My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 82446
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
RES 82446
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/7/2012 4:20:35 PM
Creation date
2/29/2000 5:52:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/9/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
Mr. Robert L. Warh,ck <br />September 16, 1982 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. <br /> <br />this investigation one location was found to be unsuitable from a geotech- <br />nical standpoint, and the other location was found to be favorable for a <br />reservoir site. However, this second location was not chosen and a third <br />location at the site was designated. <br /> <br />The geologic conditions and the seismici ty of the third location was ana- <br />lyzed by Burkland and Associates in July 1973. The Burkland study included <br />test trenches, interpretation of aerial photographs and a ground magneto- <br />meter survey. <br /> <br />A subsequent report by William F. Jones in December 1974 provided founda- <br />tion design parameters for a 3.0 mg reservoir. No test borings or labora- <br />tory testing were performed in connection with this report, and the recom- <br />mended design parameters were based on information in the Burkland report. <br /> <br />Utilizing the information described above,.the following work will be per- <br />formed: <br /> <br />a. Drill 3 or 4 test holes at and adjacent to the Foothill site. <br /> <br />Perform laboratory analysis of materials collected during the <br />drilling process. <br /> <br />With the results from a. and b., determine the thickness and <br />physical properties of the soil, and the physical properties of <br />the underlying bedrock. <br /> <br />Compare the results of c. to the geologic and soils information <br />obtained in Task l, and to the information contained in the <br />Burkland and Jones reports for a smaller reservoir. <br /> <br />Perform a geotechnical engineering analysis and prepare bearing <br />pressure and other geotechnical parameters for reservoir design. <br /> <br />Task 3 - Preliminary Reservoir Type and Sizing <br /> <br />Based upon the information from Task 1 and 2, alternative reservoir layouts <br />and types will be studied for the maximum size of reservoir that can be <br />accomodated at the existing siteconsidering known physical constraints. <br />The reservoir also must be placed at the proper elevation in order for the <br />overall water system to operate correctly. The reservoir types could be <br />either above ground or partially buried. Cut materials could be used as a <br />berm to provide visual shielding of the reservoir. An above ground reser- <br />voir could be made of steel, reinforced concrete, or prestressed concrete. <br />Partially buried reservoirs could be made of reinforced concrete or pre- <br />stressed concrete with horizontal or sloped bottoms. Roof structures could <br />be steel, concrete in a dome or flat shape, fiberglass, aluminum or wood. <br /> <br />Conceptual layouts for the maximum size reservoir will be prepared for two <br />or more reservoir types. Freehand drawings will be prepared for each of <br />the conceptual layouts. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.