The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 3A - Attachment H - Appendix H. Geotechnical Due DiligenceMay 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Mr. Steve Armanino The Olson Company 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100 Seal Beach, California 90740 Subject: Geotechnical Due-Diligence Investigation and Percolation Study, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, 3133, 3141 & 3149 Willard Avenue, Rosemead, California. Dear Mr. Armanino, Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. is pleased to present to you our geotechnical due-diligence report for the proposed residential development at the subject site. This report presents the results of our historical photos review, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. Conclusions relevant to the feasibility of the proposed site development are also presented in this report based on the findings of our work. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Paul Hyun Jin Kim Associate Engineer The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 1 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 3 2.0 INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .......................................................................................... 3 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................... 4 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 4 3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................... 4 3.2 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................. 4 3.3 FAULTING ............................................................................................................................. 5 4.0 ANALYSES ............................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 SEISMICITY ........................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 SETTLEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 LIQUEFACTION .................................................................................................................... 6 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 6 5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 6 5.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ......................................................................................................... 7 5.2.1 Ground Rupture ................................................................................................................ 7 5.2.2 Ground Shaking ................................................................................................................ 7 5.2.3 Liquefaction ...................................................................................................................... 7 5.3 STATIC SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................ 8 5.4 EXCAVATION AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................. 8 5.5 SHRINGKAGE AND BULKAGE ......................................................................................... 9 5.6 SOIL EXPANSION ................................................................................................................. 9 5.7 FOUNDATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 9 5.8 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN .................................................................................................... 9 5.9 CORROSION POTENTIAL ................................................................................................... 9 5.10 PAVEMENT SECTIONS .................................................................................................... 9 5.11 PERCOLATION CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................... 10 6.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 10 7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 12 FIGURES AND PLATES Figure 1 - Site Location Map Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Exploration Logs Plates A-1 through A-7 – Boring Logs APPENDIX B - Laboratory Test Program Table B – Summary of Laboratory Test Results Plate B-1to B-2 – Grain Size Distribution Plot Plate B-3 through B-6 – Consolidation Plots Plate B-7 – Direct Shear Plot The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX C – Liquefaction Analysis Plates C-1 and C-2 – Liquefaction Analysis The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 1 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our work was to evaluate the feasibility of proposed site development in order to assist you in your land acquisition evaluation and due-diligence review. The scope of our work for this investigation was focused primarily on the geotechnical issues that we expect could have significant fiscal impacts on future site development. While this report is comprehensive for the intended purpose, it is not intended for final design purposes. As such, additional geotechnical studies may be warranted based on our review of future rough grading plans and foundation plans. The scope of our geotechnical due-diligence work included the following: x Review of published geologic and seismic data for the site and surrounding area x Review of historical photos for the surrounding area x Excavation and sampling of three exploratory borings x Excavation and installation of one percolation test boring x Engineering analyses of data from the exploration and laboratory testing x Evaluation of site seismicity, liquefaction potential, and settlement potential x Preparation of this report 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site is located at 3133, 3141 & 3149 Willard Avenue in the city of Rosemead, California. The site is bordered by single-family residences to the north