preliminary geotechnical investigation proposed mixed use ......st.clair partners pn 14069-00 april...

Preliminary GeotechnicalInvestigation

Proposed Mixed Use Project1516 S. Marengo

Alhambra, California

PN 14069-00April 29, 2016

St.Clair Partners PN 14069-00April 29,2016

S:\Projects\KCG\2014\14069\14069-00 Rpt Alhambra 04-29-16.doc

2

TABLE OFCONTENTS

Page No.1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................4

1.1 Purpose and Scope ofW ork....................................................................................................41.2 Site Location and Description .................................................................................................41.3 Proposed Improvements.......................................................................................................... 5

2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 52.1 Field Exploration .................................................................................................................... 52.2 Geologic Setting..................................................................................................................... 52.3 Groundwater........................................................................................................................... 52.4 Seismic Code Provisions......................................................................................................... 52.5 Liquefaction Potential ............................................................................................................. 6

2.5.1 Seismically Induced Settlement ......................................................................................... 62.5.2 Lateral Spreading............................................................................................................. 6

3.0 GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................... 73.1 R-Value.................................................................................................................................. 73.2 Expansive Soil Characteristics ................................................................................................ 73.3 Soluble Sulfate Exposure ........................................................................................................ 73.4 Corrosion Potential ................................................................................................................. 73.5 EarthworkShrinkage and Subsidence...................................................................................... 7

4.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 85.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................9

5.1 EarthworkSpecifications ........................................................................................................95.2 Subgrade Preparation..............................................................................................................95.3 Conventional Shallow Foundations (Not IncludingMedical Office)...................................... 105.4 Medical Office BuildingFoundations ................................................................................... 11

5.4.1 Conventional Foundation – Medical Office..................................................................... 115.4.2 Mat Foundation – Medical Office ................................................................................... 11

5.5 Settlement............................................................................................................................. 125.6 Slab-On-Grade...................................................................................................................... 125.7 Pavement Design .................................................................................................................. 13

5.7.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement ............................................................................................ 135.7.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement ............................................................................. 13

5.8 Concrete Flatwork................................................................................................................ 145.9 Sulfate exposure ................................................................................................................... 145.10 Corrosion Potential ............................................................................................................... 145.11 Temporary Excavations ........................................................................................................ 145.12 Drainage............................................................................................................................... 155.13 Plans Review & Demolition.................................................................................................. 15

6.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 15



3

TABLE OFCONTENTS(Continued)

Attachments:

Figure 1 – Site Location MapFigure 2 – BoringLocation Map

AppendixA – ReferencesAppendixB – Exploration BoringLogsAppendixC – Laboratory Test ResultsAppendixD – Hardscape RecommendationsAppendixE – General Earthworkand GradingSpecificationsAppendixF – ASFEInsert



4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of W ork

The purpose ofour preliminary geotechnical investigation would be to characterize therelevant engineeringproperties ofthe near-surface soils to a reasonable depthbelow theinfluence ofproposed buildingfoundations in order to formulate recommendations forremedial grading, foundation design parameters, pavement and flatworkconstruction, andgeneral site improvements.

Our scope ofworkincluded the following:

Compilation and interpretation ofavailable, previously documented geologic andgeotechnical data for the property;

Coordination with Underground Service Alert to mark and identify buriedutilities;

Field reconnaissance ofthe site and drillingand loggingoffour (4)hand augerborings drilled to depths of6.0 feet to 11.0 feet within the proposed developmentareas. Bulk and drive samples were obtained in the field and delivered to ourlaboratory for testingand evaluation;

Laboratory testingwas performed on selected soil samples. Laboratory testingincluded moisture/density determinations, maximum density, atterberg limits,expansion index, percent fines, direct shear, consolidation, corrosion, and R-Value;

Analysis and recommendations ofconventional foundations for the proposedstructures, total and differential settlement, and seismic design parameters;

Preparation ofthis geotechnical investigation report whichpresents a summary ofour field exploration, recommendations for the proposed development, seismicdesign parameters, general earthwork and remedial guidelines, preliminaryfoundation recommendations, and pavement recommendations.

1.2 Site Locationand Description

The project site is located on 1516 S. Marengo Avenue in the City ofAlhambra. The siteis bounded to the northby W est Valley Boulevard, to the southby W est Glendon W ay, tothe east by Benito Avenue, and to the west by SouthMarengo Avenue. Currently the siteis occupied by buildings, parking lots, and landscape areas. Figure 1 illustrates thegeographic location ofthe project site.

Figure:PN:Date:

114069-00

April 29, 2016

Site Location Map1516 S. Marengo Avenue

Alhambra, CA 91803

Reference: Map Data © 2016 Google

SITE

N

Not To Scale



5

1.3 Proposed Improvements

It is our understanding the subject site, which is currently being utilized as a nursinghome, would be developed as a mixed used complexconsistingofvarious one to three-story residential and retail buildings, and a two-story medical office withan undergroundparking structure. To accommodate for the proposed improvements, existingbuildings/structures will be demolished except the skilled nursingbuildinglocated on thewest middle side of the property. Based on the existing grades and proposedimprovements grade changes will be generally limited.

2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

2.1 Field Exploration

On February 19, 2016 four (4)hand auger borings were excavated rangingin depthfrom6 to 11 feet. The materials encountered consist ofapproximately 6 inches oftopsoilunderlain by alluvium to the maximum depthexplored. These materials were dry to moistand loose to dense silty sands. The locations ofthe borings are illustrated on Figure 2.Full descriptions ofthe materials encountered are presented in the boring logs inAppendixB.

2.2 GeologicSetting

The subject project area is within the eastern central portion ofthe Los AngelesQuadrangle. This portion ofthe quadrangle includes the areas and cities ofEast LosAngeles, Monterey Park, and Alhambra. This area consists ofolder established highlyurbanized areas.

The alluvial materials encountered in this portion ofthe quadrangle are considered to beolder fan deposits that are generally dense to very dense sand, silt, and gravel depositsthat are not considered to be potentially liquefiable.

Locally the encountered materials consisted offine-grained silty sands that were loose tomedium dense and dry to damp.

2.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in any ofthe borings that were augered to a maximumdepthof11 feet. The highest recorded groundwater level at a nearby monitoringwell, asreported by the California Department ofW ater Resources -W ater Data Library, is308.64feet below the ground surface. The measurement was recorded in July of2013.

2.4 SeismicCode Provisions

Presented below are the site seismic parameters utilizing geologic, seismic andgeotechnical data gathered for the site. All structures should be designed for earthquake

Figure:PN:Date:

214069-00

April 29, 2016

Boring Location Map 1516 S. Marengo Avenue

Alhambra, CA 91803Reference: JZMK Partners, 2015, Site Plan - Alhambra Mixed Use Project, Alhambra, California, 40 scaled, dated 09/29/2015.

Not to Scale

Legend

KB-4 Approximate Location of Boringby KCG

N

KB-4

KB-3

KB-2

KB-1



6

induced strongground motions in accordance withthe 2013 CBC procedures utilizingthefollowingparameters:

Table 2.4.1 -SeismicDesignParameters

Site Class(Soil Profile) D

Latitude 34.075696

Longitude -118.141543

ShortPeriod Spectral Acceleration,Ss: 2.678

1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration,S1: 0.927

Site Coefficient,Fa: 1.0

Site Coefficient,Fv: 1.5

Maximum Considered EarthquakeSpectral Response Acceleration,SMS:

2.678

Maximum Considered EarthquakeSpectral Response Acceleration,SM1:

1.390

DesignSpectral Response Acceleration,SDS: 1.785

DesignSpectral Response Acceleration,SD1: 0.927

SeismicDesignCategory E*

* W hen S1 is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E forbuildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and Ffor those in Risk Category IV,irrespective ofthe above.

