My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:242
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:242
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/12/2006 2:05:17 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:09:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/17/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:242
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
348
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Marion Pavan <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />July 12, 2006 <br />ROOll <br /> <br />2c. Engineered Fill - BGC recommends that if strippings are incorporated into the <br />fill, that the mixture only be used in landscaping areas. BGC also indicates that <br />loose fill lifts of 8 to 12 inches are routinely successful, and they have <br />recommended a minimum 90% relative compaction for several projects in <br />Pleasanton. No estimates of future differential settlements of fill placed using <br />these standards are provided. <br /> <br />CSA Comment - We agree with the use of a strippings/clean fill mix only in <br />landscaped areas. With respect to lift thicknesses of 12 inches and 90% relative <br />compaction below homes, we recommend grading plan approval if the Project <br />Geotechnical Consultant provides estimates of future total and differential <br />settlement below lots constructed on engineered fill. These estimates could then <br />be considered by future lot-specific geotechnical engineers during foundation <br />design. Monitoring of fill settlement over time should also be considered to <br />assist with individual lot design. <br /> <br />2d, Cut and Fill Slopes - In our previous letter, we (CSA) asked for building setback <br />recommendations away from the tops and bottoms of slopes. We also observed <br />that based on the current grading plan, 3H:1V cut/fill slopes were shown, but <br />that BGC's May 25, 2006 report indicated that 2H:1V slopes could be constructed <br />if predominately granular materials were used. We noted that if 2H:1V fill <br />slopes were subsequently recommended, slope stability analyses would be <br />needed. BGC responded that our comments are noted, however, no fill slope <br />gradients steeper than 3H:1 V are planned. <br /> <br />CSA Comment - We recommend approval of the final grading plan if no slopes <br />steeper than 3H:1V are planned, and if the Project Geotechnical Consultant <br />provides building setbacks away from the tops and bottoms of slopes. <br /> <br />2e. Utility Trench Backfill - BGC considered non-permeable plugs in utility trench <br />backfill, however, in their opinion plugs can have a tendency to force <br />groundwater to daylight at the plugs. To drain groundwater out of storm drain <br />trenches, BGC recommends u1stalling a 4-inch diameter, 10.foot long perforated <br />pipe in Class 2 Permeable Material at the upstream ends of the catch basins, <br />These drainage pipes would drain into the catch basins a few inches above the <br />box invert elevation. BGC indicates that sewage lines tend to be deep, and tend <br />not to be a cause of surfacing groundwater, and joint trench drainage or <br />plugging tends to be problematic due to utility company backfill requirements. <br />Consequently, the subdrain requirements apply only to storm drain pipelines. <br /> <br />COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.