and south, Willard Avenue to the east, and a utility easement to the west. The location of the site and its relationship to the surrounding areas are shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. The site is irregular in shape and comprises approximately 1.2 acres of land. The site is currently occupied by two one-story residential buildings. The residential building at the northeast corner of the site is unoccupied. Remnants of building foundations were also observed at certain portions of the site. Other site improvements include a detached garage and a storage shed. Topography within the site varies with elevations of approximately 263 to 266 feet above mean sea level (MSL), based on google earth. Site drainage is via sheet flow directed to east toward Willard Avenue. Vegetation within the site consist of grass and medium size trees scattered throughout the site. The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 2 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. © 2018 Google N SITE LOCATION MAP The Olson Company Proposed Residential Development 3133, 3141 & 3149 Willard Avenue Rosemead, California NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1 SITE The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 3 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT We understand the site will be developed for residential use consisting of 29 units of three- story townhomes. It is anticipated that all proposed structures will be constructed on grade (i.e. no subterranean elements). Associated interior driveways, perimeter/retaining walls, underground utilities and a storm water infiltration system are also planned. No grading or structural plans were available in preparing of this report. However, we anticipate that minor rough grading of the site will be required to achieve future surface configuration and we expect the proposed residential dwellings will be wood-framed structures with concrete slabs on grade yielding relatively light foundation loads. 2.0 INVESTIGATION 2.1 RESEARCH We have reviewed the referenced geologic publications, maps, and historical aerial photos of the vicinity. Data from these sources were utilized to the development of some of our findings and conclusions presented in this report. In 1948, the site appears to consist of a couple of single-family residence at the east portion of the site. These residences are likely the current single-family residences that exist today. During 1948 to 1952, four small- to medium-sized structures were constructed in the central and western portion of the site. During 1972 to 1980, the structures located at the central and western portion of the site were demolished. 2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Subsurface exploration for this investigation was conducted at the site on April 30, 2019 and consisted of drilling three (3) exploratory borings. The borings were drilled to maximum depths of approximately 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface utilizing a truck-mounted, hollow-stem- auger drill rig. Representatives of Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. logged the exploratory excavations. Visual and tactile identifications were made of the materials encountered, and their descriptions are presented on the Exploration Logs in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations completed by this firm are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Bulk, relatively undisturbed and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samples were obtained at selected depths within the exploratory boring for subsequent laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3-inch O.D., 2.5-inch I.D., California split-spoon soil sampler lined with brass rings. SPT samples were obtained from the boring using a standard, unlined SPT soil sampler. During each sampling interval, the sampler was driven 18 inches with successive drops of a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler was recorded for each six inches of advancement. The total blow count for the lower 12 inches of advancement per soil sample is recorded on the exploration log. Samples were placed in sealed containers or plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for analyses. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of sampling. The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 4 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. In addition, two percolation test boring, P-1 and P-2, were also excavated to an approximate depth of 25 and 10 feet in the vicinity of exploratory boring B-1 for subsequent percolation testing. The percolation test well was later backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of testing. Results of our percolation testing are discussed later in this report in Section 5.11. 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING Selected samples of representative earth materials from the borings were tested in our laboratory. Tests consisted of in-situ moisture and dry density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion index, soluble sulfate content, percent passing No. 200 sieve, consolidation/collapse potential, direct shear, Atterberg Limits, corrosivity (pH, chloride, & minimum resistivity), Atterberg limits, and grain size analysis. Descriptions of laboratory testing and a summary of the test results are presented in Appendix B and on the exploration log in Appendix A. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS Descriptions of the earth materials encountered during our investigation are summarized below and are presented in detail on the Exploration Logs presented in Appendix A. Soils encountered at the site consist of artificial fill materials overlying alluvial deposits. The artificial fill materials typically consist of brown silty sand. The artificial fill was typically moist and loose to medium dense. Pores were observed within the central and western portions of the site. The maximum thickness of the fill encountered varied from approximately 5 to 6 feet below existing grades. Deeper fills associated with the previously existing improvements may also be present on site. The alluvial deposits were encountered below the artificial fill materials to the maximum depth of exploration, 51.5 feet below the ground surface. The alluvial deposits consisted predominantly of coarse-grained material and with occasional layers of fine-grained material at depth. The coarse- grained material was typically brown sand with varying amounts of silt. These deposits are slightly moist to moist and loose to very dense. The fine-grained material consisted of brown clay and silt. These deposits are typically was typically moist and very stiff. The upper alluvium was also observed to contain pores within the central and western portions of the site. 3.2 GROUNDWATER A review of the CDMG Seismic Hazard Zone Report 024 indicates that historical high groundwater levels for the general site area is as shallow as 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered during this firm’s subsurface exploration to the maximum depth explored, approximately 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface. A review of the Los Angeles County monitoring well database indicates well number 2924E is approximately 0.4 miles to the southeast with data indicating historic groundwater has been in a downward trend since 1957. The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 5 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Existing groundwater in the past 10 years has fluctuated from 60 to 95 feet below the existing ground surface. It is therefore concluded that groundwater can at least be as shallow as 60 feet below the existing ground surface. 3.3 FAULTING Geologic literature and field exploration do not indicate the presence of active faulting within the site. The site does not lie within an "Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Table 3.1 presents a summary of all the known seismically active faults within 10 miles of the site based on the 2008 National Seismic Hazards Maps. Table 3.1 Summary of Faults Name Distance (miles) Slip Rate (mm/yr.) Preferred Dip (degrees) Slip Sense Rupture Top (km) Fault Length (km) Elysian Park (Upper) 0.97 1.3 50 reverse 3 20 Raymond 4.28 1.5 79 strike slip 0 22 Elsinore;W+GI+T+J 5.25 n/a 84 strike slip 0 199 Elsinore;W+GI+T 5.25 n/a 84 strike slip 0 124 Elsinore;W 5.25 2.5 75 strike slip 0 46 Elsinore;W+GI 5.25 n/a 81 strike slip 0 83 Elsinore;W+GI+T+J+CM 5.25 n/a 84 strike slip 0 241 Verdugo 6.07 0.5 55 reverse 0 29 Puente Hills (LA) 7.09 0.7 27 thrust 2.1 22 Sierra Madre 7.67 2 53 reverse 0 57 Sierra Madre Connected 7.67 2 51 reverse 0 76 Clamshell-Sawpit 9.13 0.5 50 reverse 0 16 Hollywood 9.2 1 70 strike slip 0 17 Puente Hills (Santa Fe Springs) 9.94 0.7 29 thrust 2.8 11 4.0 ANALYSES 4.1 SEISMICITY We have performed probabilistic seismic analyses utilizing the U.S. Seismic Design Maps web application by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). From our analyses, we obtain a PGA of 0.956 in accordance with Figure 22-7 of ASCE 7-10. The FPGA factor for site class D is 1.0. Therefore, the PGAM = 1.0 x 0.956 = 0.96g. The mean event associated with a probability of exceedance equal to The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 6 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2% over 50 years has a moment magnitude of 6.65 and the mean distance to the seismic source is 4.3 miles. 4.2 SETTLEMENT Based on the anticipated foundation loads and provided the existing artificial fill soils (upper 4.5 to 6 feet of existing soils) are removed and recompacted as engineered compacted fill, the total and differential static settlements are not anticipated to exceed 1 inch and ½-inch over 30 feet, respectively, for the proposed residential structures. 4.3 LIQUEFACTION We have performed engineering analyses to evaluate the potential for liquefaction at the site if the design earthquake event were to occur. Our analyses followed the guidelines presented in the CGS Special Publication 117A (2008) and the procedures by Youd, et al. (2001). These analyses are based on field test data and laboratory test results from this investigation. Our liquefaction analyses were based on the soil profile from both borings B-1 and are provided on Plate C-1 in Appendix C. High groundwater was assumed at a depth of 60 feet below the existing ground surface based on our discussion in Section 3.2. This assumption is considered very conservative. Based on our analyses, the subsurface soils at the subject site are not prone to liquefaction during a strong ground motion event due to the great depth to groundwater. Seismic-induced settlement can occur both above and below the groundwater table during a strong seismic event. Due to the proximity of the active Woodman Hill fault, we have estimated the dry seismic settlement using the Tokumatsu and Seed (1987) Method. The analyses indicate a total dry seismic settlement of 2.0. Martin and Lew (1999) recommend that the dry seismic settlement estimate be multiplied by two to account for multi-direction shaking. Therefore, the total estimated dry seismic settlement is estimated to be 4.0 inches. However, if we assume that the upper 5 feet of existing soils are removed and recompacted, the total settlement reduces to 3.7 inches. Seismic-induced differential settlement is not expected to exceed one half the total settlement according to Martin and Lew (1999). The differential dry seismic settlement can be less than one half the total dry seismic settlement at sites with relatively uniform soil conditions and deep sediments. We estimate that differential dry seismic settlement of the proposed structure will not exceed 1.9 inches in 30 horizontal feet during the design event provided the upper 5 feet of existing soils are removed and recompacted. The results of these analyses are provided in Appendix C on Plate C-2. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT From a geotechnical point of view, the proposed site development is considered feasible provided appropriate geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 7 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. project. Key issues that could have significant fiscal impacts on the geotechnical aspects of the proposed site development are discussed in the following sections of this report. 5.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.2.1 Ground Rupture No known active faults are known to project through the site nor does the site lie within the boundaries of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture due to an earthquake beneath the site is considered low. The nearest zoned fault is the Workman Hill Fault located approximately 0.60 miles southwest. 5.2.2 Ground Shaking The site is situated in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by generally moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion. The site lies in relatively close proximity to several seismically active faults; therefore, during the life of the proposed structures, the property will probably experience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault zones, as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the Southern California region. Potential ground accelerations have been estimated for the site and are presented in Section 4.1 of this report. Design and construction in accordance with the current California Building Code (C.B.C.) requirements is anticipated to adequately address potential ground shaking. 5.2.3 Liquefaction Based on our engineering analyses discussed previously, the site is not subject to the effects of liquefaction. However, the upper 50 feet of native soils located above historic high groundwater are susceptible to dry seismic settlement. The results of our analyses indicate a total seismic settlement of 3.7 inches and a differential settlement of 1.9 inches over 30 feet. Based on the State of California Special Publication 117A, hazards from liquefaction should be mitigated to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to “acceptable levels”. The acceptable level of risk means, “that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety” [California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 3721 (a)]. Protection of public safety does not require that structures be resistant to cracking or general distress due to differential movements. As such, a greater allowance for differential movement during liquefaction events is acceptable compared to the design requirements for static conditions. The use of well-reinforced foundations, such as post-tensioned slabs, grade beams with structural slabs, or mat foundations have been proven to adequately provide basal support for similar structures during seismic events comparable to the predicted site event. The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 8 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5.3 STATIC SETTLEMENT If the artificial fill soils are removed and recompacted as compacted fill, total and differential static settlements are anticipated to be less than 1 inch and ½-inch over 30 feet, respectively. These estimated magnitudes of static settlements are considered within tolerable limits for the proposed foundation loads. 5.4 EXCAVATION AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS In general, the existing near-surface soils are considered unsuitable in their existing condition to support proposed structural fills and site development. This condition can be mitigated by removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils. The anticipated depth of removal to mitigate structural load- induced settlement below the proposed residential buildings, retaining walls, and pavement is on the order of 4.5 to 6 feet below existing ground surface. Temporary construction slopes and trench excavations can likely be cut vertically up to a height of 4 feet within the onsite materials provided that no surcharging of the excavations is present. Temporary excavations greater than 4 feet in height but no greater than 10 feet will likely need to be laid back to 1:1 (H:V) or flatter. Site materials may be prone to sloughing and possible caving if allowed to dry. Demolition of the existing site improvements will generate a considerable amount of concrete and asphaltic concrete debris. Significant portions of concrete and asphaltic concrete debris can likely be reduced in size to less than 4 inches and incorporated within fill soils during earthwork operations. Onsite disposal systems, clarifiers and other underground improvements may be present on site. If encountered during future rough grading, these improvements will require proper abandonment or removal. Off-site improvements exist near and along the property lines. The presence of the existing offsite improvements will limit removals of unsuitable materials adjacent the property lines. Special grading techniques, such as slot cutting, will be required adjacent to the property lines were offsite structures are nearby, particularly along the south property line due to the adjacent motel. Construction of perimeter site walls will likely require deepened footings or caissons