2.5 LiquefactionPotential

The Seismic Hazards Zones map, Los Angeles Quadrangle indicated that the subject sitedoes not lie in a potentially liquefiable area.

Based on our review ofpublished geologic data, subsurface data, the highest reportedgroundwater elevation, onsite soil characteristics and laboratory testing, it is ourprofessional opinion that the site is not susceptible to liquefaction.

2.5.1 Seismically Induced Settlement

The potential for seismically induced settlement is unlikely as the onsite soilgenerally consists ofwell graded soils with a high percent offine grainedmaterial.

2.5.2 Lateral Spreading

The potential for lateral spreading is unlikely based on information whichindicates that the site is not liquefiable as discussed above. Additionally, theground surface is generally flat withno free slopes adjacent to the project.



7

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 R-Value

In order to prepare preliminary structural flexible pavement section designrecommendations as well as to evaluate the existing pavement sections, the on-sitesubgrade soils were tested for R-Value. All tests were conducted in general accordancewiththe applicable Caltrans Test Method. Test results for R-Value indicate a range from10 to 30 by exudation. All laboratory test methods and standards pertaining to thisproject, as well as the tests results are presented in AppendixC.

3.2 Expansive Soil Characteristics

Based on a test performed on representative near-surface soils, the samples testedexhibited expansion indices of9and 19.

3.3 Soluble Sulfate Exposure

The soils tested duringthis investigation indicated a soluble sulfate content rangingfrom6 to 117 parts per million.

3.4 CorrosionPotential

Soils tested within the subject site indicated a resistivity of8000 ohm-cm (saturated)asper CA 643.

3.5 EarthworkShrinkage and Subsidence

Based on our field and laboratory density tests and observations, the followingestimateofshrinkage and subsidence factors ofthe on-site compacted fill soils are presented fordesign consideration.

Shrinkage Factor - 10% to 15%Subsidence Factor - 0.1 to 0.2 feet

Althoughthe above values are only approximate, they represent our best estimate oflostyardage whichwould likely occur duringre-grading.



8

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

The followingconclusions are based upon our analysis and review ofgeotechnical data. It is ouropinion that the proposed commercial site improvements are geotechnically feasible, providedthat the recommendations ofthis report are followed duringfuture site development and design.

Generally, the upper three feet ofexposed alluvium is not considered suitable for support ofconventional foundations, and other site improvements. Additionally, demotion ofexistingstructures could potentially disturb soils to greater depths and unsuitable material removalsshould be reevaluated after demotion. Recommendations for unsuitable material removalbelow proposed buildingareas are discussed in Section 5.0 -Recommendations.

No active faults are known to exist at the site and the risk ofsurface fault rupture isconsidered to be very low. However, the project site lies within a region ofhistoricalseismicity and will likely be subject to seismic shakingin the future.

The potential for liquefaction to occur within the site is unlikely due to the highfines contentofthe onsite soil and the absence ofshallow groundwater. The site is not located within aState ofCalifornia recognized seismic hazard zone.

Seismically induced settlement and lateral spreadingare not likely to occur at the site duringseismic events.

Groundwater is considered to be at a depth such that it should not pose a constructionproblem for the proposed development.

Mat foundations and/or continuous and square pad footings may be used to support proposedstructures.

Based on laboratory testingan R-value of10 will be used for design ofstructural flexiblepavement sections.

Laboratory testingindicates that the soil has “very low”expansion potential.

Based on near-surface soil test results, the on-site soil indicated a soluble sulfate content thatis considered “Class S0 -not applicable”to sulfate exposure as per the 2014ACI ConcreteManual ofPractice as indicated in Section 19, Table 3.1.1.

Laboratory testingon surficial deposits within the subject site has preliminarily indicated thesoil is likely “corrosive” to ferrous metals when the soil is saturated, as per Caltransguidelines. A qualified corrosion consultant should be retained to provide more specificrecommendations regardingcorrosion protection.



9

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations presented herein are preliminary and subject to revision ifnew informationbecomes available. Recommendations should be reevaluated at the conclusion ofdemolition ofexistingstructures. The recommendations are also subject to verification duringconstruction.

5.1 EarthworkSpecifications

All gradingshould be performed in accordance withthe General Earthworkand GradingSpecifications presented in AppendixE, unless specifically revised or amended below.Gradingshould also conform to all applicable governingagency requirements. Prior tocommencement ofgrading operations, all vegetation, organic topsoil, and man-madestructures (i.e., tanks, pipes, fences, etc.)should be cleared and disposed ofoff-site. Allareas receiving fill should be scarified to 6 inches and/or over-excavated, moisture-conditioned to between optimum moisture and two to four percent above optimummoisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of90 percent relative compaction asdetermined by ASTM D1557. Soil material excavated from the site should be adequatefor re-use as compacted fill provided it is free oftrash, vegetation, and other deleteriousmaterial. All earthwork and grading operations should be performed under theobservation and testingofthe geotechnical consultant ofrecord.

5.2 Subgrade Preparation

In order to render the site suitable to support the proposed improvements, it isrecommended that the following recommendations be implemented during grading.These recommendations should be reevaluated based on the depthofdisturbed soil afterdemolition ofexistingstructures. It is recommended that additional test pits be excavatedand recorded by the geotechnical engineer after demolition to determine these depths.

For all areas to be graded there is the potential for findingundocumented artificial fillmaterials. It is recommended that all existingartificial fill materials where encounteredbe over-excavated and replaced withcompacted fill.

BuildingAreas (Not IncludingMedical Office)

In order to provide uniform bearing material to support the proposed structures, it isrecommended that existing soil in the upper four feet be over-excavated and replacedwithcompacted fill. At the completion ofgradinga minimum offour feet ofcompactedfill should exist within the structural areas regardless ofthe design cut or fill, or two feetofcompacted fill exists below the deepest footing, whichever is deeper. The upper 6inches ofexposed bottom ofremoval should be processed in accordance with therecommendations presented in Section 5.1.

Medical Office Building

The medical buildingis to be constructed on top ofa basement structure that will havefoundations bearing in natural alluvium considered to be competent bearing material.



10

Foundation excavations should be evaluated by a representative ofour office to confirmthat the exposed material is competent and therefore no processingwould be required. Inareas that expose soft or loose soils, processing (including removal and replacement)would be required to render the bearingstratum suitable to support foundations.

Pavement Area

In pavement areas exposing weathered alluvium, the upper two to three feet oftheexistingsoil should be removed and recompacted to at least 90 percent ofthe laboratorymaximum dry density. Regardless ofthe design cut or fill, pavement areas should beunderlain by at least two feet ofcompacted fill. The upper 6 inches ofexposed bottom ofremoval should be processed in accordance with the recommendations presented inSection 5.1

5.3 Conventional Shallow Foundations(NotIncluding Medical Office)

All foundation criteria are considered minimum requirements that may be superseded bymore stringent requirements from the architect, structural engineer, or governingagencies.

The following geotechnical design parameters are provided for design ofproposedfoundations ofthe one to three story buildingstructures. The proposed buildings may besupported by continuous and square pad footings utilizingan allowable bearingpressureof1800 pounds per square foot. The width ofthe continuous footings should be aminimum of18 inches embedded to a minimum depthof18 inches (one-story)and 24inches (two to three-stories)below the lowest adjacent grade. For square pad footings, itis recommended that the widthbe at least 18 inches embedded a minimum of18 inches(one-story)and 24inches (two to three-stories)below the lowest adjacent grade. Bearingpressures may be increased by 200 pounds per square foot per additional foot ofwidthordepth to a maximum allowable bearing pressure of2500 pounds per square foot. Acoefficient offriction of0.35 may be used, alongwitha passive lateral resistance of250pounds per square foot per foot ofembedment. Footings should bear on at least two feetofcompacted fill.

