
#5
#5
#5
A
B
C
CO
b
9 II
o
W
2 0
o
c
■> 0)
0 V)
X
co
b

1.0 —
0 b
II
o
i
I
0 0)
CD
C
e
n
ELU
3 <
II
9 3
V)
C.

CD
nCD
O
Q.
o
CD
O
3 O
C

Page 584 of 1065 ends

8 A----- Effective Stress
-------- Consolidation Stress: 4.3 ksf
7 Consolidation Stress: 5.8 ksf
A — Eff. Stress at User Defined Strain Consolidation Stress: 7.3 ksf 6 5
4 3
2 1
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
p' = (G‘1+o‘3)/2, ksf
A B C

2.70 2.70 2.70
minutes
<
Z
Deviator Stress Failure, ksf @
Axial Strain Failure, % @

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST REPORT
B-81 of 97

20.3%
108.9
100%

0.55 19.6%
110.2
100%

0.53 19.9%
109.7
100%

0.54 Boring Number
Sample Number
Specimen Depth
USCS Classification
0 LU
B

0.98 N/A

0.02 13.0

7.2 5.8

4.3 3.2

8.1 3.8
ND
2/24/22
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Strain Rate, %/min
Cell Pressure, ksf
Back Pressure, ksf
Consolidation Stress, ksf
Test Method: ASTM 4767 (modified for staged testing)
Project: Prado Road Bridge Expansion
Tested By: N. Derbidge, Cal Poly Geo-E Lab
Checked By: J. Cravens, Yeh and Associates
A

0.98 N/A

0.02 11.5

7.2 4.3

3.0 2.0

5.4 2.3
ND
2/21/22
C

0.98 N/A

0.02 14.4

7.2 7.3

5.0 1.5

10.1 5.1
ND
2/25/22
O‘1F, ksf
O‘3F, ksf
Tested By:

Date Tested:

20.3%
108.9
100%

0.55 2.46

4.90 Trial ID________________
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plastic Index
Passing #4 (4.75 mm)
Passing #200 (0.075 mm)
Estimated Gs
A

19.2%
113.6
107%

0.48 2.36

5.12 Q
LU
•
Q.
2 <
0 c

19.9%
109.7
100%

0.54 2.49

4.75 Trial ID___________
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in
Height, in
Trial ID
B-Parameter
22RC-01
Run 2

57.5 ft
CLAYSTONE: brown
A- - Eff. Stress at Max. Obliquity: 0 - 15.3°, c- 0.52
ksf
A----- Total Stress
Q
<
LU
T
0 LU
R
Q.
0 X
R
<
2 LU
n
—C
oil
co
P
6 II
o
Z
O
F
<O
LL.
o
OT
<
_I
O
50,
>
or
<
2 2
D
0

Page 585 of 1065 ends

6.0 5.0
‘I

4.0 3.0

2.0 ----------Consolidation Stress: 4.3 ksf

1.0 ---------- Consolidation Stress: 5.8 ksf
---------- Consolidation Stress: 7.3 ksf

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%) ■

2.4 2.2

2.0 1.8

1.6 1

1.4 -

1.2 I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)

2.5 u>
3 2.0

1.5 1.0 a . 1 78

0.5 ae

0.0 -0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)
CLAYSTONE: brown

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST REPORT
B-82 of 97
#Run 2
#Run 2
#Run 2
22RC-01
22RC-01
22RC-01

57.5 ft

57.5 ft
A
B
C
co
b
9 II
o
W
2 0
o
c
■> 0)
0 V)
X
d
co
b

1.0 J
0 b
II
o
i
D
0 0)
CD
C
e
n
ELU
<
II
9 3
V)
C.

CD
nCD
O
Q.
o
CD
O
3 O
C
$

Page 586 of 1065 ends

8 A----- Effective Stress
-------- Consolidation Stress: 4.3 ksf
7 Consolidation Stress: 5.7 ksf
A — Eff. Stress at User Defined Strain Consolidation Stress: 7.2 ksf 6 5
4 3
2 1
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
p' = (G‘1+o‘3)/2, ksf
A B C

2.70 2.70 2.70
minutes
<
Z
Deviator Stress Failure, ksf @
Axial Strain Failure, % @

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST REPORT
B-83 of 97

21.5%
106.5
100%

0.58 Boring Number
Sample Number
Specimen Depth
USCS Classification

20.6%
108.2
100%

0.56 19.8%
109.8
100%

0.53 0
LU
B

0.98 N/A

0.02 13.0

7.2 5.7

6.2 3.0

8.6 2.4
ND
2/24/22
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Strain Rate, %/min
Cell Pressure, ksf
Back Pressure, ksf
Consolidation Stress, ksf
Test Method: ASTM 4767 (modified for staged testing)
Project: Prado Road Bridge Expansion
Tested By: N. Derbidge, Cal Poly Geo-E Lab
Checked By: J. Cravens, Yeh and Associates
A

0.98 N/A

0.02 11.5

7.2 4.3

3.7 3.0

5.0 1.4
ND
2/21/22
C

0.98 N/A

0.02 14.4

7.2 7.2

9.0 3.3

12.5 3.5
ND
2/25/22
O‘1F, ksf
O‘3F, ksf
Tested By:

Date Tested:

21.5%
106.5
100%

0.58 2.42

4.78 Trial ID________________
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plastic Index
Passing #4 (4.75 mm)
Passing #200 (0.075 mm)
Estimated Gs
Q
LU
•
Q.
2 <
0 A

23.8%
102.0
98%

0.65 2.42

5.00 C

20.6%
108.2
100%

0.56 2.44

4.65 Trial ID___________
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in
Height, in
Trial ID
B-Parameter
22RC-02
20 45.0 ft
Lean CLAY (CL): red
brown, moist
A- - Eff. Stress at Max. Obliquity: 0 - 33.7°, c - 0.07 ksf
A----- Total Stress
Q <
LU
T
0 LU
R
Q.
0 X
R
<
2 LU
n
—C
oil
co
P
6 11
o
Z
O F < O
LL.
oOT <
_I
O
50,
>
or
<
2 2
D
0

Page 587 of 1065 ends

10.0 9.0

8.0 7.0

6.0 5.0

4.0 3.0

2.0 1.0

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)

4.0 A 3.5

3.0 2.5

2.0 1.5
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)

4.0 U)

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 0.0
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)
Lean CLAY (CL): red brown, moist

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST REPORT
B-84 of 97
----------Consolidation Stress: 4.3 ksf
-==- Consolidation Stress: 5.7 ksf
------- Consolidation Stress: 7.2 ksf
22RC-02
22RC-02
22RC-02
#20
#20
#20

45.0 ft

45.0 ft
A
B
C
co
b
9 II
o
W
2 0
o
c
■> 0)
0 V)
X
co
b

1.0 J
0 b
II
o
i
I
0 tn
£
55 e
n
E
LU
□
<
II
9 □
(A
C. O
n
0)
o
O.
o
O
o
3 O
C

Page 588 of 1065 ends

16 A- — Effective Stress -------- Consolidation Stress: 5.7 ksf A Eff. Stress at Max. Obliquity: ©‘= 37°, c - 0.02 ksf 14 Consolidation Stress: 7.2 ksf A — Total Stress
Consolidation Stress: 8.6 ksf
12 A- — Eff. Stress at User Defined Strain
10 8
6 4
2 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
p' = (G‘1+o‘3)/2, ksf
A B C

2.70 2.70 2.70
minutes
<
Z
Deviator Stress Failure, ksf @
Axial Strain Failure, % @

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST REPORT
B-85 of 97

19.6%
110.2
100%

0.53 Boring Number
Sample Number
Specimen Depth
USCS Classification

20.7%
108.0
100%

0.56 20.1%
109.3
100%

0.54 0
LU
B

0.98 N/A

0.02 13.7

6.5 7.2

10.5 3.1

14.1 3.6
ND
2/24/22
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Strain Rate, %/min
Cell Pressure, ksf
Back Pressure, ksf
Consolidation Stress, ksf
Test Method: ASTM 4767 (modified for staged testing)
Project: Prado Road Bridge Expansion
Tested By: N. Derbidge, Cal Poly Geo-E Lab
Checked By: J. Cravens, Yeh and Associates
A

0.98 N/A

0.02 12.1

6.5 5.7

6.2 3.1

8.2 2.1
ND
2/21/22
C

0.98 N/A

0.02 15.1

6.5 8.6

18.5 6.8

24.6 6.1
ND
2/25/22
O‘1F, ksf
O‘3F, ksf
Tested By:

Date Tested:

20.7%
108.0
100%

0.56 2.50

4.79 Trial ID________________
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plastic Index
Passing #4 (4.75 mm)
Passing #200 (0.075 mm)
Estimated Gs
A

25.1%
106.5
116%

0.58 2.46

5.01 Q
LU
•
Q.
2 <
0 Trial ID___________
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in
Height, in
C

20.1%
109.3
100%

0.54 2.51

4.68 Trial ID
B-Parameter
22RC-02
Run 3

73.0 ft
GRAYWACKE: olive,
highly fractured
Q
<
LU
X
0 LU
R
Q.
0 X
X
<
2 LU
n
C—
CM
co
p
6 11
o
z
O
F
<O
LL.
o
OT
<
_I
O
50,
>
or
<
2 2
D
0

Page 589 of 1065 ends

25.0 O
E 10.0
----------Consolidation Stress: 5.7 ksf

5.0 ---------- Consolidation Stress: 7.2 ksf
---------- Consolidation Stress: 8.6 ksf

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)

4.5 4.0

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0 - ■

1.5 - f
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 / •
Vertical Strain (%)

4.0 u>

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 0.0
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)
GRAYWACKE: olive, highly fractured

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST REPORT
B-86 of 97
#Run 3
#Run 3
#Run 3
22RC-02
22RC-02
22RC-02

73.0 ft

73.0 ft
A
B
C
co
o
5 S O
a
©
b
V) —
220.0
b

1.0 —
0 b
II
o
i
I
0 0)
CD
915.0
II
o
C. Sh
-
C
e
n
ELU
3 <
II
9 □
V)
C.

