3/013 - city of los angeles - bureau of engineering · 3/5/2013 · civil engineering associate...

Christopher F. John n, GE 2324 Civil Engineering Associate III Geotechnical Engineer III Curtis J. Gee, G 991

3/013

CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Bureau of Engineering GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING GROUP

March 5, 2013 File No. 12-085

ENGINEER OF RECORD — GAFFEY POOL AND BATHHOUSE PROJECT 3351 S. GAFFEY STREET, SAN PEDRO, CA 90731 TRACT: TR 444, BLOCK: - , LOT: PT LT C, ARB: 3 W.O. E1907453 GEO FILE NO. 12-085

Reference: AMEC, "Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse, San Pedro, California" dated February 18, 2013.

The Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Group (GEO) has reviewed the referenced report prepared by AMEC. GEO takes full responsibility for the use of the contents of the report and accepts the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record for the project. Any questions or clarification of the contents of the report shall be directed to GEO.

If you have any questions, please contact Curtis Gee at (213) 847-0485.

Attachment - AMEC, "Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse" dated February 18, 2013.

Q: \PROJECTS \2012 \ 12-085 Gaffey Pool \Final ReporMssume Responsibility.doc

GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse

San Pedro, California

Prepared for:

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works

1149 S. Broadway, Suite 120 Los Angeles, California 90015

Prepared by:

AMEC 121 Innovation Drive, Suite 200

Irvine, California 92617-3094 (949) 642-0245

February 18, 2013

Project No. IR12163270

AMEC P:\163270\Docs\Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report\Final Text.doc i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 1

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION .............................................................................. 2 3.1 DATA REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 2 3.2 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................ 3

3.2.1 Pre-Drilling Activities .............................................................................. 3 3.2.2 Exploratory Drilling ................................................................................. 3

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................................ 4

4.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 5 4.1 REGIONAL AND SITE GEOLOGY ............................................................................ 5 4.2 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 6 4.3 GEOLOGIC UNITS ................................................................................................ 7

4.3.1 Artificial Fill (af) ...................................................................................... 7 4.3.2 Residual Soil/ Slopewash/Colluvium (Qcol) ............................................ 7 4.3.3 Non-Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtnm) .................................................... 7 4.3.4 Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) .............................................................. 8 4.3.5 Monterey Formation, Altamira Member (Tma) ........................................ 8

4.4 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ....................................................................................... 8 4.5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 9 4.6 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES ................................................................................ 10

4.6.1 Artificial Fill (af) .................................................................................... 10 4.6.2 Colluvium (Qcol) .................................................................................. 10 4.6.3 Non- Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtnm) ................................................. 11 4.6.4 Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) ............................................................ 11 4.6.5 Monterey Formation, Altamira Member (Tma) ...................................... 11

5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................... 12 5.1 LABC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................ 12 5.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS ............................................................................................. 13

5.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture .......................................................................... 13 5.2.2 Liquefaction.......................................................................................... 13 5.2.3 Seismically-Induced Landsliding .......................................................... 14

6.0 EVALUATION OF EXISTING SLOPES ....................................................................... 14 6.1 CROSS-SECTIONS AND SLOPE CONFIGURATIONS ................................................ 14 6.2 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS ....................................................................... 14 6.3 LIMIT-EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 15 6.4 SURFICIAL STABILITY ......................................................................................... 16 6.5 RESULTS OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES .......................................................... 17

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 17 7.1 EARTHWORK ..................................................................................................... 17

7.1.1 Backfill and Compaction Requirements ................................................ 19 7.1.2 Utilities ................................................................................................. 19 7.1.3 Drainage .............................................................................................. 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

AMEC P:\163270\Docs\Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report\Final Text.doc ii

7.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................... 20 7.2.1 Bearing Capacity and Settlement ......................................................... 20 7.2.2 Lateral Load Resistance ...................................................................... 20

7.3 CONCRETE SLAB SUPPORT ................................................................................ 20 7.4 CONCRETE FLATWORK ...................................................................................... 21 7.5 PROPOSED STAIRWAY ....................................................................................... 21 7.6 RETAINING WALLS AND BELOW GRADE WALLS ..................................................... 22 7.7 LIGHT POLES AND SPORTS LIGHTING POLES ....................................................... 23 7.8 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ....................................................................... 24 7.9 CORROSION AND CHEMICAL ATTACK RESISTANCE .............................................. 25

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 25 8.1 EXCAVATION DIFFICULTY ................................................................................... 26 8.2 TEMPORARY DEWATERING ................................................................................. 26 8.3 CONSTRUCTION SLOPES .................................................................................... 26 8.4 TEMPORARY SHORING ....................................................................................... 26

