Laserfiche WebLink
3. ~: We would discuss on a reconnaissance level, the <br /> potential geologic hazards at the site, including liquefaction, lateral <br /> spreading, differential seismic compaction, fault rupture, and ground <br /> shaking. <br /> <br />4. Seismiei .ty: We would discuss the regional seismicity including regional <br /> active faults, maximum estimated ground shaking, maximum past ground <br /> shaking, and furore earthquake probabilities. We would provide a regional <br /> fault map showing the proximity of the site to major Bay Area faults <br /> within 100-km radius of the site. <br /> <br />5. Settlements: Since the site is underlain by highly compressible Bay Mud, <br /> we would estimate the future site settlement, taking into account the <br /> weight of the existing fill and any additional fill proposed. This <br /> information will be required for development of the surface drainage and <br /> underground utility design. <br /> <br />6. ~: Utilizing the data collected during our investigation, we <br /> would recommend suitable foundation types for the planned fire station. <br /> We would include alternatives for both shallow and deep foundation types. <br /> We would provide foundation design criteria including recommendations <br /> for minimum size, embedment depth, allowable vertical and lateral <br /> capacities, and expected total and differential settlements. <br /> <br />7. ~: We would present slab-on-grade criteria, including <br /> recommendations for subgrade preparation and minimizing moisture rise <br /> through slabs-on-grade. <br /> <br />8. Ea~hwork: We would present earthwork criteria, including <br /> recommendations for clearing and site preparation, subgrade preparation, <br /> compaction, materials for fill, reuse of on-site materials, temporary and <br /> permanent cut and fill slopes, utility trench backfill, surface drainage and <br /> landscaping considerations, as appropriate. <br /> <br />9. Relail~: We would present retaining wall design criteria, <br /> including recommended foundation type, lateral earth pressures, drainage, <br /> and backfill. <br /> <br /> 10. Pavements: We would present flexible asphaltic concrete pavement <br /> sections for traffic indices ranging from 4.0 to 6.0. We would also present <br /> Portland Cement concrete pavement sections for the anticipated fire track <br /> traffic. Pavement design would be based on results of R-value testing and <br /> the expected properties of import soils. <br /> <br /> 11. P_~: We would attend two project meetings at no more than <br /> four hours each, including travel from our office. <br /> Page 6 of 17 <br /> <br /> <br />