CD
n
0)
o
O.
o
CD
O
3 O
C

Page 590 of 1065 ends

4 A- — Effective Stress -------- Consolidation Stress: 0.7 ksf A Eff. Stress at Max. Obliquity: ©‘= 16.4°, c- 0.34 ksf Consolidation Stress: 1.4 ksf
*------ Total Stress
Consolidation Stress: 2.8 ksf
3 A — Eff. Stress at User Defined Strain
2 1
0 0 1 2 3 6 85 7
A B c

2.70 2.70 2.70
<
Z
Deviator Stress Failure, ksf @
@Failure, %
o'- ksf 3F’

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
B-87 of 97

30.2%

92.7 100%

0.82 Tested By:

Date Tested:

29.6%

93.7 100%

0.80 Boring Number
Sample Number
Specimen Depth
USCS Classification

28.5%

95.2 100%

0.77 0
LU
B

0.98 N/A

0.02 11.5

10.1 1.4

1.6 1.9

2.4 0.9
ND
9/22/24
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Test Method: ASTM 4767 (modified for staged testing)
Prado Road
Tested By: N. Derbidge
Checked by: R. Hooke
A

0.98 N/A

0.02 10.8

10.1 0.7

1.1 0.8

1.4 0.3
ND
9/21/24
B

30.2%

92.7 100%

0.82 2.47

4.89 Trial ID________________
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plastic Index
Passing #4 (4.75 mm)
Passing #200 (0.075 mm)
Estimated Gs
A

28.1%

94.8 97%

0.78 2.42

5.00 C

0.98 N/A

0.02 13.0

10.1 2.8

2.2 4.1

4.0 1.7
ND
9/23/24
Axial Strain
o'1F, ksf
C

29.6%

93.7 100%

0.80 2.49

4.77 Trial ID___________
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in
Height, in
Trial ID
B-Parameter
t
50, minutes
Strain Rate, %/min
Cell Pressure, ksf
Back Pressure, ksf
Consolidation Stress, ksf
24E-01
2 5.0 ft
Lean CLAY w/Sand
(CL): brown, moist
Q <
LU
X
0 LU
DC
CL
Q
LU
•

0. 2
<
0 —W
CM
o
6 II
o
4 p' = (G‘,+o‘)/2, ksf
w
X
DC <
2 IU
or
z
o
F < O
u
co
co <
_i
O
>
or
<
2 5
•
co

Page 591 of 1065 ends

2.5 (

2.0 1.5

1.0 ----------Consolidation Stress: 0.7 ksf

0.5 -------- Consolidation Stress: 1.4 ksf
==----- Consolidation Stress: 2.8 ksf

0.0 0 2 6 8 10 12 144
Vertical Strain (%)

5.0 4.5

4.0 3.5

3.0 2.5

2.0 1.5

1.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)

1.2 1.0 -
(1

0.8 0.6 -

0.4 0.2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vertical Strain (%)
Lean CLAY (CL): brown, moist

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
B-88 of 97
24E-01
24E-01
24E-01
#2
#2
#2

5.0 ft

5.0 ft
A
B
C
co
b
9 II
W
W
0 o
o
S
O
C
CO
b
W
X

0.0 0
C)
9 n0
o
O
o
O
o
3 O
C
S
II
S?
3 b
II
O
o
D
0 0)
Q
35 c
n
ELU

Page 592 of 1065 ends

40 35 0-0
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial Strain, %
% Passing Other Parameters
#
#. USCS Classification: GRAYWACKE: bluish gray

2.75 #.
ad - • •
A eure
y
t
jH. *

UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST REPORT
B-89 of 97
Boring Number:

Sample Number:

Sample Depth:

Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Estimated Gs
Su from Tv, ksf
Su from PP, ksf

35.2 17.6

9.9 1.0

7.9 ND
3/4/22
22RC-01
Run 3

64.0 ft
0— Confining Stress: 7.9 ksf
O Interpreted Point of Failure
W
LU
4 (4.75mm)
‘16 (1.18mm)
30 (0.6mm)
f100 (0.150mm)
*200 (0.075mm)
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in
Height, in
Maximum Deviator Stress, ksf
Undrained Shear Strength, ksf
Axial Strain at Failure, %
Strain Rate, %/min
Cell Pressure, ksf
Tested By:

Date Tested:

9.2%
127.3
73%

0.35 2.41

3.89 Test Method: ASTM 2850
Project: Prado Road Bridge Expansion
The specimen's length to diameter ratio was less than 2 Tested By: N. Derbidge, Cal Poly Geo-E Lab
Checked By: J. Cravens, Yeh and Associates
0 LL
F
(
LU
Q.
o
D.

Q
LU
•
Q.
2 <
0 tn
X
Sieve Size
3/8-in. (9.5mm)
8 —
cm
w
X
R
<
5 LU
R
0 LU
O
<
2 IU
Q
<
V)
co
b
6 0
cn
O
55 o
o
> O
Q
Z
o F < O
LL
55 0)
< —
O
>
a:
<
2 2
D
0 A :
2 d

Page 593 of 1065 ends

2.5 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-O

2.0 1.5

1.0 0.5
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial Strain, %
% Passing Other Parameters
#
#. uses Classification: Lean CLAY (CL): dark brown, moist

2.75 the

UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
B-90 of 97
Boring Number:

Sample Number:

Sample Depth:

30.9%

87.3 88%

0.97 2.42

5.00 0
LU
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Estimated Gs
Su from Tv, ksf
Su from PP, ksf

2.2 1.1

15.0 1.0

0.7 ND
9/18/24
4 (4.75mm)
‘16 (1.18mm)
‘30 (0.6mm)
100 (0.150mm)
200 (0.075mm)
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in
Height, in
24E-03
10 5.0 ft
— Confining Stress: 0.7 ksf
O Interpreted Point of Failure
Maximum Deviator Stress, ksf
Undrained Shear Strength, ksf
Axial Strain at Failure, %
Strain Rate, %/min
Cell Pressure, ksf
Tested By:

Date Tested:
0 LU
—
n
HI
Q.

O
O'
Q_
Test Method: ASTM 2850
Prado Road
Tested By: N. Derbidge
Checked By: R. Hooke
0 X
Q
<
E
LU
O'
W
X
#.
#.

Sieve Size
3/8-in. (9.5mm)
6‘
6 o v>
<i>
w
o
o
>O
Q

0.0 •
0 &
<
2 E
•
0 o
LU
•
Q.
2 <
0 0
IU
0 <
2 LU
•
Q2
<
0 Z
O
5 o
u
0 0
<
_I
O

Page 594 of 1065 ends

60.0 50.0

20.0 10.0

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial Strain, %
% Passing Other Parameters
#
#. USCS Classification: GRAYWACKE: olive

2.90 #.
t
5 hi
ce . Cey
2-al 1S I
Es
-

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST REPORT
B-91 of 97
Boring Number:

Sample Number:

Sample Depth:

12.3%
124.0
78%

0.46 2.33

2.87 54.1

27.0 0.9

0.1 0.0
ND
3/11/22
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Estimated Gs
Su from Ty, ksf
Su from PP, ksf
22RC-01
Run 5

73.5 ft
0— Confining Stress: 0.0 ksf
O Interpreted Point of Failure
W
LU
4 (4.75mm)
‘16 (1.18mm)
30 (0.6mm)
f100 (0.150mm)
*200 (0.075mm)
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in
Height, in
Maximum Deviator Stress, ksf
Undrained Shear Strength, ksf
Axial Strain at Failure, %
Strain Rate, %/min
Cell Pressure, ksf
Tested By:

Date Tested:

Test Method: ASTM 2850
Project: Prado Road Bridge Expansion
Tested By: N. Derbidge, Cal Poly Geo-E Lab
Checked By: J. Cravens, Yeh and Associates
0 LL
F (
LU
Q.
o
D.

Q
LU
•
Q.
2 <
0 O
TO
>
O
Q
re
ths
aan
r
y.

Sieve Size
3/8-in. (9.5mm)
. 40.0
in X
W
X
R:
<
5 LU
O'
129
0 LU
O
<
2 IU
Q
<
V)
co
b
6 30.0
0 cn
O
55 z
o
F
<O
LL.
55 0) <—O
>
a:
<
2 2
D
0

Page 595 of 1065 ends

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial Strain, %
% Passing Other Parameters
#
#. USCS Classification: GRAYWACKE: olive

2.90 #.

S
- V

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST REPORT
B-92 of 97
Boring Number:

Sample Number:

Sample Depth:

17.5%
120.2
100%

0.51 2.30

5.02 3.1

1.6 1.5

1.0 0.0
ND
3/4/22
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Estimated Gs
Su from Ty, ksf
Su from PP, ksf
22RC-02
Run 2

67.0 ft
0— Confining Stress: 0.0 ksf
O Interpreted Point of Failure
W
LU
4 (4.75mm)
‘16 (1.18mm)
30 (0.6mm)
f100 (0.150mm)
*200 (0.075mm)
Water Content, %
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in
Height, in
Maximum Deviator Stress, ksf
Undrained Shear Strength, ksf
Axial Strain at Failure, %
Strain Rate, %/min
Cell Pressure, ksf
Tested By:

Date Tested:

Test Method: ASTM 2850
Project: Prado Road Bridge Expansion
Tested By: N. Derbidge, Cal Poly Geo-E Lab
Checked By: J. Cravens, Yeh and Associates
0 LL
F (
LU
Q.
o
n
Q.