Ifnormal code requirements are used for seismic design, the allowable bearingvalue andcoefficient offriction may be increased by 1/3 for short duration loads, suchas the effectofwind or seismic forces.

Ifany utility lines are within a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical)projection from the bottom ofafooting, they may be within the influence zone ofthe proposed footing load. Ifthiscondition exists, the proposed footingshould be deepened so that the utility is outside thezone ofinfluence;the utility line could also be relocated or encased withconcrete slurry.These conditions should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Additionally, there may beutility lines within the vicinity oftemporary backcuts for footing over-excavations.Should that occur, shoring may be required to protect the utility lines and siteimprovements duringexcavation.



11

5.4 Medical Office Building Foundations

Recommendations are provided below for mat and conventional foundations to supportthe proposed two-story medical office buildingwithone-story basement. All foundationcriteria are considered minimum requirements that may be superseded by more stringentrequirements from the architect, structural engineer, or governingagencies.

5.4.1 Conventional Foundation – Medical Office

The following geotechnical design parameters are provided for design ofproposed foundations ofthe one to three story buildingstructures. The proposedbuildings may be supported by continuous and square pad footings utilizinganallowable bearing pressure of1800 pounds per square foot. The width ofthecontinuous footings should be a minimum of18 inches embedded to a minimumdepthof18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. For square pad footings, it isrecommended that the widthbe at least 18 inches embedded a minimum of18inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Bearingpressures may be increased by200 pounds per square foot per additional foot ofwidthor depthto a maximumallowable bearing pressure of3000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient offriction of0.35 may be used, alongwitha passive lateral resistance of250 poundsper square foot per foot ofembedment. Footings should bear on at least two feetofcompacted fill.

Ifnormal code requirements are used for seismic design, the allowable bearingvalue and coefficient offriction may be increased by 1/3 for short duration loads,suchas the effect ofwind or seismic forces.

Ifany utility lines are within a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical)projection from thebottom ofa footing, they may be within the influence zone ofthe proposedfootingload. Ifthis condition exists, the proposed footingshould be deepened sothat the utility is outside the zone ofinfluence;the utility line could also berelocated or encased withconcrete slurry. These conditions should be evaluatedon a case by case basis. Additionally, there may be utility lines within the vicinityoftemporary backcuts for footingover-excavations. Should that occur, shoringmay be required to protect the utility lines and site improvements duringexcavation.

5.4.2 Mat Foundation – Medical Office

In light ofthe expected seismic settlement, a stiffened foundation system shouldbe considered. The system should consist ofa mat foundation or post-tensionedslab designed for the imposed structural loads as well as the differential settlementas illustrated on the settlement contour plan, Figure 3.



12

For design ofthe foundation slab, the followingparameters are presented.

Subgrade modulus value (kvalue)of125 pounds per square inchper inch.

Maximum bearingvalue of3000 pounds per square foot can be assumed.

A coefficient offriction of0.35 may be used, along with a passive lateralresistance of250 pounds per square foot per foot ofembedment.

Ifnormal code requirements are used for seismic design, the allowable bearingvalue and coefficient offriction may be increased by 1/3 for short duration loads,suchas the effect ofwind or seismic forces.

5.5 Settlement

Static settlement ofproposed foundations is not expected to exceed one (1)inchon totaland one half(0.5)inchdifferential over 50 horizontal feet, provided the recommendationspresented herein are implemented duringgradingand design ofthe structures.

5.6 Slab-On-Grade

These recommendations are considered to be minimum requirements that may besuperseded by more stringent requirements from the architect, structural engineer, orgoverningagencies.

Concrete slabs should be at least 4inches in thickness underlain by a minimum 4-inchcapillary break using ½-inch open graded gravel or other material approved by thegeotechnical engineer. Actual slab thickness and reinforcement should be determined bythe structural engineer based on structural loads. Our recommendations should besuperseded by the recommendations ofthe structural engineer or architect.

A Stego® W rap Vapour Barrier, 15 mil, ASTM E1745 Class A Vapor Barrier should beplaced underlyingthe rockin dry weather conditions. For wet weather the vapor barriershould be placed above the gravel and it is recommended that this method be avoidedwhen practical. Care should be taken not to drive heavy equipment on the gravel layer asit may puncture the vapor barrier. The vapor barrier should be lapped, taped or sealed perthe manufacturer's specifications. All penetrations for utilities and piping through thevapor barrier should also be taped or sealed in accordance with the manufacturer'srecommendations. The vapor barrier should be inspected by a representative ofthegeotechnical engineer prior to pouringconcrete.

Subgrade soils should be placed wet ofthe optimum moisture content and moistureshould be maintained until placement ofthe concrete slab. Additional testingshould beperformed at completion ofprecise gradingto verify our recommendations.



13

5.7 PavementDesign

Pavement section design is provided below based on near surface soil conditionsencountered duringour investigation and assumed traffic loading.

5.7.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement

In order to prepare preliminary structural flexible pavement section designrecommendations, the on-site subgrade soils were tested for R-Value. The R-Values ofthe onsite soil tested are 10 and 30.

Based on an R-value of10, the parameters below are provided for designpurposes. Pavement sections were calculated for traffic indices of4.0 and 5.5,whichare commonly used for parkingstalls and drive aisles subject to passengervehicles, respectively. However, the selection ofactual traffic indexshould be thepurview ofthe project civil or traffic engineer.

Table 5.7.1.1.–PavementSectionDesign

Multiple Layered

Location R-ValueTrafficIndex

AsphaltConcrete(inches)

AggregateBase*

(inches)Parking

Stall10 4.0 3.0 5.0

DriveAisles

10 5.5 3.0 12.0

*Aggregate base material should consist ofClass 2 aggregate base materials orCrushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB).

The upper 12 inches ofthe subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 90percent of the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). All basematerials should be compacted to at least 95 percent ofthe laboratory maximumdry density (ASTM D1557).

5.7.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement

For preliminary design ofconcrete pavement, it is recommended that a concretepavement section consistingof6 inches ofconcrete underlain by at least 6 inchesofeither class 2 or crushed miscellaneous base be used for preliminary design.Concrete compressive strength should be 4000 psi or greater. Aggregate basematerial should be compacted to a minimum of95 percent relative compaction asper ASTM D1557. Subgrade soil should be compacted to at least 90 percent ofthe laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557. Ifconcrete crackcontrol is desired, the slabs should be minimally reinforced withNo. 4rebar, placed every 18 inches on center, bothways. A 10-foot square or lessgrid system should be used in the construction ofcontinuous sections ofconcretepavement or as recommended by the structural engineer.



14

For trashenclosures, concrete pavement should consist ofa minimum 8-inchthickconcrete slab placed over a minimum of6-inches ofeither Class 2 or crushedmiscellaneous base material, compacted to 95 percent relative compaction.Concrete should have a minimum strengthof4000 psi, and be reinforced withaminimum ofNo. 4bars placed at 18 inches on center, in eachdirection, positivelysupported (withconcrete chairs or other devices)at mid-height in the slab. Crackcontrol joints should be placed at a 10-foot maximum spacingin eachdirection inthe slab or as recommended by the structural engineer. Concrete mix designshould incorporate the recommendations presented in the slab on grade section ofthis report for improved geotechnical performance.

5.8 Concrete Flatwork

Laboratory testing ofsurficial soils revealed that the on-site soil material present has“very low” expansion potential. Appendix E contains a table listing our hardscaperecommendations for varying degrees of expansive soils. This table should bepreliminarily followed for “very low”expansion potential for E.I. =0-20.