8.4.1 Temporary Lateral Earth Pressures ..................................................... 27 8.4.2 Soldier Piles and Lagging..................................................................... 27 8.4.3 Slot Cut Excavations ............................................................................ 28

8.5 POST INVESTIGATION SERVICES ......................................................................... 28

9.0 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................... 28

10.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 30

TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Field Exploration Table 2 Summary of Material Properties Used for Slope Stability Analyses Table 3 Summary of Allowable Lateral Bearing Pressures

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Regional Geology Map Figure 3 Site Geology and Field Exploration Map Figure 4 Regional Fault Map Figure 5 Geologic Cross-Sections A-A’ and B-B’ Figure 6 Seismic Hazard Zones Figure 7 Along Bedding Shear Strength Envelope of Monterey Formation Figure 8 Lateral Earth Pressure for Temporary Shoring Systems

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

AMEC P:\163270\Docs\Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report\Final Text.doc iii

APPENDICES

Appendix A Field Exploration Program Appendix B Laboratory Testing Program Appendix C Results of Slope Stability Analyses

AMEC

P:\163270\Docs\Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report\Final Text.doc 1

GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse


1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation performed by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure (AMEC) for the Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse project. The project site is in the Angels Gate Park at 3351 South Gaffey Street in San Pedro, California, as shown on Figure 1.

This geotechnical and geologic investigation was prepared to evaluate the nature and engineering properties of the subsurface materials and to develop foundation recommendations for the proposed improvements. The scope of the investigation included reviewing existing data, conducting field exploration and laboratory testing programs, performing engineering analyses, and preparing this geotechnical investigation report.

This report has been prepared for City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering and their other project team members, to be used solely in the development of the proposed project described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other uses or the purposes of other parties.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Based on the Task Order Solicitation (TOS) issued on October 10, 2012 by the Geotechnical Engineering Group (GEO) of the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) of Los Angeles Public Works, we understand the proposed project scope of work includes the restoration of the existing historical 100-foot by 50-foot pool, ADA access throughout the site, new bathhouse and restroom, new pool decks, new pool equipment, new stairways, new walkways, new driveways and a new parking lot. The proposed stairway will provide access to the pool from Gaffey Street. Although no specific plans were provided to AMEC at the time of this report, we anticipate the proposed bathhouse will consist of a lightly loaded, one to two-story structure, and will be supported on strip footings with concrete slab-on-grade floor. Two alternative locations are proposed for the bathhouse. Design recommendations for support of the proposed bathhouse structure are provided in this report. Details of the other improvements were not known at the time of this report.

AMEC


3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

This geotechnical investigation included reviewing available data, performing field exploration, conducting laboratory testing, performing engineering analyses, developing design recommendations, and preparing this report. The scope of work was performed in accordance with the October 10, 2012 TOS and the approved AMEC’s October 25, 2012 proposal.

3.1 DATA REVIEW AMEC reviewed published and unpublished information, reports, and drawings relevant to the site, including information on topography, geology, faults, historical earthquakes, groundwater, liquefaction susceptibility, geologic hazard zones, and ground motions. Relevant information garnered from the data reviewed has been incorporated in the analyses and recommendations contained in this report.

Documents reviewed included the following:

• Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Hills (Dibblee, 1999)

• Geology and Paleontology of Palos Verdes Hills (Woodring, et al 1946)

• Shattered Crust Series #2 – The Palos Verdes Fault Guide (Southern California Earthquake Center(SCEC), 1996)

• Final Technical Report: Late Quaternary Activity along the Onshore Portion of the Palos Verdes Fault Zone (Woodward-Clyde, 1987)

• Style and Rate of Slip, Palos Verdes fault, Southern California (McNeilan, 1996)

• Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States, Fault #129a, Cabrillo fault, Onshore Section, (United States Geological Survey (USGS)/California Geological Survey (CGS) 1998a)

• Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States, Fault #129b, Cabrillo Fault, Offshore Section, (USGS/CGS, 1998b)

• Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978-84 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California, (Ziony, 1989)

• Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California (Saucedo, 2003)

AMEC


• Report of Soil and Geologic Investigation – Proposed Housing Development, Site No.3 – Fort MacArthur, Upper Reservation, Paseo Del Mar and Gaffey Street, Los Angeles (Le Roy Crandall and Associates, 1972)

• The Monterey Formation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, California (Conrad, 1983)

• California Continental Margin Geologic Map Series, Inner Southern Area (Geene, 1986)

• Fault Activity of California, CGS, Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6 (Jennings 2010)

• Geology, Hydrology and Chemical Character of Ground Waters in the Torrance- Santa Monica area, California (Poland, 1959)

An excerpt of the Dibblee’s regional geologic map of the Palos Verdes Hills (1999) showing the site location is attached as Figure 2.