Q
LU
•
Q.
2 <
0 tn
X
o.o
0 Sieve Size
3/8-in. (9.5mm)
w
X
R
<
5 LU
R
M8
0 LU
0 < 2
LU
-I
Q
S
<
0 co
b
6 0
cn
O
55 o
o
>O
C
z
o
F
<O
LL.
55 0) <—O
>
a:
<
2 2
D
0 -2toss

Page 596 of 1065 ends

Job No.: 216-323
Boring Number: 22RC-01
Sample ID: Run 4
Sample Depth: 70.5-71.0 ft
1 Classification: GRAYWACKE
f
Moisture Condition: As Received
N/AMoisture Content:

Unit Weight (pcf): 145.1
|
N/ADry Unit Weight (pcf):
1 ' \
Length/Diameter: 2.22
Comp. Strength (psi): 390 Q 76 S‘—7 1 & 70 S—71 "
Boring Number: 22RC-01
Sample ID: Run 9
i
Sample Depth: 93.0-94.0 ft X i
Classification: GRAYWACKE
V
1 Moisture Condition: As Received
Moisture Content: N/A
Unit Weight (pcf): 164.5
N/ADry Unit Weight (pcf):

Length/Diameter: 22RC-0 2.42 22 R
Comp. Strength (psi): 6,130 G it _c 12.2 6
B-93 of 97
Specimen Length:Diameter within 'desireable1 range of 2.0:1 to 2.5:1 per ASTM D7012 section 8.1.1 Moisture contents not measured
Specimen Length:Diameter within 'desireable' range of 2.0:1 to 2.5:1 per ASTM D7012 section 8.1.1 Moisture contents not measured
0)
O
v>
O
Project:

Client:

CD
CL
OS
Q.

Unconfined Uniaxial Compressive Strength Test of Intact Rock Cores ASTM D7012 -1.5.1 Method C: Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Cores 0)
CD
b0(
E
0)
CD
b0(
E
Q
Q.

O
S.
a.

Q
0 o
E
(o
in
Q
0 CL
E
(o
Ml
U
LU
m
o o:

Prado Road Bridge Expansion
Yeh and Assoc., Inc.
3/6/2022
ASTM D7012 (1.5.3 Method C: Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens)
-4t
mmoe
Date:

Test Method:
6 '
(
—
\
\
4Am

Page 597 of 1065 ends

777
X /
1 Prado Road
1//
A — o
0 AAXXN
0 \. )
300'
INE 1 :10‘
WM 0A
/
//
/
11 volcanic Bedrock?
AtEleV:85ft
l
3 7 /
X
77 /
/ ■7
<
outh Higuera Street
X 7 <9 /
0 40
©
& (
s
B-94 of 97
evd
Site Map Showing Location of Seismic Refraction Line 1
and Geotechnical Boreholes B-1 through B-4
Prado Road Bridge San Luis Obispo, California
O
B-2
Figure 1

ADVANCED GEOSCIENCE, INC
INE 300
118.3888’
//
80 Feet
END

7.373e
//
5939
G0530
Elev. 117
"s
• B-4 ,
/O
Metavolcanic Bedrock
At Elev. 89 ft
f 7 % - ///7
X

Page 598 of 1065 ends

Line 1 Seismic Refraction Velocity Profile
North
South
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
130—1 MASWIDVs Profile 130
2 5
3 6
120— 7 8 9 10 11 12-120
3000 3000
3000
3000
110— 3000 3(
-110
5000
5000
—5000 5000 5000
100- 7000 100
7990
1000
go- go
0—
109°
80— 1,780 ft/sec -80
3 9000—_
70— -70
% 9000 99
60- -60
l
50- -50
Distance Stationing (Feet)
55005000
45004000
3500300025002000
15001000
OO
Bedrock Surface ProfileBased on Seismic Velocity Structure MASW 1D Vs Profile Bedrock Surface
Refraction Velocity Profile Based on RAYFRACT Tomography Initial 1D Gradient Velocity Model + 75 WET Iterations w/max= 3,500 m/sec Line 1 Seismic Refraction Velocity Profile
For Bedrock Investigation at Prado Road Bridge
Shows Overlay of Depth to Upper Surface of 1,780 to 1,800 ft/sec Shear-Wave Velocity (Vs) Layer Interpreted as Bedrock Surface San Luis Obispo, California Based on SurfSeis Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) using Four-Layer Velocity Models Franciscan Formation Bedrock
Horizontal Scale 1 inch= 40 Feet
Vertical Scale 1 inch= 20 Feet (Hor. x 2)
Seismic Velocity Contour Interval 1,000 ft/sec
O Q
(
O Q
>
o
6 $
05O
0 cn OE o
O
E
(
O
0)
o O co E
0 LU
Bedrock Surface
4 —5000
Stream Channel Alluvium
C o o d
LU
Figure 2
ADVANCED GEOSCIENCE, INC.

B-95 of 97
T
0 I
60 —r140
Li
520
—I340
I
20 I
40 —I360
—T
320
—I380
L
400
—I500
L
80 L
100
L
160
I
200
—I260
L
280
I
300
I
180
Li
120
I
220
—I240
I
440
L
420
L
460
L
480
- 12000
-11500-11000
.-10500
-10000
-9500
-9000
-8500
-8000 -7500-7000 -6500
|-6000
,800 ft/sec
%

Page 599 of 1065 ends

Velocity (ft./sec)
o
o
m 3rm
0 3
o
C
o
Based on SurfSeis MASW Processing and
Modeling using 4-Layer Vs Model
CO
o
o
O
o
O.
o
O
o
(D
O 9
o
1,800 ft/sc Velocity Layer at 25.4 ft
Interpreted as Bedrock Surface
o
o
1 o
o
o
©)
o
o
o
o
o
O
1 bi
N
c
o
o
1 o
Line 1 Station 165 ft
1D Shear-Wave Velocity Profile
1 o
1 1
bi
1 o
c
o
o
Figure 3
ADVANCED GEOSCIENCE, INC.
----------------------------B 06 of 07
W
bi
o
o
O
bi
o
o
O
bt
o
o
UI
o
o
l
2 3
8 §
3 n
( s2 5
§
I—
2 o
♦ D
c
3 Ol
o
O
UI
o
O
o
T
N
& I OS
$ §s 85 18
P
%
8 o
t
Q
II
oO
co 2
a
f■
5 1I
6 1G
*6 -
1 2
§

Page 600 of 1065 ends

Velocity (ft./sec)
o
■
o
Os k2 ( $
9 2
2 o
o
1,780 ft/sc Velocity Layer at 34.3 ft
Interpreted as Bedrock Surface
O
o
o
O
o
o
1 o
cn
o
o
&Ul
O
O
Line 1 Station 415 ft
1D Shear-Wave Velocity Profile
©
o
o
o
Based on SurfSeis MASW Processing and
Modeling using 4-Layer Vs Model
Ul
o
o
(
Q
C
Ul 15
o
o
o
o
1 o
o
o
1 o
M
o
0 o
o
$
z
N
Figure 4
ADVANCED GEOSCIENCE, INC.
----------------------------B 07 of 07
o
Ul
o
o
5 Ul
o
o
0 o
o
o
Ul
o
o
o
S
5 ci I
fl
s
5 (
-
(
C
® 6 — O 3 S
’ 1g
o
6 IC
l
d
p
f
G
I,? s
E
ma"
w 2 I
I
A! 3 (D
o
o
-I
Q.