5.9 Sulfate exposure

Based on the soluble sulfate test results the on-site soils possess a sulfate exposure that isconsidered “Class S0 -not applicable”. Concrete should be designed in accordance withACI 318, Tables 19.3.1.1, utilizing“Class S0”sulfate exposure.

5.10 CorrosionPotential

Based on preliminary testing, on-site soils are expected to be “corrosive” to buriedmetals. In general, ferrous materials in contact withon-site soils should be encased orwrapped witha dielectric material to isolate them from the on-site soils. Alternatively,plastic pipingmay also be used. Post-tensioningreinforcement ifused, should also bereviewed by the structural engineer in light ofthe corrosive nature ofthe soil conditionson site. The corrosion potential ofthe on-site soils should be verified duringor afterprecise gradingby additional laboratory testing. A qualified corrosion consultant shouldbe retained to provide more specific recommendations regardingcorrosion protection.

5.11 TemporaryExcavations

Soil excavated from the site can be excavated using conventional earthmovingequipment. Shoringsystems, duringexcavation, may yield causingadjacent facilities andimprovements to settle slightly. The magnitude ofshoringmovements and the resultingsettlements are difficult to estimate because they depend on many factors, includingthemethod ofinstallation and the contractor’s skill with installing the shoring system.Lateral deflections for a properly designed and constructed shoringsystem would likelybe within ordinarily accepted limits ofapproximately 1-inch. A monitoring programshould be established to evaluate the effects ofshoringconstruction on other facilities.



15

Provided the excavations are above groundwater, temporary excavations and trenchwallsto a depthoffour feet may be made vertically without shoring, subject to verification ofsafety by the contractor. Deeper excavations (exclusive ofthe basement/subterraneanlevels discussed above)should be no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical)or bracedor shored in accordance withCAL OSHA standards and guidelines. The contractor isassumed responsible for maintainingsafety at the jobsite. All excavation workshould bein compliance with current CAL OSHA standards. Under no circumstances shouldexcavations be made deeper than four feet or below groundwater without shoring,bracingor laying-back, in accordance withCAL OSHA standards and guidelines. Nosurcharge loads should be allowed within five feet from the top ofthe cuts.

Existingutility lines, roadways and other easements/right-of-ways may be impacted bythe temporary excavations may require shoringto obtain the full depthofthe excavation.

5.12 Drainage

Drainage away from structures should be designed in accordance withthe requirementsset forthby Section 1804ofthe 2013 CBC.

5.13 PlansReview & Demolition

During demolition operations, a representative ofthe geotechnical engineer should becalled to observe removals ofexistingfoundations, large trees, and other removals thatcould disturb soils below three feet.

The geotechnical consultant should review the foundation and gradingplans to commenton the anticipated effects ofany major changes from the site plan used in this report.

6.0 LIMITATIONS

Geotechnical services are provided by Kling Consulting Group, Inc. in accordance withgenerally accepted professional engineering and geologic practice in the area where theseservices are to be rendered. Client acknowledges that the present standard in the engineeringandgeologic and environmental profession does not include a guarantee ofperfection and, except asexpressly set forthin the Conditions above, no warranty, expressed or implied, is extended byKCG.

Geotechnical reports are based on the project description and proposed scope ofwork asdescribed in the proposal. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the results ofthefield, laboratory, and office studies, combined withan interpolation and extrapolation ofsoilconditions as described in the report. The results reflect our geotechnical interpretation ofthelimited direct evidence obtained. Our conclusions and recommendations are made contingentupon the opportunity for KCG to continue to provide geotechnical services beyond the scope inthe proposal to include all geotechnical services. Ifparties other than ZKCI are engaged toprovide such services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume completeresponsibility for the geotechnical workofthe project by concurringwiththe recommendationsin our report or by providingalternate recommendations.



16

It is the readers’ responsibility to verify the correct interpretation and intention of therecommendations presented herein. KCG assumes no responsibility for misunderstandings orimproper interpretations that result in unsatisfactory or unsafe workproducts. It is the reader’sfurther responsibility to acquire copies ofany supplemental reports, addenda, or responses topublic agency reviews that may supersede recommendations in this report.

KlingConsultingGroup, Inc. appreciates this opportunity to be ofservice. Should you have anyquestions regardingour report, please do not hesitate to call our office.

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES



APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

1. American Concrete Institute, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete(ACI 318-14)and Commentary, Section 19.

2. California BuildingStandards Commission, 2013, California BuildingCode, Volume 2.

3. California Department ofW ater Resources, 2014, Groundwater Level Data, accessedFebruary 16, 2016, URL: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/.

4. California Division ofMines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones, Los AngelesQuadrangle, Los Angeles, California, dated March25, 199900.

5. California Division ofMines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the LosAngeles 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 20,1998.

6. California Division ofMines and Geology, 1977, Special Studies Zone, Los AngelesQuadrangle, Los Angeles, California, dated January 1, 1977.

7. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M. [co-chairmen]and 19 others, 2001. Liquefaction Resistance ofSoils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF W orkshops on theEvaluation ofLiquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal ofGeotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering, October 2001, pp. 817-833.

APPENDIX B

EXPLORATION BORING LOGS

113

106

99

8

6

11

EISUCO

DS

CN

@0.0-0.4 inches - TOPSOIL Alluvium (Qal)

@ 1.0 feet - Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, fine grained,rootlets up to 1/8" , tiny pores, random gravel up to 1/4",damp, loose.

@ 2.5 feet - Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, fine grained,tiny pores, damp, medium dense.@ 3.0 feet - Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, fine grained,some cementation, tiny pores, dry to damp, medium dense.

@ 5.0 feet - Silty SAND (SM): light brown, fine-grained,some cementation, dry to damp, medium dense.

@ 10.0 feet - Silty SAND (SM): light brown, fine grained,rootlets up to 1/8", dry to damp, dense.

Total Depth: 11.0 FeetNo GroundwaterNo CavingBackfilled with cuttings on 02/19/2016

Boring No.:Driller:Drill Type:Hammer Wt. / Drop:Ground Elev. [ft]:

KCGHand Auger

447.0

KB-1LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING ofSheet

Project:Project Number:Date Drilled:Logged By:

1 1Alhambra Sunnyview Care Center14069-002/19/16T.D.

HS

BA

TP

140

69-0

0.G

PJ

Klin

g C

onsu

lting

Gro

up, I

nc.

4/29

/16

Ele

vatio

n[ft

]

445

440

RemarksB

low

s/6"

Sam

ple

Type

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt [%

]D

ry D

ensi

ty,

[pcf

]

Dep

th[ft

]

Gra

phic

Log

5

10

Lab

Test

s

Poc

ket P

en.

[tsf]

Water LevelATD

BulkSample

StandardSplit Spoon

California Static WaterTable

ShelbyTube

SOIL DESCRIPTION and CLASSIFICATION (USCS)

113

85

16

14

MAXDS CN

@0.0-6.0 inches - TOPSOIL moist with vegetation androotsAlluvium (Qal)

@ 2.5 feet - Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, fine grained,rootlets up to 1/8", moist, loose.

@ 5.5 feet - SAME SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED.

@ 8.0 feet - Silty SAND (SM): brown, fine grained,rootlets up to 1/8", slightly micaceous, tiny pores, moist,medium dense.



KCGHand Auger

444.0




HS

BA

TP

140

69-0

0.G

PJ

Klin

g C

onsu

lting

Gro

up, I

nc.

4/29

/16

Ele

vatio

n[ft

]

440

435

RemarksB

low

s/6"

Sam

ple

Type

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt [%

]D

ry D

ensi

ty,

[pcf

]

Dep

th[ft

]

Gra

phic

Log

5

Lab

Test

s

Poc

ket P

en.