3.2 FIELD EXPLORATION AMEC’s field exploration program for the proposed improvements at the site included pre-drilling activities, drilling three hollow-stem-auger (HSA) borings, and three 24-inch diameter bucket auger borings, downhole logging of the bucket auger borings, and collecting soil samples. The field exploration program is summarized in Table 1. Field activities were conducted on December 5, 6 and 7, 2012, under the supervision of an AMEC engineer and a certified engineering geologist. The boring locations are shown on Figure 3. Key aspects of the field investigation program are described in the following subsections.

3.2.1 Pre-Drilling Activities Prior to beginning drilling, AMEC conducted a site reconnaissance to evaluate site access and to mark boring locations. AMEC utilized a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) device with an accuracy of approximately 2 feet to locate the boring locations in the field. The borings were located in coordination with a GEO representative. Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified at least two working days before drilling to locate buried utilities in the vicinity of the proposed borings.

3.2.2 Exploratory Drilling Three hollow-stem auger (HSA) borings (designated B-1, B-2 and B-4) were drilled to explore subsurface conditions and obtain samples for laboratory testing. Drilling services were provided by Martini Drilling Corporation of Huntington Beach, California. The HSA borings were each drilled to a depth of approximately 31.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) using a

AMEC


truck-mounted drill rig. The AMEC representative classified the soils encountered during drilling and collected soil samples for laboratory testing. Soil samples were obtained by driving either a standard penetration test (SPT) or Modified California sampler using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. A Shelby tube sampler was also pushed to obtain relatively undisturbed soil sample from fine grained soils.

In addition to the HSA borings, three bucket auger borings were drilled to explore subsurface conditions and obtain samples for laboratory testing. The borings, designated BA-3, BA-5 and BA-6 were drilled by Al-Roy Drilling Services of Yorba Linda, California. The borings were drilled using a truck mounted Earth Drill Bucket rig equipped with a 24-inch diameter auger. The boring depths ranged from approximately 31 (BA-5) to 51 feet (BA-3) bgs.

Following completion of the bucket auger drilling, a Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) was lowered into the borehole to perform downhole geologic observations of the soil and bedrock and to take measurements of the bedrock structure (strike and dip). The information obtained from the downhole observations was used to develop geologic cross-sections, and to evaluate the slope stability.

Soil samples from the HSA and bucket auger borings were subsequently delivered to the laboratory for further examination and testing. Final boring logs were prepared based on the field logs, examination of samples in the laboratory, and laboratory test results. A more detailed description of the field exploration program, including logs of the borings, is presented in Appendix A.

3.2.3 Geologic Mapping Following downhole logging of the bucket auger borings, AMEC’s CEG performed reconnaissance level geologic mapping of various geologic exposures along Gaffey Street and Barlow Saxton Road. Bedding attitudes measured during the mapping are shown on Figure 3.

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING

Selected samples obtained from the borings were tested in the laboratory to evaluate the physical characteristics and engineering properties of subsurface soils and rock. Physical tests performed included moisture content and dry density, fines content, sieve analysis and hydrometer, Atterberg limits, expansion index, consolidation, direct shear, unconfined compression, compaction, and R-value. Procedures for these tests are described in Appendix B. Test results for moisture content and dry density, fines content, and Atterberg Limits are summarized on the boring logs in Appendix A. The individual sheets for all the laboratory tests are provided in Appendix B.

AMEC


4.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The following discussion of findings for the project is based on the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing programs.

4.1 REGIONAL AND SITE GEOLOGY The project area lies at the southeastern portion of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, which is part of the northwest trending Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Palos Verdes Hills are composed of an interval of Miocene-age sedimentary rocks draped over an anticlinal core of basement rock known as the Catalina schist, a micaceous metamorphic rock that formed in an ancient subduction zone.

The Palos Verdes Peninsula is a topographic and structural high produced by ongoing uplift associated with the Palos Verdes fault, located along the northeast margin of the peninsula about 2.5 miles from the site. The peninsula is an uplifted fault block and doubly plunging anticlinorium, which developed in response to slip along a restraining bend on the seismically active Palos Verdes fault (zone). The Palos Verdes fault, as well as other active and potentially active faults in the Los Angeles area, have developed as a result of the ‘big bend” on San Andreas fault, which represents a transform junction between the great Pacific and North American tectonic plates.