II
0

Page 601 of 1065 ends

Page 602 of 1065 ends

Page 603 of 1065 ends

Page 604 of 1065 ends

Page 605 of 1065 ends

Page 606 of 1065 ends

Page 607 of 1065 ends

Page 608 of 1065 ends

Page 609 of 1065 ends

Page 610 of 1065 ends

Page 611 of 1065 ends

Page 612 of 1065 ends

Page 613 of 1065 ends

Page 614 of 1065 ends

Page 615 of 1065 ends

Page 616 of 1065 ends

Page 617 of 1065 ends

Page 618 of 1065 ends

Page 619 of 1065 ends

Page 620 of 1065 ends

Page 621 of 1065 ends

Page 622 of 1065 ends

Page 623 of 1065 ends

Page 624 of 1065 ends

Page 625 of 1065 ends

Page 626 of 1065 ends

Page 627 of 1065 ends

Page 628 of 1065 ends

Page 629 of 1065 ends

Page 630 of 1065 ends

Page 631 of 1065 ends

Page 632 of 1065 ends

Page 633 of 1065 ends

Page 634 of 1065 ends

Page 635 of 1065 ends

Page 636 of 1065 ends

Page 637 of 1065 ends

Page 638 of 1065 ends

Page 639 of 1065 ends

Page 640 of 1065 ends

Page 641 of 1065 ends

Page 642 of 1065 ends

Page 643 of 1065 ends

Page 644 of 1065 ends

Page 645 of 1065 ends

Page 646 of 1065 ends

Page 647 of 1065 ends

Page 648 of 1065 ends

Page 649 of 1065 ends

Page 650 of 1065 ends

Page 651 of 1065 ends

Page 652 of 1065 ends

Page 653 of 1065 ends

Page 654 of 1065 ends

Page 655 of 1065 ends

Page 656 of 1065 ends

Page 657 of 1065 ends

Page 658 of 1065 ends

Page 659 of 1065 ends

Page 660 of 1065 ends

Page 661 of 1065 ends

Page 662 of 1065 ends

Page 663 of 1065 ends

Page 664 of 1065 ends

Page 665 of 1065 ends

Page 666 of 1065 ends

Page 667 of 1065 ends

Page 668 of 1065 ends

Page 669 of 1065 ends

Page 670 of 1065 ends

Page 671 of 1065 ends

Page 672 of 1065 ends

Page 673 of 1065 ends

Page 674 of 1065 ends

Page 675 of 1065 ends

Page 676 of 1065 ends

Page 677 of 1065 ends

Page 678 of 1065 ends

Page 679 of 1065 ends

Page 680 of 1065 ends

Page 681 of 1065 ends

Page 682 of 1065 ends

Page 683 of 1065 ends

Page 684 of 1065 ends

Page 685 of 1065 ends

Page 686 of 1065 ends

Page 687 of 1065 ends

Page 688 of 1065 ends

Page 689 of 1065 ends

Page 690 of 1065 ends

Page 691 of 1065 ends

Page 692 of 1065 ends

Page 693 of 1065 ends

Page 694 of 1065 ends

Page 695 of 1065 ends

Page 696 of 1065 ends

Page 697 of 1065 ends

Page 698 of 1065 ends

Page 699 of 1065 ends

Page 700 of 1065 ends

Page 701 of 1065 ends

Page 702 of 1065 ends

Page 703 of 1065 ends

Page 704 of 1065 ends

Page 705 of 1065 ends

Page 706 of 1065 ends

Page 707 of 1065 ends

Page 708 of 1065 ends

Page 709 of 1065 ends

Page 710 of 1065 ends

Page 711 of 1065 ends

Page 712 of 1065 ends

Page 713 of 1065 ends

Page 714 of 1065 ends

Page 715 of 1065 ends

Page 716 of 1065 ends

Page 717 of 1065 ends

Page 718 of 1065 ends

Page 719 of 1065 ends

Page 720 of 1065 ends

Page 721 of 1065 ends

Page 722 of 1065 ends

Page 723 of 1065 ends

Page 724 of 1065 ends

Page 725 of 1065 ends

Page 726 of 1065 ends

Page 727 of 1065 ends

Page 728 of 1065 ends

Page 729 of 1065 ends

Page 730 of 1065 ends

Page 731 of 1065 ends

Page 732 of 1065 ends

Page 733 of 1065 ends

Page 734 of 1065 ends

Page 735 of 1065 ends

Page 736 of 1065 ends

Page 737 of 1065 ends

Page 738 of 1065 ends

Page 739 of 1065 ends

Page 740 of 1065 ends

Page 741 of 1065 ends

Page 742 of 1065 ends

Page 743 of 1065 ends

Page 744 of 1065 ends

Page 745 of 1065 ends

Page 746 of 1065 ends

Page 747 of 1065 ends

Page 748 of 1065 ends

Page 749 of 1065 ends

Page 750 of 1065 ends

Page 751 of 1065 ends

Page 752 of 1065 ends

Page 753 of 1065 ends

Page 754 of 1065 ends

Page 755 of 1065 ends

Page 756 of 1065 ends

Page 757 of 1065 ends

Page 758 of 1065 ends

Page 759 of 1065 ends

Page 760 of 1065 ends

Page 761 of 1065 ends

Page 762 of 1065 ends

Page 763 of 1065 ends

Page 764 of 1065 ends

Page 765 of 1065 ends

Page 766 of 1065 ends

Page 767 of 1065 ends

Page 768 of 1065 ends

Page 769 of 1065 ends

Page 770 of 1065 ends

Page 771 of 1065 ends

Page 772 of 1065 ends

Page 773 of 1065 ends

Page 774 of 1065 ends

Page 775 of 1065 ends

Page 776 of 1065 ends

Page 777 of 1065 ends

Page 778 of 1065 ends

Page 779 of 1065 ends

Page 780 of 1065 ends

Page 781 of 1065 ends

Page 782 of 1065 ends

Page 783 of 1065 ends

Page 784 of 1065 ends

Page 785 of 1065 ends

Page 786 of 1065 ends

Page 787 of 1065 ends

Page 788 of 1065 ends

Page 789 of 1065 ends

Page 790 of 1065 ends

Page 791 of 1065 ends

Page 792 of 1065 ends

Page 793 of 1065 ends

Page 794 of 1065 ends

Page 795 of 1065 ends

Page 796 of 1065 ends

Page 797 of 1065 ends

Page 798 of 1065 ends

Page 799 of 1065 ends

Page 800 of 1065 ends

Page 801 of 1065 ends

Page 802 of 1065 ends

Page 803 of 1065 ends

Page 804 of 1065 ends

Page 805 of 1065 ends

Page 806 of 1065 ends

Page 807 of 1065 ends

Page 808 of 1065 ends

Page 809 of 1065 ends

Page 810 of 1065 ends

Page 811 of 1065 ends

Page 812 of 1065 ends

Page 813 of 1065 ends

Page 814 of 1065 ends

Page 815 of 1065 ends

Page 816 of 1065 ends

Page 817 of 1065 ends

Page 818 of 1065 ends

Page 819 of 1065 ends

Page 820 of 1065 ends

Page 821 of 1065 ends

Page 822 of 1065 ends

Page 823 of 1065 ends

Page 824 of 1065 ends

Page 825 of 1065 ends

Page 826 of 1065 ends

Page 827 of 1065 ends

Page 828 of 1065 ends

Page 829 of 1065 ends

Page 830 of 1065 ends

Page 831 of 1065 ends

Page 832 of 1065 ends

Page 833 of 1065 ends

Page 834 of 1065 ends

Page 835 of 1065 ends

Page 836 of 1065 ends

Page 837 of 1065 ends

Page 838 of 1065 ends

Page 839 of 1065 ends

Page 840 of 1065 ends

Page 841 of 1065 ends

Page 842 of 1065 ends

Page 843 of 1065 ends

Page 844 of 1065 ends

Page 845 of 1065 ends

Page 846 of 1065 ends

Page 847 of 1065 ends

Page 848 of 1065 ends

Page 849 of 1065 ends

Page 850 of 1065 ends

Page 851 of 1065 ends

Page 852 of 1065 ends

Page 853 of 1065 ends

Page 854 of 1065 ends

Page 855 of 1065 ends

Page 856 of 1065 ends

Page 857 of 1065 ends

Page 858 of 1065 ends

Page 859 of 1065 ends

Page 860 of 1065 ends

Page 861 of 1065 ends

Page 862 of 1065 ends

Page 863 of 1065 ends

Page 864 of 1065 ends

Page 865 of 1065 ends

Page 866 of 1065 ends

Page 867 of 1065 ends

Page 868 of 1065 ends

Page 869 of 1065 ends

Page 870 of 1065 ends

Page 871 of 1065 ends

Page 872 of 1065 ends

Page 873 of 1065 ends

Page 874 of 1065 ends

Page 875 of 1065 ends

Page 876 of 1065 ends

Page 877 of 1065 ends

Page 878 of 1065 ends

Page 879 of 1065 ends

Page 880 of 1065 ends

Page 881 of 1065 ends

Page 882 of 1065 ends

Page 883 of 1065 ends

Page 884 of 1065 ends

Page 885 of 1065 ends

Page 886 of 1065 ends

Page 887 of 1065 ends

Page 888 of 1065 ends

Page 889 of 1065 ends

Page 890 of 1065 ends

Page 891 of 1065 ends

Page 892 of 1065 ends

Page 893 of 1065 ends

Page 894 of 1065 ends

Page 895 of 1065 ends

Page 896 of 1065 ends

Page 897 of 1065 ends

Page 898 of 1065 ends

Page 899 of 1065 ends

Page 900 of 1065 ends

Page 901 of 1065 ends

Page 902 of 1065 ends

Page 903 of 1065 ends

Page 904 of 1065 ends

Page 905 of 1065 ends

Page 906 of 1065 ends

Page 907 of 1065 ends

Page 908 of 1065 ends

Page 909 of 1065 ends

Page 910 of 1065 ends

Page 911 of 1065 ends

Page 912 of 1065 ends

Page 913 of 1065 ends

Page 914 of 1065 ends

Page 915 of 1065 ends

Page 916 of 1065 ends

Page 917 of 1065 ends

Page 918 of 1065 ends

Page 919 of 1065 ends

Page 920 of 1065 ends

Page 921 of 1065 ends

Page 922 of 1065 ends

Page 923 of 1065 ends

Page 924 of 1065 ends

Page 925 of 1065 ends

Page 926 of 1065 ends

Page 927 of 1065 ends

Page 928 of 1065 ends

Page 929 of 1065 ends

Page 930 of 1065 ends

Page 931 of 1065 ends

Page 932 of 1065 ends

Page 933 of 1065 ends

Page 934 of 1065 ends

Page 935 of 1065 ends

Page 936 of 1065 ends

Page 937 of 1065 ends

Page 938 of 1065 ends

Page 939 of 1065 ends

Page 940 of 1065 ends

Page 941 of 1065 ends

Page 942 of 1065 ends

Page 943 of 1065 ends

Page 944 of 1065 ends

Page 945 of 1065 ends

Page 946 of 1065 ends

Page 947 of 1065 ends

Page 948 of 1065 ends

Page 949 of 1065 ends

Page 950 of 1065 ends

05 - SLO - 101 – PM 26.5/27.3
05-1H640 – 0516000105 PPNO-2831

20.XX.075.600 STIP RIP 20.XX.400.100 Local Funds
August 2026
Draft Supplemental Project Report
For Project Approval
On Route US101
Between 0.3 mile south of Prado Road
And 0.2 mile south of Madonna Road Overcrossing
I have reviewed the right-of-way information contained in this report and the right-ofway data sheet attached hereto, and find the data to be complete, current and accurate:

David Adams, Deputy District Director, Right of Way
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED:

Genaro Diaz, Project Manager
PROJECT APPROVED:

Scott Eades, District Director Date

Page 951 of 1065 ends

05-SLO-101–PM 26.5/27.3
Vicinity Map

Page 952 of 1065 ends

05-SLO-101–PM 26.5/27.3
This project report has been prepared under the direction of the following registered civil engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based.

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER DATE
12/31/2027
C54408
Dace Morgan

Page 953 of 1065 ends

05-SLO-101–PM 26.5/27.3
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. RECOMMENDATION 1

3. BACKGROUND 1

4. PURPOSE AND NEED 3

5. ALTERNATIVES 3

6. CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING DISCUSSION 4

7. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS APPROPRIATE 4

8. FUNDING, PROGRAMMING AND ESTIMATE 5

9. DELIVERY SCHEDULE 6

10. RISKS 7

11. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION 7

12. PROJECT REVIEWS 7

13. PROJECT PERSONNEL 7

14. ATTACHMENTS (Number of Pages)
Error! Bookmark not defined.

Page 954 of 1065 ends

Page 955 of 1065 ends

05-SLO-101–PM 26.5/27.3
1 1. INTRODUCTION
Project Description
The US101 and Prado Road Interchange Project Report (PR) and Environmental Document were approved in October 2024.

The purpose of this Supplemental Project Report is to document changes to the preferred alternative, approved in October 2024. The scope changes include reducing the number of through lanes of the overcrossing from 4-lanes to 2-lanes, replacing the sidewalk and Class IV bike path on both sides of Prado Road with a Class I mixed-use path on the south side of Prado Road and a sidewalk on the north side of Prado Road, reducing the overall length of bridge structures from approximately 2,550 feet to approximately 1,250 feet, the addition of retaining walls at the beginning and end of the bridges, and the addition of a eight sided retaining wall structure at the northbound ramp terminal intersection.