and grade beams where removals are restricted by property boundaries. Subsurface soils are anticipated to be relatively easy to excavate with conventional heavy earthmoving equipment. Removal and recompaction of the site materials will result in some moderate shrinkage and subsidence. Design of site grading will require consideration of this loss when evaluating earthwork balance issues. The existing near surface soils are typically above and below optimum moisture content and is anticipated to require the addition of water, drying, and blending to achieve proper compaction. The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 9 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5.5 SHRINGKAGE AND BULKAGE Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated onsite soil materials are replaced as properly compacted fill. We estimate the existing upper 4.5 to 6 feet of earth materials will shrink up to approximately 12 to 17 percent. The estimates of shrinkage and bulkage are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. Contingencies should be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual swelling and bulkage that occurs during the grading process. 5.6 SOIL EXPANSION Based on our laboratory test results and the USCS visual manual classification, the near-surface soils within the site are generally anticipated to possess a Very Low expansion potential. Additional testing for soil expansion may be required subsequent to rough grading and prior to construction of foundations and other concrete work to confirm these conditions. 5.7 FOUNDATIONS Considering the seismic settlement potential, conventional shallow foundations are not recommended for use in supporting the proposed residential structures but would be suitable for other structures such as retaining walls and screen walls. Conventional foundations would likely require significant steel reinforcement. Residential structures will likely require support by post- tensioned slab foundations to mitigate the potential adverse effects from dry seismic settlement. 5.8 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN Laboratory testing of onsite soil indicates Negligible soluble sulfate content. Concrete designed to follow the procedures provided in ACI 318, Section 4.3, Table 4.3.1 for negligible sulfate exposure are anticipated to be adequate for mitigation of sulfate attack on concrete. Upon completion of rough grading, an evaluation of as-graded conditions and further laboratory testing will be required for the site to confirm or modify the conclusions provided in this section. 5.9 CORROSION POTENTIAL Laboratory testing of onsite soil indicates indicate a minimum resistivity of 8,500 ohm-cm, chloride content of 12.75 ppm, and a pH of 7.26. Based on laboratory test results, site soils are Moderately Corrosive to metals. Structures fabricated from metals should have appropriate corrosion protection if they will be in direct contact with site soils. Under such conditions, a corrosion specialist should provide specific recommendations. 5.10 PAVEMENT SECTIONS Existing near-surface soils are anticipated to have a moderate R-value. Based on the assumed R- value of 25 and a traffic index of 5.5, a preliminary pavement structural section of 3.0 inches asphaltic concrete over 9.0 inches of aggregate base may be used for planning and estimating The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 10 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. purpose. R-value testing will be required subsequent to rough grading and prior to construction of interior driveways to confirm these conditions. 5.11 PERCOLATION CHARACTERISTICS Based on the subsurface exploration and percolation testing at 3133, 3141 & 3149 Willard Avenue, infiltration of storm water is not considered to be feasible due the site being underlain by fine- grained soils in the upper surface. In addition, interbedded layers of silty sand, clay and silt at depth limit the effectiveness of infiltration. Percolation characteristics of site soils are not anticipated to meet the minimum requirements of the Los Angeles County guidelines. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report is based on the proposed development and geotechnical data as described herein. The materials described herein and in other literature are believed representative of the total project area, and the conclusions contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soil materials can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and vertically, and those variations could affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. As such, observation and testing by a geotechnical consultant prior to and during the grading and construction phases of the project are essential to confirming the basis of this report. This report summarizes several geotechnical topics that should be beneficial for project planning and budgetary evaluations. The information presented herein is intended only for a preliminary feasibility evaluation and is not intended to satisfy the requirements of a site specific and detailed geotechnical investigation required for further planning and permitting. This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty. This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of The Olson Company to assist the project consultants in determining the feasibility of the proposed development. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 11 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Respectfully submitted, ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC Mark Principe Paul Hyun Jin Kim Staff Engineer Associate Engineer P.E. 77214 The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 Page 12 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 7.0 REFERENCES Publications California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard Report 027, “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the El Monte 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California”, 1998. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117A “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California”, 2008. Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., “Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes”, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1992. NCEER, “Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, December 31, 1997. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), University of Southern California, “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,” March, 1999. U.S. Geologic Survey. Seismic Hazard Curve Application, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/hazardtool/application.php U.S. Geologic Survey. 2008 Interactive Deaggregations, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/ U.S. Geologic Survey. U.S. Seismic Design Maps, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/usdesign.php Tokimatsu, K. & Seed, H.B., “Evaluation of Settlement in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, August, 1987. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October, 2001. Plans Conceptual Density Study, Option 1, Rosemead – Willard & Garvey, Rosemead, CA #2018-1219, prepared by ktgy, dated April 17, 2019 WILLARD AVE.PROJECT SITE LIMITSB-1B-2B-3P-1P-2EARL AVE.- Exploratory Boring(;3/$1$7,21(Locations Approximate)ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS*(27(&+1,&$/0$3-RE1R'DWH3ODWH02040 80APPROX SCALE : 1" = 40'- Exploratory Percolation Test Boring ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX A EXPLORATION LOGS Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G WaterCoreBulk5 10 15 20 EXPLANATION Solid lines separate geologic units and/or material types. Dashed lines indicate unknown depth of geologic unit change or material type change. Solid black rectangle in Core column represents California Split Spoon sampler (2.5in ID, 3in OD). Double triangle in core column represents SPT sampler. Vertical Lines in core column represents Shelby sampler. Solid black rectangle in Bulk column respresents large bag sample. Other Laboratory Tests: Max = Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content EI = Expansion Index SO4 = Soluble Sulfate Content DSR = Direct Shear, Remolded DS = Direct Shear, Undisturbed SA = Sieve Analysis (1" through #200 sieve) Hydro = Particle Size Analysis (SA with Hydrometer) 200 = Percent Passing #200 Sieve Consol = Consolidation SE = Sand Equivalent Rval = R-Value ATT = Atterberg Limits Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-1 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Rosemead (Willard & Garvey) 3122 Delta Pl, Rosemead, CA 91770 2783.00 4/30/2019 MPHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-1 271.5 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 5 10 15 20 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand, organics, trace fine grained sand, pores, pocket of sand @ 4 ft, loose, increased sand, no pores ALLUVIUM (Qal) Silty Sand (SM): Light reddish brown, moist, loose, fine to medium grained sand, pores, decreased clay @ 10 ft, PRWWOHGreddish brown DQGgray, slightly moist, medium dense, fine grained sand, trace fine gravel, iron oxide, decreased fines @ 20 ft, dense 27 30 34 25 14 11 9.2 8.9 10.1 11 16.5 114.7 106.6 125.2 115.3 110.7 Consol SA Hydro Consol Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-2 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Rosemead (Willard & Garvey) 3122 Delta Pl, Rosemead, CA 91770 2783.00 4/30/2019 MPHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-1 271.5 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 30 35 40 45 @ 30 ft, light brownvery dense, fine to medium grained sand @ 35 ft, dense, fine to coarse grained sand, clay nodules Silty Sand (SM):Mottled light grayish brown and reddish brown, moist, GHQVH,ILQHJUDLQHGVDQGmica present Silt (ML): Mottled light grayish brown and reddish brown, moist, very stiff, mica present 23 34 31 28 17 SA Hydro Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-3 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Rosemead (Willard & Garvey) 3122 Delta Pl, Rosemead, CA 91770 2783.00 4/30/2019 MPHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-1 271.5 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in Silty Sand (SM): Mottled light brown and reddish brown, moist, dense, fine grained sand, mica present, 2" layer of silt End of boring at depth of 51.5 ft. Backfilled with soil cutting. No groundwater encountered. 29 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A-4 Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Rosemead (Willard & Garvey) 3122 Delta Pl, Rosemead, CA 91770 2783.00 4/30/2019 SDHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-2 272.5 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 5 10 15 20 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) Silty Sand (SM):Medium brown, moist, loose, fine to medium grained sand, some pores, organics, debris, WUDFH gravel, with clay @ 4 ft, reddish brown, very moist, very loose, increased pores ALLUVIUM (Qal) Silty Sand (SM):Brownmedium dense, fine to coarse grained sand,WUDFH gravel, organics, pocket of medium grained sand, some pores @ 10 ft, reddish brownloose,some clay, decreased pores @ 15 ft, light brownmedium dense, trace fine gravel, iron oxide @ 20 ft, dense, decreased gravel End of boring at depth of 23 ft. No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with soil cutting. 