[tsf]

Water LevelATD

BulkSample

StandardSplit Spoon


ShelbyTube


55

118

25

13

GSALRV

@0.0-6.0 inches - TOPSOIL with vegetation and roots

Alluvium (Qal)

@ 2.5 feet - Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, fine grained,slightly micaceous, rootlets up to 1/8", damp, loose.

@ 5.0 feet - Silty SAND (SM): brown, fine grained, tinypores, damp, loose to medium dense.



KCGHand Auger

444.0




HS

BA

TP

140

69-0

0.G

PJ

Klin

g C

onsu

lting

Gro

up, I

nc.

4/29

/16

Ele

vatio

n[ft

]

440

RemarksB

low

s/6"

Sam

ple

Type

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt [%

]D

ry D

ensi

ty,

[pcf

]

Dep

th[ft

]

Gra

phic

Log

5

Lab

Test

s

Poc

ket P

en.

[tsf]

Water LevelATD

BulkSample

StandardSplit Spoon


ShelbyTube


114

115

116

16

15

16

EISURV

CN

@0.0-6 inches - TOPSOIL moist with vegetation androotsAlluvium (Qal)

@ 2.5 feet - Silty SAND (SM): brown, fine grained,rootlets up to 1/8", moist, loose to medium dense.

@ 5.5 feet - SAME

@ 7.5 feet - Silty SAND (SM): brown, fine grained, slightmicaceous, rootlets up to 1/8", moist, medium dense.



KCGHand Auger

441.0




HS

BA

TP

140

69-0

0.G

PJ

Klin

g C

onsu

lting

Gro

up, I

nc.

4/29

/16

Ele

vatio

n[ft

]

440

435

RemarksB

low

s/6"

Sam

ple

Type

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt [%

]D

ry D

ensi

ty,

[pcf

]

Dep

th[ft

]

Gra

phic

Log

5

Lab

Test

s

Poc

ket P

en.

[tsf]

Water LevelATD

BulkSample

StandardSplit Spoon


ShelbyTube


APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS



APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES

VISUAL CLASSIFICATION OFSOILS

As a part ofthe routine laboratory soil testing, the soil samples are visually classified inaccordance withthe Unified Soil Classification System by experienced laboratory technicians. Ifnecessary, in order to verify the visual classification, selected samples are classified utilizingtheresults ofStandard Classification tests performed in accordance withASTM D2487-00.

MOISTURE CONTENT AND DRY DENSITY DETERMINATION

Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbedsamples obtained during our field exploration. The field moisture content is obtained bymethods described in ASTM D2216-05. The in-situ dry unit weight was computed usingthe netweight and volume ofthe relatively undisturbed samples. The results ofthese tests are presentedon the borings logs in AppendixB.

MAXIMUM DENSITY TESTS

The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content oftypical materials is determined inaccordance with ASTM D1557-07 (five layers). The results ofthese tests are presentedgraphically as an attachment in this Appendixand tabulated in Table C-3.

DIRECT SHEAR TESTS

Direct shear tests were performed in general accordance withASTM D3080-904 on selectedremolded and/or undisturbed samples that were pre-soaked for a minimum of24hours. Thesamples were then tested under various normal loads;a different specimen beingused for eachnormal load. The samples were sheared in a motor driven, strain-controlled direct shear testingapparatus at a strain rate of0.05 in. per minute. The results ofthis test are presented in theLaboratory Summary, in Table C-2 and graphically as an attachment in this Appendix.

CONSOLIDATION TESTS

Consolidation tests were performed in general accordance withASTM D2435-04on selected,relatively undisturbed, ringsamples recovered from the exploratory excavations. Samples areplaced in a consolidometer where increasing load increments are applied in geometricprogression. The soil specimen is placed between porous stones that allow water to infiltrate andto flow ofthe soil sample. Duringthe loading stages prior to the addition ofwater, the soilsample is sealed in order to prevent evaporation ofsoil water. The load increment where waterwas added is indicated on the consolidation pressure curves. The percent consolidation for eachload cycle is recorded as the ratio ofthe amount ofvertical compression to the original 1-inchheight. The results ofthis test are presented graphically as an attachment in this Appendix.



APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES(Continued)

EXPANSION INDEX TEST

The expansion potential ofselected materials was evaluated by the Expansion IndexTest, U.B.C.Standard No. 18-2. The specimen was molded under a given compactive energy and moisturecontent to achieve approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inchthick by 4-inchdiameter specimen was then loaded witha 144 psfsurcharge and inundated withwater untilvolumetric equilibrium is reached. The result ofthis test is presented in the LaboratorySummary C-4.

SOLUBLE SULFATES

Soluble sulfate tests determined in general accordance with California Test Method No. 417were also performed on representative samples collected duringthe field investigation. Soilswith a sulfate concentration greater than 0.07% may be corrosive to metals;concentrationsgreater than 0.10% are considered potentially harmful to concrete and would require followingthe current U.B.C. for "moderate" or worse sulfate exposure requirements. The results ofthistest are presented in the Laboratory Summary.

R-VALUE

The suitability ofselected soil samples for support offlexible pavement was evaluated byconducting stabilometer resistance (R-Value) testing. R-value testing was performed inaccordance withCalifornia Standard Test Method No. 301. The results ofthis test are presentedin the Laboratory Summary.

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Representative samples were dried, weighed, and soaked in water until individual soil particleswere separated, and then washed on the No. 200 sieve. That portion ofthe material retained onthe No. 200 sieve was oven-dried and then run througha standard set ofsieves in accordancewith ASTM D422-63. The grain size distribution curves are attached to the LaboratorySummary.

ATTERBERG LIMITS

The Atterberglimits were performed in general accordance withASTM D4318-00 and are usedfrequently in soil classification and identification. The soil descriptions defined by the UnitedSoil Classification System (USCS)are based on these limits. Fine-grained soils are classified inthe laboratory by performingseveral tests that define the plastic and liquid limits. The results ofthese tests are presented graphically as an attachment in this Appendix.



LABORATORY TEST SUMMARY

Atterberg Limits

Location Soil DescriptionPercentPassing

#200 sieve

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

KB-3 @ 0’-5’Dk. brown Sandy Silt(ML)

63.5 19 15 4

ExpansionIndex,Soluble Sulfate and Corrosion

Location Soil DescriptionExpansion

IndexSoluble

Sulfate (% )

MinimumResistivity(ohm-cm)

KB-1 @ 0’-3'Dk. brown Clayey Sand(SC)

9 0.0006 8000

KB-4@ 0'–4.5'Dk. brown Clayey Sand(SC)

19 0.0117 -

Maximum Density

Location Soil DescriptionMaximum DryDensity

(pcf)Optimum Moisture

Content(% )

KB-2 @ 0’-5.5’ Dk. Brown Silty FineSand (SM)

129.0 9.5

R-Value

Location Soil Description R-Value

KB-3 @ 0’-5’ Brown Sandy Clay (CL) 10

KB-8 @ 0’-4.5’ Brown Sandy Silt (ML) 30

DirectShear

Location Soil Description Cohesion Frictionangle

KB-1 @ 5’Dk. Brown Silt FineSand (SM)

100 psf 30 degrees

KB-2 @ 2.5’Dk. Brown Silt FineSand (SM)

50 psf 31 degrees

PROJECT NO.: SOIL DESCRIPTIONS:

BORING NO./LOCATION : DEPTH / ELEV. : LIQUID LIMIT :

SPECIFIC GRAVITY : (Assumed) PLASTIC LIMIT:

TEL: (949)797-6241 Fax: (949)797-6260Irvine, Ca. 92614 18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250

16.0 115.4

2.68

(INCHES)

INITIAL 1.0000

VOID

-

-2.5'

0.449

CONSOLIDATION TESTCURVE

0.372101.4

95.4

1406-00

( % ) ( PCF )

DK. BROWN SANDY SILT (ML)

DRY DENSITY( % ) RATIO

KB - 2

SATURATION

FINAL 0.9465 14.1 121.9

MOISTURE CONTENTSPECIMEN HEIGHT

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

VERTICAL STRESS (TSF) C

HA

NG

E IN

HE

IGH

T (%

)





FINAL 0.9669 14.6 122.0

1406-00

( % ) ( PCF )

DK. BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL)


KB - 4

SATURATION

CURVE

0.370105.5

96.2 0.417

CONSOLIDATION TEST

VOID

-

-5.5'

2.68

(INCHES)

INITIAL 1.0000


15.0 118.1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0


HA

NG

E IN

HE

IGH

T (%

)





10.9 107.2

2.68

(INCHES)

INITIAL 1.0000

VOID

-

-10'

0.560

CONSOLIDATION TESTCURVE

0.449108.8

52.1

1406-00

( % ) ( PCF )

DK. BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC)


KB - 1

SATURATION

FINAL 0.9286 18.2 115.4


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0


HA

NG

E IN

HE

IGH

T (%

)

Project Name : Project No. :

Boring / Sample No : Depth : 5' (ft.) Tested By : Date:

Sample Descriptions / Classification :

Applied Normal Load (ksf)

Lateral Displacement, dh (in.)

Displacement Rate, dr ( in./min.)

Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Elapsed Time of Test, te (min.)

Wet Weight of Soil + Ring (gms) 174.13 192.79 176.6 193.26 176.06 193.63 Specimen : Undisturbed :Dry Weight of Soil + Ring (gms) 167.46 169.75 169.29 Remolded :Weight of Water (gms) - 46.54 - 47.28 - 45.81 Reconstituted :Weight of Ring (gms) - 46.13 - 45.18 - 46.26

Weight of Dry Soil (gms) - 121.33 - 124.57 - 123.03

Moisture Content ( % ) 5.5 38.4 5.5 38.0 5.5 37.2 Cohesion,c (psf)

Wet Density (pcf) 106.9 122.4 109.7 123.6 108.4 123.0 Friction Angle,

Dry Density (pcf) - 88.5 - 89.6 - 89.6

Specific Gravity,Gs (Assumed) Remarks :

16.6 115.5 17.0 117.4 17.0 115.3

- 0.890 - 0.867 - 0.866

8008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250 Irvine, Ca. 92614 Tel: (949)797-6241 Fax: (949)797-6260

Void Ratio

( ASTM D3080 )

DIRECT SHEAR

X

100

1.260

30

2.412

-

2.400

0.36

0.05

7.20

-

PEAK

30

TEST

ULTIMATE

100

14069-00

26-Feb-16RB

2.0 4.0

DK. BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

ALHAMBRA

KB - 1

1.0

0.672

Degree of Saturation, (%)

Thickness of Specimen, (in.)

Shear Stress,(Ultimate) (ksf)

Density and Saturation

1.00

Shear Stress,(Peak) (ksf)

2.68

0.660 1.260

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

NORMAL STRESS (ksf)

SH

EA

R S

TRE

SS

(ks

f)

Project Name : Project No. :

Boring / Sample No : Depth : 0 - 5.5' (ft.) Tested By : Date:

Sample Descriptions / Classification :

Applied Normal Load (ksf)

Lateral Displacement, dh (in.)

Displacement Rate, dr ( in./min.)

Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Elapsed Time of Test, te (min.)

Wet Weight of Soil + Ring (gms) 193.30 200.42 198.73 206.81 198.32 206.18 Specimen : Undisturbed :Dry Weight of Soil + Ring (gms) 180.09 185.52 185.11 Remolded :Weight of Water (gms) - 46.54 - 47.28 - 45.81 Reconstituted :Weight of Ring (gms) - 41.01 - 46.44 - 46.03

Weight of Dry Soil (gms) - 139.08 - 139.08 - 139.08

Moisture Content ( % ) 9.5 33.5 9.5 34.0 9.5 32.9 Cohesion,c (psf)

Wet Density (pcf) 127.2 133.1 127.2 133.9 127.2 133.7 Friction Angle,

Dry Density (pcf) - 99.7 - 99.9 - 100.6

Specific Gravity,Gs (Assumed) Remarks :

37.6 132.4 37.8 135.2 38.4 133.1

- 0.677 - 0.674 - 0.663

8008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250 Irvine, Ca. 92614 Tel: (949)797-6241 Fax: (949)797-6260

Void Ratio

( ASTM D3080 )

DIRECT SHEAR

-

50

1.236

31

2.412

X

2.412

0.36

0.05

7.20

-

PEAK

31

TEST

ULTIMATE

50

TO 90% OF (129.0 PCF @ 9.5%)SAMPLE REMOLDED

14069-00

25-Feb-16RB

2.0 4.0


ALHAMBRA

KB - 2

1.0

0.732

Degree of Saturation, (%)

Thickness of Specimen, (in.)

Shear Stress,(Ultimate) (ksf)

Density and Saturation

1.00

Shear Stress,(Peak) (ksf)

2.68

0.720 1.224

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

NORMAL STRESS (ksf)

SH

EA

R S

TRE

SS

(ks

f)

JOB NAME :

SAMPLE NUMBER :

SAMPLE LOCATION :

SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS / CLASSIFICATION :

A B C A B CTRIAL NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 DIAMETER OF MOLD: In.WATER ADDED (ML) 0 50 100 150 VOLUME OF MOLD: Cu.Ft.WT. SOIL + MOLD (GMS) 3985 4087 4130 4060 #4WT.OF MOLD (GMS) 1988 1988 1988 1988WT. OF WET SOIL (GMS) 1997 2099 2142 2072 129.0WET DENSITY (PCF) 132.1 138.8 141.7 137.0 9.5CAN NUMBER N R S MWET SOIL + TARE (GMS) 314.36 321.65 332.15 342.50 %,Finer Fraction = - -DRY SOIL + TARE (GMS) 295.78 296.83 301.06 304.00 %,Oversize Fraction = - Assumed Sp.Gr. 2.64TARE (GMS) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00DRY SOIL (GMS) 295.78 296.83 301.06 304.00WATER (GMS) 18.58 24.82 31.09 38.50MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 6.3 8.4 10.3 12.7DRY DENSITY (PCF) 124.3 128.1 128.4 121.6

18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250Irvine,Ca. 92614Tel: (949)797-6241 Fax: (949)797-6260

RB

ALHAMBRA 14069-00JOB NUMBER:

TESTED BY :

Corrected OMC of Total Materials, (%) =

TEST STANDARD ASTM D 1557-02

PERCENT RETAINED,( % ) :

4

0.0333

SCALPED ON SIEVE SIZE/NO.:

ASTM D-698 - 00

23-Feb-16KB - 2 @ 0 - 5.5' DATE :

MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY:

-

Pcf.