Project Limits 05-SLO-101, PM 26.5/27.3
Current Cost
Estimate FY 2026:

Escalated Cost Estimate FY
2029:

Capital Outlay Support $9,248,000 $10,705,000
Capital Outlay Construction $103,700,000 $124,210,000
Capital Outlay Right-of-Way $4,996,251 $5,783,785
Funding Source State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and Local
Funds
Funding Year 2027/2028
Type of Facility Local Interchange
Number of Structures 4 bridges, 9 retaining walls
Environmental Determination
or Document NEPA CE/CEQA IS-MND
Legal Description In San Luis Obispo County, on Route 101 between 0.3 mile south of Prado Road and 0.2 mile south of
Madonna Road Overcrossing
Project Development Category 3

2. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended approval of this Supplemental Project Report and the project proceed to the PS&E phase.

3. BACKGROUND
The US 101/Prado Road Interchange Project Report (PR) and Environmental Document were approved in October of 2024. A Value Analysis (VA) for the project

Page 956 of 1065 ends

05-SLO-101–PM 26.5/27.3
2 was completed in Spring of 2023. The VA identified the following items to be considered:

1. Reduce the maximum speed on Prado Road to 35 mph (this was implemented as part of the PA&ED and Caltrans approved the Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD) for this revision)

2. Reduce lane and shoulder widths where practical

3. Use CIDH columns in lieu of driven piles and pile caps

4. Use longer spans and fewer columns with precast I-girders in lieu of CIP griders

5. Leave existing sewer main on current Elks Lane alignment in lieu of relocation (this was rejected by project stakeholders and was not implemented)

6. Utilize recycled and/or reclaimed materials in project The decision was made to implement the appropriate and applicable recommendations during the PS&E phase of the project and not incorporate them into the PA&ED phase.

As a result of the VA and follow up traffic counts and analysis, preliminary geotechnical analysis, and more detailed hydraulic analysis, the following revisions have been incorporated into the project:

1. Prado Road Overcrossing width is reduced from 4-lanes to 2-lanes

2. Bridge span lengths have been increased from 100 feet to 150 feet

3. Overall length of bridges has been reduced from approximately 2,550 feet to approximately 1,250 feet

4. Retaining walls have been added at the beginning and ends of the overcrossing structures and northbound ramp structures

5. The northbound ramp terminal intersection is encompassed by an eight-sided retaining wall

6. A Class I multi-use path has been incorporated along the south side of Prado Road within the project limits

7. A 6 foot wide sidewalk is maintained along the north side of Prado Road within the project limits

8. Prado Road has 12 foot travel lanes and 4 foot shoulders within Caltrans right of way. At the ramp intersection the eastbound Prado left turn lane to the northbound US101 on-ramp is proposed to be 11 feet.

Page 957 of 1065 ends

05-SLO-101–PM 26.5/27.3
3 4. PURPOSE AND NEED
No change (See approved PR)

5. ALTERNATIVES
The approved 2024 Project Report selected Alternative A3 as the preferred alternative. The alternative consists of a Type L-1 tight diamond interchange. The alternative is a partial interchange with north bound ramps and an auxiliary lane from the north bound on-ramp to Madonna Road off-ramp. The interchange type will remain as proposed in the Project Report. The revisions focus on the span configuration of the bridge structures, the implementation of retaining walls where feasible, and the reconfiguration of the Prado Road cross section.

Design Charrettes were conducted with the City of San Luis Obispo and Caltrans staff to explore alternatives to Alternative A3 that would result in a lower overall construction cost. A performance based design approach was incorporated with a focus on not impacting US 101 mainline operations, reducing crash severity on Prado Road, Mainline Ramp merge and diverge, pedestrian level of stress, emergency vehicle response, and safety queueing issues. With the performance criteria defined, a traffic sensitivity analysis was conducted with traffic counts obtained in May 2025.

The traffic sensitivity analysis compared a four-lane corridor with a two-lane corridor and roundabout and signal intersection controls.

Reducing the entire Prado corridor to two lanes resulted in unacceptable delays and congestion that spilled back to Higuera (PM peak) to the east and the Froom Ranch roundabout (AM peak) to the west. Through iterations, it was determined that a fourlane section from the Higuera/Prado intersection to the NB ramp terminal intersection and then a two-lane section from the NB ramp terminal to the Froom Ranch/Dalidio Drive roundabout would result in acceptable operations during peak and non-peak hours. The Prado corridor would experience some delays and congestion in the peak hours starting in 2045, assuming full land use build out of the City's current general plan.

As part of the design charrette process, the PDT proposed replacing the combination sidewalk and Class IV protected bike paths on both sides of the corridor with a multiuse bidirectional pathway on the south side of Prado and a 6-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side of Prado Road. This cross section for bikes and pedestrians closely matches the facilities throughout the San Luis Ranch development.

On Nov 4, 2025, the City Council approved the reconfiguration of the Prado Road corridor from Higuera Street to Froom Ranch/Dalidio Drive roundabout.

These changes implemented during the PS&E phase results in an interchange configuration that substantially meets the configuration of Alternative A3 from the 2024 PR.

Page 958 of 1065 ends

05-SLO-101–PM 26.5/27.3
4 6. CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING DISCUSSION
6A. Hazardous Waste
No change (See approved PR)
6B. Value Analysis
A Value Analysis was completed in Spring of 2023. The recommendations from the VA have all been incorporated into the updated project, with the exception of not relocating the City owned sewer main. The sewer main will be relocated within the new alignment of Elks Lane.
6C. Resource Conservation
No change (See approved PR)
6D. Right-of-Way Issues
Consistent with the approved PR, new right of way will be required for the project (See approved PR).

This project will be undergrounding overhead electric and communication utilities, relocating City owned water and sewer facilities and relocating two Phillips 66 oil lines. Potholing has been performed for utility location verification. 6E. Environmental Compliance
In 2023, an Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and approved for the US 101/Prado Road Interchange Project. An environmental revalidation is currently being processed and will be completed by March 2027. The CEQA IS/MND was approved August 30, 2023 and the NEPA CE was approved December 12, 2023.
6F. Air Quality Conformity
No change (See approved PR)
6G. Title VI Considerations
The proposed change to Class IV facility is now provided through the implementation of a Class I multi-use path located on the south side of Prado Road.

7. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS APPROPRIATE
Traffic
A Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) was completed in 2019 using the

Page 959 of 1065 ends

05-SLO-101–PM 26.5/27.3
5 City's Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) model and traffic counts from 2014. The 2019 TOAR had opening day of 2025 and the design year as 2045. An amended TOAR was produced in 2022. This version had a design year of 2050. The traffic demand model was not updated for the 2022 TOAR. The updated traffic forecasting was determined by applying a straight 1% growth rate per year for a total of 5% grow. No new or updated City land uses were incorporated.

New traffic counts in 2025 at 26 intersections (the same intersections as were used in the original 2019 TOAR) were obtained. A comparison of the original TOAR 2025 counts and the actual counts completed in 2025 showed that the actual counts were generally lower than those forecasted in the original and amended TOAR document.

An updated City traffic demand model update was developed in 2025/2026. The updated model utilized updated traffic counts and land uses. The traffic sensitivity analysis and the supplemental traffic operations memorandum utilized the City updated traffic demand model from 2025/2026. A review and comparison of the forecast volumes at all 26 counted intersections, which included the adjacent LOVR and Madonna interchanges, from the amended 2022 TOAR and the updated City model for the no-build, 4-lane and 2-lane Prado overcrossing. Based on this review and comparison, the updated traffic demand model results in lower traffic volumes for all scenarios, except at the LOVR Southbound off ramp, Madonna Northbound on ramp, and Madonna Road overcrossing. These three locations were discussed at a PDT meeting on XX and was concluded that the increase in volumes would not degrade operations at those locations.

Complete Streets
The project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the Prado Road corridor from Higuera to Froom Ranch/Dalidio Drive roundabout. Alternative A3 included sidewalks and Class IV bicycle facilities on both sides of Prado Road. The reconfigured alternative includes a separated Class I mixed use path on the south side and a sidewalk on the north side within the interchange area. The proposed design was shared with the City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Committee (ATC) on May 20, 2026 and at community meeting on March 11, 2026. The proposed improvements and reconfiguration were presented to the San Luis Obispo City Council on November 4, 2025 and they approved the reconfiguration of the Prado Road corridor.

8. FUNDING, PROGRAMMING AND ESTIMATE
Funding
No Change (See approved PR).

It has been determined that this project is eligible for Federal-aid funding.

Page 960 of 1065 ends

05-SLO-101–PM 26.5/27.3
6 Programming
Fund Source Fiscal Year Estimate
Local/RIP Prior 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 Future Total Component In Thousands ($1,000)
PA&ED Support 1,500 1,500
PS&E Support 3,000 2,000 2,500 1,500 9,000
Right-of-Way
Support 300 80 80 460
Construction
Support 1,000 2,200 2,200 5,400
Right-of-Way 2,000 3,400 5,400
Construction 7,700 50,000 46,000 103,700
Total 1,500 3,300 2,080 4,580 13,600 52,200 48,200 125,460 Cost Item Current (25/26)
(In Thousands)
Escalated (28/29)
(In Thousands)
Construction $82,960 $99,400
Supplemental Work $0 $0
Contingencies (25%) $20,740 $24,800
Total $103,700 $124,200

9. DELIVERY SCHEDULE
Project Milestones Milestone Date
(Month/Day/Year)
Milestone
Designation
(Target/Actual)
PROGRAM PROJECT M015 04/27/2018 Actual
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL M020 05/11/2018 Actual
PA & ED M200 10/04/2024 Actual
PROJECT PS&E M380 10/24/2028 Target
RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION M410 09/24/2028 Target
READY TO LIST M460 02/19/2029 Target
AWARD M495 04/15/2029 Target
APPROVE CONTRACT M500 05/15/2029 Target
CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE M600 12/31/2031 Target
END PROJECT EXPENDITURES M800 6/1/2032 Target
FINAL PROJECT CLOSEOUT M900 12/1/2032 Target

Page 961 of 1065 ends

05-SLO-101–PM 26.5/27.3
7 10. RISKS
No Change (See approved PR).

11. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION
No Change (See approved PR).