9 19 10 22 5 22 9.6 8.5 9.2 10.3 114.1 114.9 110.3 120.9 SO4 DS pH Resist Ch 0D[(, Consol Consol Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A- Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Rosemead (Willard & Garvey) 3122 Delta Pl, Rosemead, CA 91770 2783.00 4/30/2019 SDHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-3 273.3 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 5 10 15 20 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) Silty Sand (SM):Brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse grained sand, organics, WUDFH coarse gravel @ 4 ft, loose, increased sand, WUDFH fine to medium gravel, mica present ALLUVIUM (Qal) Silty Sand (SM): Light brown, very moist, medium dense, coarse grained sand Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Light brown gray, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse grained sand, with fine to coarse gravel Silty Sand (SM):Light browndense, fine to coarse grained sand, WUDFH gravel @ 16.5 ft, gravel layer @ 20 ft, 2 inch layer of clayey silt, no gravel 22 28 17 20 13 23 4.2 5.2 6.6 4.4 111 89.2 113.4 115.2 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A- Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Rosemead (Willard & Garvey) 3122 Delta Pl, Rosemead, CA 91770 2783.00 4/30/2019 SDHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-3 273.3 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in 30 35 40 45 Lean Clay (CL): Brown, moist, very stiff, fine to medium grained sand, trace coarse grained sand, iron oxide, mica present, some silt Silty Sand (SM):Light brown, moist, dense, fine to medium grained sand, WUDFHgravel, mica present, iron oxide Silty Sand with Gravel (SM): Light brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine to coarse grained sand, fine to coarse gravel, mica present Silty Sand (SM): Reddish brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse grained sand, mica present Silt (ML): Grayish brown, moist, very stiff, trace fine grained sand, mica present, iron oxide specs, some clay @ 45 ft, hard 13 29 50 9 10 200 ATT 200 200 ATT Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A- Project: Address: Job Number: Drill Method: Client: Driving Weight: Location: Elevation: Date: Logged By: Depth (feet) Lith- ology Blows Per Foot Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Other Lab Tests Laboratory TestsSamples Material Description E X P L O R A T I O N L O G Rosemead (Willard & Garvey) 3122 Delta Pl, Rosemead, CA 91770 2783.00 4/30/2019 SDHollow-Stem Auger The Olson Company B-3 273.3 WaterCoreBulk140 lbs / 30 in Silty Sand (SM): Reddish brown, moist, dense, mica present Clay (CL): Brown, moist, hard, mica present, trace sand, few silt, iron oxide End of boring at depth of 51.5. No groundwater encountered. backfilled with soil cutting. 24 32.7 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate A- ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Soil Classification Soils encountered within the exploratory borings were initially classified in the field in general accordance with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487). The samples were re-examined in the laboratory and classifications reviewed and then revised where appropriate. The assigned group symbols are presented on the Exploration Logs provided in Appendix A. In-Situ Moisture Content and Dry Density Moisture content and dry density of in-place soil materials were determined in representative strata. Test data are presented on the Exploration Logs provided in Appendix A. Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of onsite soils were determined for selected samples in general accordance with Method A of ASTM D 1557. Pertinent test values are given on Table B-1. Direct Shear The Coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion, were determined for a bulk sample obtained from one our borings. The tests were performed in general conformance with Test Method ASTM D 3080. The sample was remolded to 90 percent of maximum dry density and at the optimum moisture content. Three specimens were prepared for each test, artificially saturated, and then sheared under varied loads at an appropriate constant rate of strain. Results are graphically presented on Plate B-4. Soluble Sulfate Content Chemical analysis was performed on selected samples to determine soluble sulfate content. The tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method No. 417. The test results are included on Table B-1. Expansion Potential An Expansion Index test was performed on a selected sample in accordance with ASTM D 4829. The test result and expansion potential are presented on Table B-1. Atterberg Limits Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index) were performed in accordance with Test Method ASTM D4318. Pertinent test values are presented within Table B-1. The Olson Company May 14, 2019 J.N.: 2783.00 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consolidation Consolidation Tests were performed by Albus-Keefe & Associates and Geo-logic Associates in general conformance with Test Method ASTM D 2435. Axial loads were applied in several increments to a laterally restrained 1-inch-thick sample. Loads were applied in geometric progression by doubling the previous load, and the resulting deformations were recorded at selected time intervals. The test samples were inundated at a selected surcharge loading in order to evaluate the effects of a sudden increase in moisture content. Results of these tests are graphically presented on Plates B-2 to B-3. Corrosion Select samples were tested for minimum resistivity and pH in accordance with California Test Method 643. Results of these tests are provided in Table B-1. Particle-Size Analyses Particle-size analyses were performed on