METHOD

REMARKS :

OPT. MOIST. CONTENT : %


MAXIMUM DENSITYTEST

FOR OVERSIZE CORRECTION (ASTM D4718):

-

% Moisture =

Corrected MDD of Total Materials,(PCF) =

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

MOISTURE CONTENT (% )

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY (

PCF)

S.G. = 2.80

S.G. = 2.70

S.G. = 2.60

Project Number : Tested by Date

Project Name : Sampled by Date

Sample No. Depth/Elev. Location:

Sample Descriptions / Classification : ( )

Wt.of Air Dry Sample, (g)Wet Weight of Soil,(g) Wt.of Oven Dry Sample, (g)Dry Weight of Soil,(g)Moisture Content,(%)

Specific Gravity = (Assumed) Correction Factor =

apsed

(+)#10 Sieve,(g)(-)#10 Sieve,(g)

Hard & DurableHardness Soft

Weathered & Friable

D60

Coefficient of Uniformity,CuCoefficient of Curvature,Cc

Remarks :

18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250Irvine, Ca. 92614Tel: (949) 797 - 6241 Fax: (949) 797 - 6260

SIEVE ANALYSIS

14069-00

ALHAMBRA

RB

TD

KB - 3 0 - 5'

DK. BROWN SANY SILT

0.991.74

2/26/2016

2/19/2016

% P

72.76

0.04019

L/T(mm)

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS (ASTM STD HYDROMETER 152H)Temp.(0C) Meniscus Corr. K Value Hygroscopic Moisture

71.52

2.7

Time

ML

23 7.0 0.012970.012976.023 336.50

330.75 Material Passing Sieve No.

(cm) ValueTemp.(0C)

R' Corrected (cm/min)

10

DiameterL kC R % PTime(min)Date

25-Feb 5:14 0.250.501.00 23 41 6.0 35 48.5 48.1 9.6 0.01297 9.60002.004.005.0015.030.060.0 23 22 6.5 15.5 21.5 21.3 12.7 0.01297 0.21167 0.00597240.01440.0 23 16 7.0 9 12.5 12.4 13.7 0.01297 0.00951 0.00127

Sieve

Size Opening(mm)Individual Cummulative

Weight Retained Cummulative% %

(g) (g) Retained Passing

544.01

DryMoist

Specification%

Passing

Total Wt. of Dry Soil,(g)

Angular

Sand & Gravel Particle Descriptions

3.44-140.71 138.31

Shape Rounded

3" 75.0

1-1/2" 38.12" 50.0

1" 25.03/4" 19.01/2" 12.53/8" 9.5#4 4.75 0 0.0 100.0#8 2.36#10 2.00 3.44 0.6 99.4#16 1.18

96.5#50 0.300 45.45 8.4 91.6#30 3.50.600 19.05

#200 0.075 198.83#100 0.150 105.66 19.4 80.6

36.5 63.5

D10D30

#DIV/0!#DIV/0!

GRAIN - SIZEANALYSIS

COBBLES

PROJECT NUMBER : PROJECT NAME :

18008 Sky Park Circlr, Suite 250Irvine, Ca. 92614Tel: (949) 797 - 6241 Fax: (949) 797 - 6260

US STD. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

GRAIN - SIZECURVE

S I L T OR C L A Y

US STD. SIEVE NUMBERS

14069-00 ALHAMBRA

NAT.W% LL PL

COARSE FINEG R A V E L

COARSE MEDIUMS A N D

FINE

KB - 3 0 - 5' ML DK. BROWN SANY SILT

SAMPLE NO. DEPTH SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION

15 4

HYDROMETER

PI

19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

BY

WEI

GH

T

#10#43/4"

3" #40

#200

1-1/

2"

3/8"

PROJECT NAME : DATE :

TESTED BY :

DETERMINATION NO DETERMINATION NO.

DISH NO. DISH NUMBER

MASS OF DISH + WET SOIL,(Gms) MASS, DISH + WET SOIL,(Gms)

MASS OF DISH + DRY SOIL,(Gms) MASS, DISH + DRY SOIL,(Gms)

MASS OF WATER,(Gms) MASS OF WATER,(Gms)

MASS OF DISH,(Gms) MASS OF DISH,(Gms)

MASS OF DRY SOIL,(Gms) MOISTURE CONTENT,(%)

MOISTURE CONTENT,(%) NUMBER OF BLOWS

X

REMARKS :

18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250 Irvine, Ca. 92614 Tel: (949) 797-6241 Fax: (949)797-6260

ALHAMBRA

14.6

28.23

26.01

2.22

10.81

15.2

X

#DIV/0!

PLASTICITY CHART SYMBOL FROM ( ML )

PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)

PLASTIC LIMIT (PL)

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

- NATURAL MOISTURE

19

CONTENT, (%)

RESULT SUMMARY

METHOD OF LLDETERMINATION

METHOD OFPREPARATION

ATTERBERG LIMITS

25-Feb-16

13

13.62

4.45

3626

18

18.6 18.0

1

0 - 5'

( ML )DK. BROWN SANDY SILT

1 2

PLASTIC LIMIT

1 2

PROJECT NO: 14069-00

KB - 3

LIQUID LIMIT

SAMPLE NO./DEPTH :

NATURAL

SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS/CLASSIFICATION :

BORING NUMBER : RB

4.19

3

13.58

1.75 1.63

4.18

1.83

MOISTURECONTENT,%

19.5

13.50

1

15.41

0.00

15.37

15C

15.13

( ASTM D4318-00)

15

4

DRYWET

MULTIPOINTONE-POINT

PLASTICITY CHART

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100LIQUID LIMIT

PLA

STIC

ITY

IND

EX

FLOW CURVE

13

18

23

10 100

NUMBER OF BLOWS

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

APPENDIX D

HARDSCAPE RECOMMENDATIONS

HARDSCAPE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING) 4

Description

Minimum Concrete Thickness (Inches)

Subgrade Pre-Soaking

Depth

Reinforcement (1)

Cutoff Barrier or

Edge Thickness

Joint (2) Spacing (Max)

Base

Common Sidewalks - Isolated EI130

4 4 4 5 5

Optimum to 12" 120% of/or 5% over optimum (whichever is greater) to 12” 120% of/or 5% over optimum (whichever is greater) to 18” 120% of/or 5% over optimum (whichever is greater) to 24” 130% of/or 5% over optimum (whichever is greater) to 24”

N.R.

N.R.

5-10 Feet 5-10 Feet 5-10 Feet

6 feet 6 feet

N.R.

Common Sidewalks - Not Isolated (adjacent to curbs or structures) EI130

4 4 4 5 5


Dowel into curbs and entries with #4 Re-bar at 24” O.C.

N.R.


6 feet 6 feet

N.R.

Enhanced or Decorative Concrete (where higher degree of crack control is desired) E130

5 5 5 6 6


6x6 – W1.4xW1.4 Mesh 6x6 – W2.9xW2.9 Mesh #3 re-bar @ 18” O.C., E.W. #3 re-bar @ 12” O.C., E.W. #4 re-bar @ 12” O.C., E.W.

12” thick x 12” wide 12” thick x 12” wide 12” thick x 12” wide 12” thick x 12” wide 12” thick x 12” wide


6 feet 6 feet

N.R.

Curb and Gutter

C.S.

Scarify 6”/Pre-Moisten

N.R.

N.R.

10 Feet

N.R.

General Concrete Paving 3

7

N.R.

N.R.

12”x12” where adjacent to

landscape

10 Feet

6”

Trash Enclosure/Loading Bay 3

8

N.R.

N.R.

12”x12” where adjacent to

landscape

10 Feet

6"

N.R. = Not Recommended General Notes: C.S. = City/County Standard (A) All concrete thickness should be “full” O.C. = On Center (B) Square concrete panels when possible E.W. = Each Way (C) Maintain positive drainage from concrete flatwork

(D) All slab reinforcement should be placed at mid-height of slab (E) The above recommendations are intended to mitigate expansive soils independent of other

design considerations. The recommendations of the structural engineer and/or architect should also be incorporated into the final design.