12. PROJECT REVIEWS
District Maintenance Berkeley Lindt Date
Headquarters Project Delivery Coordinator Robert Navarro Date Project Manager Genaro Diaz Date

13. PROJECT PERSONNEL
Name Functional Unit Organization Phone
Genaro Diaz PPM Caltrans (805) 721-2365
Bing Yu Traffic Safety Caltrans (805) 903-3596
Saygunn Low OSFP&SLA Caltrans (916) 639-5902
Tony Nedwick SHH Caltrans (916) 227-8852
David Smotherman RW Engineering Caltrans (805) 549-3117 Robert Davis RW Engineering Caltrans (805) 556-2240
Colton Christensen RW Engineering Caltrans (805) 779-0636 Kevin Thorne RW Engineering Caltrans (805)779-0647
Dylan Robertson Design Oversight Caltrans (805) 503-3754 Adrian Foster RW Engineering Caltrans (805)305-7876
Dianna Beck Environmental Caltrans (805) 459-9406
Daniel Johnson Environmental Caltrans (805) 903-3521
David Karp RW Engineering Caltrans (805) 305-7932
Nikki Bloom Landscape Engineering Caltrans (805) 748-9800 Scott Dowlan Landscape Engineering Caltrans (805) 540-4407 Corby Kilmer Landscape Engineering Caltrans (805) 721-2805 Berkeley Lindt Maintenance Engineering Caltrans (805) 549-3315 Tyler Laing Maintenance Engineering Caltrans (805) 858-8191 Ryan Blanc Stormwater Engineering Caltrans (805) 458-5838 Dario Moreno Transportation
Engineering
Caltrans (805) 835-6570
Kamal Humagain Transportation
Engineering
Caltrans (805) 872-5658
Jerrod Lessel Travel Forecast Caltrans (805) 393-5805

Page 962 of 1065 ends

05-SLO-101–PM 26.5/27.3
8 Abraham Almaw DES Engineering Caltrans (916) 227-8699 Amy Norris Design Liaison Caltrans (805) 503-3619
Robert Navarro Project Delivery Caltrans (530) 949-8730 David Gallego Traffic Engineering Caltrans (805) 903-3457 Chirag Akbari Traffic Engineering Caltrans (805) 903-3612 Juan Moreno Drainage Engineering Caltrans (805) 478-9939 Matt Horn Project Manager City of San Luis
Obispo
(805) 423-0200
Brian Nelson City Engineer City of San Luis
Obispo
(805) 781-7113
Luke Schwartz Traffic Signal Manager City of San Luis
Obispo
(805) 781-7190
Mark Reno Principal-in-Charge Consor (916) 368-9181
Brent Lemon Project Manager Consor (916) 799-4910
Dace Morgan Deputy Project Manager Consor (805) 503-8524 Brent Harrison Roadway PE Consor (925) 430-1666
Scott McCauley Bridge PE Consor (916) 368-9181
Jim Damkowitch Traffic DKS (916) 368-2000
Brian Ray Quality Control Sunrise
Transportation
(503) 539-1808
Lincoln James Grant Funding AECOM (858) 866-6095
Maxim D Nasab Bridge Architecture Apexx (707) 688-0246
Chris Sewell Hydraulics, Stormwater,
Drainage
HDR (925) 465-2743
Colby Boggs Environmental/Permitting Rincon (805) 547-0900 Mary Verdin Public Involvement Verdin
Marketing
(805) 235-0507
Clayton Bradshaw Survey Wallace Group (805) 544-4011
Judd King Geotechnical Yeh &
Associates
(805) 481-9590

Page 963 of 1065 ends

Page 964 of 1065 ends

PRADO INTERCHANGE
Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA
June 26, 2026

ARCHITECTURE

Page 965 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

CONTENTS
Base Option
Approach From Prado Road - Day
Pedestrian On Interchange - Day & Night
On US HWY 101 - Day & Night
Detail
Mission Style Option
Approach From Prado Road - Day
Pedestrian On Interchange - Day & Night
On US HWY 101 - Day & Night
Detail
Mediterranean Style Option
Approach From Prado Road - Day
Pedestrian On Interchange - Day & Night
On US HWY 101 - Day & Night
Detail
Modern Mission Style Option

Page 966 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

BASE OPTION

Page 967 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

BASE OPTION /APPROACH FROM PRADO ROAD - DAY

Page 968 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

BASE OPTION /PEDESTRIAN ON INTERCHANGE - DAY

Page 969 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

BASE OPTION /PEDESTRIAN ON INTERCHANGE - NIGHT

Page 970 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA
BASE OPTION /ON US HWY 101 - DAY

Page 971 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA
BASE OPTION /ON US HWY 101 - NIGHT

Page 972 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

BASE OPTION /DETAIL

Page 973 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

MISSION STYLE OPTION

Page 974 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

MISSION STYLE OPTION /APPROACH FROM PRADO ROAD - DAY

Page 975 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

MISSION STYLE OPTION /PEDESTRIAN ON INTERCHANGE - DAY

Page 976 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

MISSION STYLE OPTION /PEDESTRIAN ON INTERCHANGE - NIGHT

Page 977 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA
MISSION STYLE OPTION /ON US HWY 101 - DAY

Page 978 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA
MISSION STYLE OPTION /ON US HWY 101 - NIGHT

Page 979 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

MISSION STYLE OPTION /DETAIL

Page 980 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA MODERN MISSION STYLE OPTION

MEDITERRANEAN STYLE OPTION

Page 981 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

MEDI STYLE OPTION /

MODERN OPTION /

APPROACH FROM PRADO ROAD - DAY

Page 982 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

MODERN OPTION /

MEDI OPTION /PEDESTRIAN ON INTERCHANGE - DAY

Page 983 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

MODERN OPTION /

MEDI OPTION /PEDESTRIAN ON INTERCHANGE - NIGHT

Page 984 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

MEDI STYLE OPTION /

MODERN OPTION /
ON US HWY 101 - DAY

Page 985 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

MEDI STYLE OPTION /

MODERN OPTION /
ON US HWY 101 - NIGHT

Page 986 of 1065 ends

ARCHITECTURE
PRADO INTERCHANGE / Preliminary Concepts
San Luis Obispo, CA

MEDI STYLE OPTION /

MODERN OPTION /
DETAIL

Page 987 of 1065 ends

Page 988 of 1065 ends

Preliminary Value Analysis
Study Report
Prado Creek Bridge
VMS No. 3530-001
July 2026
Prepared by
Value Management Strategies, Inc.

Page 989 of 1065 ends

CORPORATE OFFICE: 350 W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 330 | Escondido, CA 92025 Tel: 760 741 5518 | Fax: 760 741 5617 | www.vms-inc.com MAILING ADDRESS: PMB #263 | 5309 McPherson Blvd, Suite 105 | Fort Worth, TX 76123 OFFICE LOCATIONS: AZ | CA | KY | MI | NC | ND | NE | NH | NJ | OR | TX | VA | WA Date:

To:

July 1, 2026
Jorge Aguilar, Wallace Group Project Manager
Subject: Preliminary VA Study Report
Prado Creek Bridge
Dear Mr. Aguilar,
Value Management Strategies, Inc. is pleased to submit this Preliminary VA Study Report for the referenced project. This report summarizes the results and events of the hybrid in-person and virtual study conducted March 30-31 and April 2, 2026, facilitated via the Microsoft Teams virtual meeting platform.

DECISION-MAKERS PLEASE NOTE: An Implementation Meeting will be scheduled at a future date. You will be asked to accept or reject each VA alternative included in this report. In addition, you will be asked to agree or disagree with the cost savings and performance attribute ratings the VA team applied to each accepted VA alternative.

Acceptance of alternatives denotes intent to implement, based on current information, in the given project development phase. It is recognized that future conditions may change this disposition. The validation of disposition, the cost changes, and performance changes for the alternative is required by the Caltrans VA methodology (at the City’s discretion) to ensure that the project decision-makers agree with the study results. Furthermore, these validated results become the basis for the VA Program reportables.

The VA process is complete when the implementation decisions for every VA alternative have been received from the City Project Manager and documented in the Final VA Study Report. The Assess Alternatives and Resolve Alternatives activities provide the VA team, the PM, and the City of San Luis Obispo assurance that the alternatives are properly evaluated and the implementation decisions are based on the merit of each concept. This process helps to eliminate inaccurate alternatives and legitimizes the results of the study and the VA Program.

Please complete your review of the VA alternatives and provide your written comments on the VA Alternative Project Stakeholder Implementation Action Recommendation forms. We will target one week prior to the Implementation Meeting to receive these forms; please send them to [email protected].

Page 990 of 1065 ends

Page | 2Page | 2
During the Implementation Meeting, we will review the individual Implementation Action Recommendation Form responses, develop a consensus for each VA alternative, document the responses to each alternative, and conclude decisions related to implementation. After that meeting, we will integrate the results into the Final VA Study Report.

It was a pleasure working with the Wallace Group team and the City of San Luis Obispo on this project, and I look forward to the next one. If you have any questions or comments concerning this preliminary report, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 679-8029 or email [email protected].

Sincerely,
Value Management Strategies, Inc.