selected samples in accordance with ASTM D 422. The results are presented graphically on the attached Plate B-1. Hydrometer Hydrometer analyses were performed on representative samples of site materials in accordance with ASTM D 7928. The results are presented graphically on the attached Plate B-1. TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Boring No. Sample Depth (ft.) Soil Description Test Results B-2 0-5 Silty Sand (SM) Maximum Dry Density: Optimum Moisture Content: pH: Resistivity: Chloride: Expansion Index: Expansion Potential: Soluble Sulfate Content: Sulfate Exposure: 132.5 pcf 9.5 % 7.26 8,500 ohm-cm 12.75 ppm 7 Very Low 0.000% Negligible B-3 25 Lean Clay Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve: 29 11 53.7 B-3 30 Silty Sand Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve: 25.3 B-3 45 Silt Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 47 19 97.4 Note: Additional laboratory test results are provided on the boring logs in Appendix A. COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINEDescriptionSilty Sand (SM)Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate B-2783.00GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONJob NumberLocationB-1GRAVELCOBBLESSILT AND CLAYSAND10Depth6" 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200010203040506070809010001020304050607080901000.00010.0010.010.1110100U.S. Standard Sieve SizesPercent RetainedPercent PassingGrain Size in Millimeters COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINEDescriptionSilty Sand (SM)Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate B-2783.00GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONJob NumberLocationB-1GRAVELCOBBLESSILT AND CLAYSAND25Depth6" 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200010203040506070809010001020304050607080901000.00010.0010.010.1110100U.S. Standard Sieve SizesPercent RetainedPercent PassingGrain Size in Millimeters CONSOLIDATION Job Number Location Depth 2783.00 B-1 6 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate B- Description Silty Sand (SM) 109.8 15.6 16.7 Initial Dry Density (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Concent (%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 100 1000 10000 100000CONSOLIDATION (%)NORMAL STRESS (psf) Field Saturated CONSOLIDATION Job Number Location Depth 2783.00 B-1 10 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate B- Description Silty Sand (SM) 112.6 10 14.1 Initial Dry Density (pcf)Initial Moisture Content (%)Final Moisture Concent (%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 100 1000 10000 100000CONSOLIDATION (%)NORMAL STRESS (psf) Field Saturated CONSOLIDATION Job Number Location Depth 2783.00 B-2 4 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate B- Description Silty Sand (SM) 111.4 9.5 14.1 Initial Dry Density (pcf)Initial Moisture Content (%)Final Moisture Concent (%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 100 1000 10000 100000CONSOLIDATION (%)NORMAL STRESS (psf) Field Saturated CONSOLIDATION Job Number Location Depth 2783.00 B-2 10 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate B- Description Silty Sand (SM) 112 11.2 14 Initial Dry Density (pcf)Initial Moisture Content (%)Final Moisture Concent (%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 100 1000 10000 100000CONSOLIDATION (%)NORMAL STRESS (psf) Field Saturated DIRECT SHEAR Sample Type: Normal Stress (ksf) 1 2 4 Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 0.768 1.284 2.328 Peak Displacement (in) 0.003 0.003 0.005 Ultimate Shear Stress (ksf) 0.648 1.128 2.256 Ultimate Displacement (in) 0.25 0.25 0.25 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 119.3 119.3 119.3 Initial Moisture Content (%) 9.5 9.5 9.5 Final Moisture Content (%) 12.9 12.7 13.2 Strain Rate (in/min) Job Number Location Depth 2783.00 B-2 0-5 Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.Plate B- Description Silty Sand (SM) 0.01 Remolded 90% of 132.5 @ 9.5%, Saturated -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0246810 Vertical Displacement (in)Strain (%) 1 2 4 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0246810 Shear Stress (ksf)Strain (%) 1 2 4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0SHEAR STRESS (ksf)NORMAL STRESS (ksf) Peak Ultimate Linear (Peak) Linear (Ultimate) ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES 7$%/(&&OLHQW ROVRQ$1$/<6,62)/,48()$&7,21327(17,$/-1 %25,1* %3(LQ\UV)6 606LWH 5RVHPHDG+DPPHU7\SH'6$$%RULQJ'LDPHWHU,'LQ1RWHV8QGHUOLQHGQXPEHUVDUHHVWLPDWHGYDOXHV $ /D\HULVORFDWHGDERYHKLVWRULFDOO\KLJKJURXQGZDWHU6LWH$FFHOHUDWLRQJ %DVHGRQFXUUHQWJURXQGZDWHUFRQGLWLRQVDWWKHWLPHRILQYHVWLJDWLRQ% )DFWRURI6DIWH\LVJUHDWHUWKDQWKHVSHFLILHGYDOXHRI)6 IRUD0DJQLWXGH0ZRI %DVHGRQDVVXPHGSURSRVHGKLJKJURXQGZDWHUFRQGLWLRQV& 7KH1FVLVJUHDWHUWKDQEORZVSHUIRRWDQG06)RI .Į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ı)65G&/E1OEVIWD6DPSOH7\SH637&$&U&H'HSWK,QWHUYDOIW/D\HU0LG'HSWKIW6RLO7\SH86&6)LQHV6LHYH)LHOG1IEOVIW6RLO:HW'HQVLW\SFI7RWDO6WUHVVSVIALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.3ODWH& 7$%/(& $1$/<6,62)'5<6(,60,&6(77/(0(17327(17,$/ %25,1* %3(LQ\UV)6 &OLHQW ROVRQ -1 6LWH 5RVHPHDG 7RWDO6HLVPLF6HWWOHPHQWRI8QVDWXUDWHG6RLOZ)6 LQ 6XEWRWDO6HLVPLF6HWWOHPHQWRI8QVDWXUDWHG6RLOLQ *:'HSWK IHHW 7RWDO7KLFNQHVVRI8QVDWXUDWHG6RLOIW (40DJQLWXGH SVI WVIWVI(VWLPDWHG 06)WDYJ VP *PD[(II&\FOLF (II&\FOLF 9ROXPH /D\HU 'U\6DQG /D\HU &OHDQ $YJ 0HDQ 0D[JHII6KU6WUDLQ 6KU6WUDLQ 6WUDLQ (40DJ 7KLFNQHVV 6HLVPLF 0LG'HSWK 6RLO (II6WUHVV 6DQG &65 6KHDU %XON '\Q6KU *HII*PD[JHII JHII )DFWRU 6HWWOHPHQW IW7\SH V YRWVI16WUHVV 6WUHVV 0RGIWLQ )LJ )LJ 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( 0/ (((( 0/ (((( 0/ (((( 0/ (((( 0/ (((( 60 (((( 60 (((( ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.3ODWH&