Footnotes: (1) Reinforcement to extend into cutoff barrier in thickened edge. (2) Joint at curves or angle points. (3) The above concrete paving recommendations are for planning purposes only. An actual pavement design should be generated based on concrete strength, and frequency and magnitude of anticipated axle loads. (4) The above recommendations are intended to mitigate expansive soils independent of other design considerations. The recommendations of the structural engineer and/or architect should also be incorporated into the final design.

APPENDIX E

GENERAL EARTHW ORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS



APPENDIX E

GENERAL EARTHW ORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

1.0 GENERAL INTENT

These specifications present general procedures and requirements for gradingand earthworkasshown on the project gradingplans, includingpreparation ofareas to be filled, placement offill,installation ofsubsurface drainage, and excavations. The recommendations contained in thegeotechnical report(s)are a part ofthe earthworkand gradingspecifications and shall supersedethe provisions contained hereinafter in the case ofconflict. Evaluations performed by thegeotechnical consultant during the course ofgrading may result in new specifications orrecommendations in addition to those contained in the geotechnical report(s).

2.0 EARTHW ORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING

Prior to the commencement ofgrading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soils engineer andengineeringgeologist, and their representatives)shall be employed for the purpose ofobservingearthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance withthe recommendations ofthegeotechnical report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the geotechnical consultantprovide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the work wasaccomplished as specified. Ifconditions exposed duringgradingdiffer significantly from thoseinterpreted duringthe preliminary design investigation, the geotechnical consultant shall informthe client, recommend appropriate changes in the geotechnical design to account for the observedconditions, and notify City or County grading authorities, as necessary. It shall be theresponsibility ofthe contractor to assist the geotechnical consultant and keep him apprised ofworkschedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly.

The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall observe processing, moisture conditioning, andcompaction offill and subgrade materials. Testingofcompacted fill in representative locationsshall be performed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s field representative. Daily reportsand test results shall be provided to the client representative on a regular and frequent basis.Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree ofcompaction and optimum moisturecontent shall be performed in accordance withthe American Society for Testingand Materialstest method ASTM D1557.

It shall be the sole responsibility ofthe contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods toaccomplishthe workin accordance withthe geotechnical report(s)applicable gradingcodes andproject gradingplans. If, in the opinion ofthe geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions,suchas questionable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.,are resultingin the quality ofworkless than required in these specifications, the geotechnicalconsultant will be empowered to reject the workand recommend that construction be stoppeduntil the conditions are rectified.



APPENDIX E

GENERAL EARTHW ORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS(Continued)

3.0 PREPARATION OFAREA TO BE FILLED

3.1 Clearing and Grubbing

All brush, vegetation, trash, debris and other deleterious material shall be removed fromfill areas and disposed ofoffsite. Vegetation cleared from the site shall not be placedwithin engineered compacted fill areas.

3.2 Processing

The existingground whichis determined to be satisfactory for support offill shall bescarified to a minimum depthofsix(6)inches. Existingground whichis not satisfactoryshall be overexcavated as specified in the followingsection. Scarification shall continueuntil the soils are broken down and free oflarge clay lumps or clods and until theworkingsurface is reasonably uniform and free ofuneven features whichwould inhibituniform compaction.

3.3 Overexcavation

Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground, extendingto suchadepth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, shall beoverexcavated to firm ground, and verified by the project geotechnical consultant.

3.4 Moisture Conditioning

Overexcavated and processed soils shall be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixedas required to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.

3.5 Recompaction

Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture-conditioned shall be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of90 percent,ASTM D1557.

3.6 Benching

W here fills are to be placed on ground withslopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: verticalunits), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest benchshall be a minimum of15 feet wide, shall be at least 2 feet deep, shall expose firm material, and shall be verifiedby the geotechnical consultant. Other benches shall be excavated in firm material for aminimum widthof4feet. Ground slopingflatter than 5:1 shall be benched or otherwiseoverexcavated when considered necessary by the geotechnical consultant.



APPENDIX E


3.7 Evaluationof Areasto Receive Fill

All areas to receive fill, includingprocessed areas, removal areas and toe-of-fill benchesshall be observed, tested, and/or mapped by the geotechnical consultant prior to fillplacement. A written evaluation ofthe area to be filled shall be obtained by theContractor prior to placement offill.

4.0 FILL MATERIAL

4.1 General

Material to be placed as fill shall be free ofroots, grasses, branches, wood or otherorganic matter and other deleterious materials, and shall be tested by the geotechnicalconsultant prior to use as fill. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strengthcharacteristics shall be placed in areas designated by the geotechnical consultant or shallbe mixed withother soils to serve as satisfactory fill material.

4.2 Oversize Material

Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximumdimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fills, unless thelocation, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by thegeotechnical consultant. Oversized disposal operations shall be such that nesting ofoversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completelysurrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within10 feet vertically offinishgrade or construction, unless specifically recommended by thegeotechnical consultant.

4.3 Import

Ifimportingoffill material is required for grading, the import material shall meet therequirements ofSection 4.1. Samples ofimport soils shall be provided for testing aminimum of48 hours before the import materials are brought on site.



APPENDIX E


5.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION

5.1 Fill Lifts

Fill material shall be placed in prepared areas in near-horizontal layers not exceeding8inches in loose thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughlymixed duringspreadingto attain uniformity ofmaterial and moisture in eachlayer.

5.2 Fill Moisture

Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum shall be watered and mixed, and wetfill layers shall be aerated by scarification or shall be blended with drier material.Moisture-conditioningand mixingoffill layers shall continue until the fill material is at auniformly processed at a minimum of125 percent ofthe optimum moisture content.

5.3 Fill Compaction

After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned, mixed, and shall beuniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent ofthe maximum dry density at aminimum of125 percent ofthe optimum moisture content. Compaction equipment shallbe adequately sized and shall be either specifically designed for soil compaction or ofproven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree ofcompaction.

5.4 Fill Slopes

Compacting of slopes shall be accomplished, in addition to normal compactingprocedures, by overfilling and compacting the slope face a minimum offour feethorizontally from finishgrade, and cuttingthe slope face backto the core ofcompactedfill. In restricted spaces where overfillingis not possible, fill slopes may be compactedby back-rollingofslopes, withsheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of1 to 2 feet infill elevation gain. At the completion ofgrading, the relative compaction ofthe slope outto the slope face shall be a minimum of90 percent.

5.5 CompactionTesting

Field tests to checkthe fill moisture and degree ofcompaction will be performed by thegeotechnical consultant. The location and frequency oftests shall be at the geotechnicalconsultant's discretion. In general, the tests will be taken at an interval not exceeding2feet in vertical elevation and/or 1,000 cubic yards offill placed.



APPENDIX E


6.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION

Subdrain systems shall be installed in locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant toconform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrainlocation or materials shall not be changed or modified without the recommendation ofthegeotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant, however, may recommend changes insubdrain line, grade or material. All subdrains should be surveyed for line and grade afterinstallation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement offillingover subdrains areas.

7.0 EXCAVATION

Excavation and cut slopes will be geologically mapped and examined duringgrading. Sufficienttime shall be allowed by the contractor to permit geologic mappingofexcavation bottoms andcut slopes. Ifdirected by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation or overexcavation andrefillingofcut areas shall be performed, and/or remedial gradingofcut slopes. All fill-over-cutslopes are to be graded, unless otherwise stated, shall be constructed as a fill slope withthe useofminimum widthstabilization fills, as necessary.

APPENDIX F

ASFE INSERT

Insert from: "14069-00 Rpt Alhambra 04-29-16.pdf"Insert from: "14069-00 Site Location Map.pdf"Page 1

Insert from: "14069-00 Boring Location Map 4-16.pdf"Page 1

preliminary geotechnical investigation proposed mixed use ......st.clair partners pn 14069-00 april...

Documents