Eric Trimble, CVS, MBA, PMP
VP (Value Engineering)
VA Study Team Leader

Page 991 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY
VA STUDY SUMMARY REPORT..................1
Project Summary
Project Purpose and Need
VA Study Timing
VA Study Objectives
Key Project Issues
Evaluation of Baseline Concept
• Performance Attributes
VA Alternatives
VA Study Results
VA Team
VA ALTERNATIVES .................................... 9
VA Strategies
VA Alternative Summary Tables
• VA Alternatives
• Recommended VA Strategies
Other Considerations
Summary of Performance Improvements
VA Alternative Documentation
PROJECT INFORMATION.........................37
Background
Project Description
Project Design Exceptions
Information Provided to the VA Team
Project Drawings
Project Cost Information
PROJECT ANALYSIS ................................. 39
Summary of Analysis
Key Project Factors
• Project Issues
• Site Visit Observations
Cost Model
Function Analysis
PROJECT ANALYSIS (continued)
Value Metrics
• Define Performance Requirements
• Define Performance Attributes and Scales
• Prioritize Performance Attributes
• Measure Performance of Baseline Concept
• Measure Performance of VA Alternatives
• Define VA Strategies
• Compare Performance – Baseline Design and
Recommended VA Strategies
• Rating Rationale for Recommended VA
Strategies
• Compare Value
• Value Matrix – Baseline Concept and
VA Recommended Strategies
IDEA EVALUATION ..................................52
Performance Attributes
Evaluation Process
Idea Summary
Idea Summary List
Detailed Idea Evaluation
VA PROCESS............................................56 Pre-Study
VA Study
VA Report
Caltrans VA Study Activity Chart
VA Study Agenda
VA Study Meeting Attendees

Page 992 of 1065 ends

VA STUDY SUMMARY REPORT

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

Page 993 of 1065 ends

VA Study Summary Report – Preliminary Findings
Prado Creek Bridge
Prado Creek Bridge VA Study Summary Report
A Value Analysis (VA) study, sponsored by the City of San Luis Obispo in general conformance to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) VA study methodology and facilitated by Value Management Strategies, Inc. (VMS), was conducted for the Prado Creek Bridge project located in the City of San Luis Obispo, California. The workshop was facilitated as a hybrid in-person and virtual study March 30-31 and April 2, 2026, using Microsoft Teams. This VA Study Summary Report – Preliminary Findings provides an overview of the project, key findings, and the alternatives developed by the VA team.

PROJECT SUMMARY
The City of San Luis Obispo (City), through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) as administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), is proposing to replace Bridge No. 49C-0107 on Prado Road over San Luis Obispo Creek, located approximately 190 feet west of the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street in the City of San Luis Obispo.

This project would replace the existing narrow and substandard bridge with a wider, four throughlane bridge with shoulders, additional turn lanes, protected bike lanes, and sidewalks. The existing two-lane Prado Road Bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek is currently structurally deficient and has no bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Traffic studies also indicate that the bridge is not wide enough to accommodate existing and projected future traffic demands. This project is intended to provide a safer, more accessible route for local businesses, residents, commuters, and visitors into the future.

This project will be primarily funded through both local City and FHWA’s HBP funds. The current escalated total project cost is estimated to be $45,500,000. 1

Page 994 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge VA Study Summary Report

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The City of San Luis Obispo (SLO) is replacing the bridge with a wider structure that will add improvements to provide safe access to drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, better accommodate creek flow, and accommodate anticipated traffic for years to come. The project will include multimodal improvements to South Higuera at Prado Road.

Planned for construction starting in 2027, the Prado Road Bridge Widening Project improvements will pave the way for a brighter, bustling southern district of SLO. This project provides the opportunity to plan for the future using state-of-the-art infrastructure and forward-thinking design. It sets the stage for an even larger future endeavor, which is the long-planned Prado Road Interchange Project, a critical infrastructure project that will provide a new crossing over US 101 between Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road.

VA STUDY TIMING
The VA study was conducted during the late stages of the design phase of the project, which is currently to be completed later this year (2026). The project is scheduled for Ready to List (RTL) in summer 2027. The project construction duration is anticipated for 3 seasons, running from Construction Start in late 2027 to Construction Completion by fall of 2029.

VA STUDY OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the VA study were to:

1. Analyze the current project design, estimate, and schedule

2. Provide possible cost and/or schedule saving recommendations

3. Provide performance improvement recommendations

KEY PROJECT ISSUES
The items listed below are the key drivers, constraints, or issues being addressed by the project and considered during this VA study to identify possible improvements.

Project Budget – The total project cost is currently estimated at $45.5M and will tap funding from several sources – including the federal government through Caltrans. A significant amount of the project will be funded by the City of San Luis Obispo.

Present Need vs Potential Need – The present design is a full build approach that is scaled to accommodate the upcoming improved interchange with Highway 101 and is expected to provide capacity for the anticipated development and growth to the east of the Higuera Street - Prado Road intersection including a long-term planning connection of Prado to Broad St. The project must balance the present need and the potential need when determining what to include in the current project design, especially regarding which facility elements to fund with this project. It should be noted that coordination with the upcoming Prado Road/Highway 101 interchange project is a priority 2

Page 995 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge VA Study Summary Report
for the success of this project.

Utility Improvement and Relocation – The current design will require maintaining nearly all the existing utilities that run through the intersection and across the current bridge until they can be relocated to their permanent new locations. Overhead utilities will be undergrounded in a joint trench. Additionally, the project will take the opportunity to improve stormwater management along S. Higuera Street. The utility work requires significant coordination with the utility companies and will encompass the majority of the first stage of the project with traffic handling and construction impacts anticipated.

EVALUATION OF BASELINE CONCEPT
During the VA study, a number of analytical tools and techniques were applied to develop a better understanding of the baseline concept. A major component of this analysis was Value Metrics, which seeks to assess the elements of cost, performance, time, and risk as they related to project value. These elements require a deeper level of analysis, the results of which are detailed in the Project Analysis section of this report. The key performance attributes identified for the project are listed in the table, “Performance Attributes.” A summary of the major observations and conclusions identified during the evaluation of the baseline concept, which led the VA team to develop the alternatives and recommendations presented in this report follows.

The stakeholders rated the five performance attributes as each having a major contribution to the success of the project. Through a paired comparison process, study participants determined that Traffic Operations was weighted the highest at 29% as the project is primarily about establishing a significant useful life for the bridge and improving the traffic operations along Prado Road and its connection with Higuera Street. Multi-Modal Operations is the next highest rated attribute at 26% due to the importance of integrating effective bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the project.

Both Maintainability and Long-Term Impacts were rated on the next tier of importance at 16% each.

Construction Impacts was relatively weighted the lowest at 13% but was still viewed as being important to the overall success of the project.

The initial evaluation of the current basis, or baseline concept, for the project by the stakeholders determined that it represents an effective and responsible approach to replace the aging bridge structure while fulfilling the project’s purpose and need to provide safe access for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, and accommodate anticipated traffic for years to come. Although there are still some details that need to be further developed, the five performance attributes scored higher than typical projects of this nature and prove that a great deal of work and effort have been applied to the current design. The baseline concept should address current and future traffic volume needs and provide a bridge with the useful life needed by the project. The completed bridge, roadway, bike path, utility, and intersection design will improve the future operation of the mainline facility by bringing the facilities up to current standards. Most of the short-term Construction Impacts, such as traffic disruption and temporary access loss, are unavoidable for a project of this nature. The shortPerformance Attributes Traffic Operations
Multi-Modal Operations
Maintainability
Long-Term Impacts
Construction Impacts
3

Page 996 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge VA Study Summary Report
term environmental impacts will be mitigated and addressed through careful planning and avoidance measures. The project’s long-term impacts were environmentally cleared and mitigated while the project will improve the overall hydraulics of the crossing.

Overall, the stakeholders concluded that this baseline concept for the project was good and addressed many of the key concerns admirably; however, there is still room for potential project value improvement, especially regarding how to provide the right balance of current effective transportation facilities for the community while responsibly utilizing the limited funding sources available.

VA ALTERNATIVES
The VA team developed 7 VA alternatives for improvement of the project. The following are the alternatives identified, along with their associated potential initial cost savings, potential change in schedule, performance change, and a brief discussion of each.

Alternative No. and Description Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Change in
Performance

1.0 Reduce overall width of Prado Creek Bridge $3,000,000 2-week reduction - 3.5 %
The alternative concept proposes reducing the overall width of the new Prado Creek Bridge by 23’ (from 114’ to 91’). This reduction would be accomplished by eliminating an eastbound through lane, reducing travel lane widths from 12’ to 11’, reducing the median width, and simplifying the bicycle and pedestrian facility design.

2.0 Remove undergrounding of overhead utilities from
project $500,000 No change - 0.7 %
The alternative concept proposes to remove the undergrounding of the electrical and communication lines from the project. This will require the utilities to be relocated from their existing lines to new overhead alignments in the public R/W at the utility owners’ expense. The project will still require the construction of a joint trench and ducting for the other fiber communication lines.

3.0 Reduce minimum depth of cover of joint trench
from 7’ to 3’ $100,000 No change + 0.2 %
The alternative concept proposes to reduce the minimum amount of cover over the joint trench from 7’ to 3’ in specific locations. The joint trench locations that can be reduced are limited to the S. Higuera Street and the western Prado Road segments and only when the joint trench is running parallel to road centerline and not crossing transverse (in other words, can be done when not in conflict with other underground utilities).
4

Page 997 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge VA Study Summary Report

4.0 Limit sewer, recycled water, and potable water
utility relocation $300,000 No change - 0.3 %
The alternative concept proposes to address the wet utility relocation (the sewer line, recycled water line, and potable water) for the bridge segment only and extending westerly to the Higuera/Prado intersection only (sewer). The Higuera Street water utility relocation would be removed from this project and deferred to a later project.

5.0 Use RSP to eliminate the retaining wall
underneath the bridge $2,000,000 No change + 0.9 %
The alternative concept proposes to use rock slope protection (RSP) underneath the new bridge in lieu of soldier pile wall sections which will need to be studied for hydraulic viability. The RSP would tie into the remaining soldier pile wall sections that are constructed away from the bridge along each slope.

6.0 Reduce raised Prado Road median length on
bridge $20,000 No change + 0.4 %
The baseline concept includes a raised median that extends for the full length of the bridge, widening as it moves from east to west. The alternative concept proposes to shorten and narrow the raised median.

7.0 Remove and do not replace the Bob Jones Trail
Bridge $150,000 No change + 0.9 %
The baseline concept is to remove the Bob Jones Trail Bridge (BJTB) during the demo and reconstruction of the new Prado Creek Bridge, store the BJTB onsite, improve the BJTB abutments, and then return the BJTB to its original location (the western abutment will remain as is. The eastern abutment will be relocated, so the BJTB will be in a slightly rotated position compared to existing). The alternative concept proposes to remove the Bob Jones Trail Bridge permanently from the project location.

VA STUDY RESULTS
The VA team identified 2 VA strategies (combinations of VA alternatives) for consideration by the PDT and City of San Luis Obispo decision-makers. The 2 VA strategies take a layered approach to improving upon the value of the project’s baseline design and include a “minimum build” strategy (VA Strategy 1) and a “maximum savings” strategy (VA Strategy 2).

VA Strategy 1 uses VA Alternative 1 to narrow the bridge structure to only what is expected to be required to meet current traffic volume expectations in support of the upcoming Prado Interchange project. This strategy is not anticipated to affect the amount of funding that the project will receive from the HBP program but will instead reduce the funding portion needed directly from the City of 5

Page 998 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge VA Study Summary Report
San Luis Obispo. Under this strategy, it is anticipated that any additional widening of the bridge needed for the bridge and intersection can be accomplished at a later date when the need becomes more evident (such as the through-connection to Broad Street).

VA Strategy 2 uses all the developed VA alternatives to reduce the total initial project cost in a reasonable and practical manner. The alternatives collected in this strategy include the bridge narrowing alternative (VA Alternative 1) but would also include the following modifications: defer or eliminate some of the utility work in the baseline design (VA Alternatives 2.0, 3.0, & 4.0), simplify the retaining wall design under the bridge in favor of RSP (VA alternative 5.0 - which will need to be studied for hydraulic viability), and remove a few additional design elements from both the roadway (VA Alternative 6.0) and the Bob Jones Trail (VA Alternative 7.0). This strategy would be expected to reduce the amount of funding required by the City and the HBP program.

Despite each strategy reducing construction-related impacts to the project area, the strategies result in a net reduction in performance when compared to the baseline (a -3.5% for VA Strategy 1 and -

2.1% for VA Strategy 2). This is primarily due to the removal of some of the vehicular and multi-modal elements from the highly rated, full-build baseline design. Overall value, however, is improved over the baseline design by the VA strategies (1.4% and 8.0%, respectively) when the cost savings and schedule savings are included in the value calculation.

Summary of Recommended VA Strategies
Strategy Description
Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Change in
Performance
Value
Change
VA Strategy 1 – Narrow Bridge
Only/Minimum Build
Alternative 1.0
$3,000,000 2-week
reduction
- 3.5 % + 1.3 %
VA Strategy 2 – Maximum Savings
Alternatives 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0,

6.0, & 7.0
$6,070,000 2-week
reduction
- 2.1 % + 8.0 %
A summary of the two VA strategies is provided in the following table and chart. The chart illustrates the relative trade-offs between performance (shown by the blue columns) versus cost and schedule (shown by the yellow and green columns, respectively). The red value line indicates the net % change in total value relative to the baseline concept. Please refer to the Project Analysis section of the report for additional details on this analysis.
6

Page 999 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge VA Study Summary Report
Comparison of Value
Baseline Concept & Recommended VA Strategies

VA TEAM
VA Study Team
Name Organization Title
Eric Trimble VMS, Inc. VA Study Facilitator
Jorge Aguilar Wallace Group Project Manager
Sarah Huffman Wallace Group Project Engineer, Roadway Design Ethan Pence Wallace Group Roadway Design
Steven Tanaka Wallace Group Project Engineer, Sewer/Water Design Travis Vasquez Wallace Group Sewer/Water/Recycled Water Design Scott McCauley Consor Structures Lead
Matt Vaggione Consor Project Engineer, Structures
Thomas Truchement Consor Structures Design
Brent Lemon Consor Transportation Design Specialist
Judd King Yeh & Assoc. Geotechnical Engineer
Lyle Nemeth Filippin Engin. Constructability
Joe Fernandez CCTC CCTC - Traffic Analysis Lead/Electrical Design

0.0% 1.3%

8.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Baseline Concept VA Strategy #1 VA Strategy #2
Perf. Cost Time Value % Δ
7

Page 1000 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge VA Study Summary Report
Name Organization Title
Michelle Matson CCTC CCTC - Traffic Analysis/Electrical Design Key Project Contacts
Name Organization Title
Matt Horn City of SLO Project Manager
Brian Nelson City of SLO Dep. Director of Public Works - City Engineer Luke Schwartz City of SLO Traffic & Active Transportation - Peds & Bikes Miguel Barcenas City of SLO Utilities
8

Page 1001 of 1065 ends

VA ALTERNATIVES

Page 1002 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives

VA ALTERNATIVES PRELIMINARY
The results of this study are presented as individual alternatives to the baseline concept. Each alternative consists of a summary of the baseline concept, a description of the suggested change, a listing of its advantages and disadvantages, a cost comparison, change in performance and value, discussion of schedule and risk impacts (if applicable), and a brief narrative comparing the baseline design with the alternative. (Please refer to the Project Analysis section of this report for an explanation of how the performance attributes and value are calculated.) Sketches, calculations, and performance attribute ratings are also presented where applicable. The cost comparisons reflect a similar level of detail as in the baseline estimate.

VA STRATEGIES
VA studies result in the development of a number of alternatives. While it is possible for all alternatives to be implemented, typically there are combinations of some alternatives that may provide the best solution for the project. This is due to the fact that some alternatives may be competing ideas or different ways to address the same issue. Some alternatives are developed to answer a question raised by a decision-maker or to resolve an open issue and are found not to be beneficial to the ultimate project.

As a result of these factors, the VA team developed two VA strategies that represent their opinion of the best combination of alternatives for the project to assist the decision-makers in their evaluation of the VA alternatives. The VA strategies are based on factors that include improved performance, likelihood of implementation, least community impact, cost savings, or any combination of the project’s performance attributes. This information is a guide and is not intended to reject the other alternatives from project stakeholder consideration.

VA ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY TABLES
Summary of VA Alternatives
Alternative No. & Description
Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Performance
Change
Value
Change

1.0 Reduce overall width of Prado Creek Bridge $3,000,000 2-week
reduction - 3.5 % + 1.3 %

2.0 Remove undergrounding of overhead utilities
from project $500,000
No
change - 0.7 % + 0.1 %

3.0 Reduce minimum depth of cover of joint
trench from 7’ to 3’ $100,000
No
change
+ 0.2 % + 0.3 %
9

Page 1003 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives

4.0 Limit sewer, recycled water, and potable
water utility relocation $300,000
No
change - 0.3 % + 0.2 %

5.0 Use RSP to eliminate the retaining wall
underneath the bridge $2,000,000
No
change
+ 0.9 % + 3.8 %

6.0 Reduce raised Prado Road median length on
bridge $20,000
No
change
+ 0.4 % + 0.5 %

7.0 Remove and do not replace the Bob Jones
Trail Bridge $150,000
No
change
+ 0.9 % + 1.2 %
Summary of VA Strategies
Strategy Description
Initial Cost
Savings
Change in
Schedule
Performance
Change
Value
Change
VA Strategy 1 – Narrow Bridge Only/Minimum
Build
Alternative 1.0
$3,000,000
2-week
reduction - 3.5 % + 1.4 %
VA Strategy 2 – Maximum Savings
Alternatives 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 , 6.0 & 7.0 $6,070,000 2-week
reduction - 2.1 % + 8.0 %

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The VA team identified the following observations and design suggestions, relatively general in nature, for consideration by the Project Development Team (PDT). More detailed descriptions can be found in the Ideal Evaluation portion of this report.

OC-1: Introduce contracting language to allow for alternative methods of temporary utility support (MU-10)
This concept would seek to allow the contractor more flexibility in proposing a method to eliminate the temporary utility bridge across the Creek during the construction of the new Prado Creek Bridge by adding it into the contracting language.
10

Page 1004 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives
OC-2: Modify wall type and reduce length of retaining wall outside of bridge (RE-1) This concept would explore the use of a tangent pile wall design in lieu of the soldier pile design for the retaining wall beyond the bridge. The use of the tangent pile retaining wall system might reduce the amount of excavation required down to scour depth and eliminate the horizontal lagging; it would also allow for the wall to be shortened in either direction away from the bridge.

OC-3: Modify wall type for the retaining wall underneath the bridge (RE-2) This concept would explore the use of a tangent pile wall design in lieu of the soldier pile design for the retaining wall immediately under the bridge. As mentioned prior, the use of the tangent pile retaining wall system might reduce the amount of excavation required down to scour depth and eliminate the horizontal lagging.

OC-4: Reduce/remove green pavement markings (AB-4)
This concept would simply reduce or remove the green pavement markings from the project to reduce the initial cost of the project. The markings are not a requirement for the operation of the bikeways.

OC-5: Remove colored concrete and reduce thickness from Class IV bikeways (AB-9) This concept would reduce the concrete thickness of the Class IV bikeways and eliminate the colored concrete to reduce the initial cost of the project. These items are not a requirement for the operation of the bikeways.

OC-6: Delay schedule to align construction with interchange project (CP-1) This concept would explore the benefits of more closely aligning the Prado Creek Bridge project and the Prado Interchange project so that more construction efficiencies could be attained and overall, less public impact duration might be experienced by the two projects construction periods being overlapped with each other. The two projects being closer in time may also make them more appealing to a single contractor as they may be able to mobilize for both projects consecutively. The Prado Creek Bridge project must be completed prior to the interchange project, but to more closely align, it would need to be delayed a year, which may present funding or approval issues.

OC-7: Reduce architectural treatments on bridge (EA-1)
This concept would seek to reduce the initial expense of the project by simplifying the architectural treatments on the bridge. A straightforward bridge design would have less curb appeal for the local community but would help to reduce the project cost.
11

Page 1005 of 1065 ends

Prado Creek Bridge VA Alternatives

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS
The Caltrans HQ VA Program requires the following information to enable reporting of performance to the FHWA. Only the six standard Caltrans performance attributes, shown in the table below, are to be documented. Caltrans does not require reporting of the performance of any other attributes utilized in this study.

Summary of Proposed VA Alternative Performance Improvements Alt. No.

Multi-Modal
Connectivity
Long-Term
Environmental
Impacts
Construction
Impacts
Traffic
Operations Maintainability Project
Schedule

1.0 Improved Improved Improved Improved

2.0 Improved

3.0 Improved

4.0 Improved

5.0 Improved Improved Improved

6.0 Improved

7.0 Improved Improved Improved
12

Page 1006 of 1065 ends

San Luis Obispo City CouncilAugust 4, 2026

San Luis Obispo City Council
August 4, 2026