The main active trace of the Palos Verdes fault crosses beneath the Los Angeles Harbor facilities, where it projects beneath mid-point of the Vincent Thomas Bridge (SCEC, 1996; Woodward-Clyde, 1987). Deformation of Pleistocene and Holocene age sediments indicate that compression across the Palos Verdes fault has been active in the Holocene (Woodward-Clyde, 1987). Most studies have suggested a vertical uplift rate of the peninsula of about 0.3 to 0.4 millimeters per year (mm/y); and over the last 7.8 to 8.0 thousand years (ka) the slip rate on the Palos Verdes fault is constrained between 2.7 and 3.0 mm/y (McNeilan, et. al., 1996). The northwest-trending Cabrillo fault is a relatively minor fault considered to be associated with the Palos Verdes fault that comes onshore from the Pacific Ocean approximately one-half mile southeast of the project site at Cabrillo Beach. Woodring et al. (1946) show the inferred trace of the Cabrillo Fault about 500 to 1,000 feet north of the project site. The fault models by the USGS (1998a and 1998b) and other researchers (i.e., McNeilan, et. al., 1996) suggest the offshore trace of the Cabrillo fault represents a splay off the Palos Verdes fault that may siphon off a small amount of slip from the Palos Verdes fault, or move sympathetically with it (SCEC, 1996). According to the USGS (1998a and 1998b), only the offshore trace of the Cabrillo fault is known to display evidence of Holocene activity. The City of Los Angeles Seismic Safety Element Plan shows the Palos Verdes fault in a fault rupture study area, however, the Cabrillo fault is not located within a fault rupture study area. The next closest active fault to the project site is the Newport-Inglewood fault, located about

AMEC


10 miles northeast of the site. A regional fault map of the area surrounding the project site is presented on Figure 4.

The historical record of seismicity for the region surrounding the Los Angeles Harbor shows a relatively high level of seismic activity, mainly associated with the nearby Newport-Inglewood fault. However, patterns of more recently recorded earthquakes epicenters suggest recent seismic activity may also be related to the Palos Verdes fault.

Topographically, the slopes of the Palos Verdes Peninsula are cut by a series of steps that represent wave-cut marine terraces (or wave-cut benches) carved by the sea during millennia of steady tectonic uplift and simultaneous rise and fall of sea level due to the many advances and retreats of continental ice sheets during Pleistocene time. Thirteen principal terrace levels have been recognized by Woodring (et. al., 1946). The fourth lowest marine terrace level is shown located south of the site by Woodring (et. al., 1946) at an elevation between approximately 200 and 255 feet.

4.2 SITE CONDITIONS The project site is located in the southeastern portion of the Palos Verdes Peninsula within Angels Gate Park, which is maintained by the City of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation. Site topography consists of a broad gently sloping ridge top with flanking slopes that descend northeast towards Gaffey Street on the east and toward Barlow Saxton Road to the north, as shown on Figure 3. The overall slope height from the broad ridge top area to Gaffey Street is about 85 feet.

Several former military buildings are located along the ridge top. The ground surface between several of the buildings is paved; whereas outside the paved areas, grass lawns are maintained. An access road extends from the mesa to the existing swimming pool, located approximately midslope between the ridge top and Gaffey Street. The pool dimensions are approximately 50 feet by 100 feet. The ground surface adjacent to the pool is paved, and the pool is bordered by concrete retaining walls.

The northeast-facing slopes have been modified by past cut-fill grading activities associated with the construction of the swimming pool, access road, and Gaffey Street. Slope inclinations in this area range from approximately 2:1 to 3:1 horizontal to vertical (H:V) along the majority of the slopes, except along the road-cuts adjacent to Gaffey Street, where the slope inclinations range from approximately 1-½:1 to 1:1. The height of the road-cuts ranges from about 10 to 15 feet.

A relatively small excavation, which is bordered by chain-link fence, is located on the lower portion of the descending slope, and about 80 feet southwest of the toe of a cut slope adjacent

AMEC


to the intersection of Gaffey Street and Barlow Saxton Road. The excavation is approximately 15 feet long by 10 feet wide, and about 10 feet deep.

A small concrete wall (about 3 feet in height) is located along a portion of the top of the Gaffey Street road cut. The wall is partially destroyed. The outlets of two 12-inch (ID) concrete pipes are located in the toe of slope below the broken wall. The backfill above the concrete pipes in the road cut slope appears to show evidence of soil creep and/or shallow sloughing.

4.3 GEOLOGIC UNITS Geologic units within the project area consist of, from youngest to oldest, artificial fill, undifferentiated residual soil/slopewash/colluvium, non-marine terrace deposits, marine terrace deposits, and bedrock of the Altamira member of the Monterey Formation. The following presents a general description of these materials along with their designations used on the Site Geology and Field Exploration Map, attached as Figure 3. Geologic cross-sections (A-A’ and B-B’) are presented on Figure 5.

4.3.1 Artificial Fill (af) Artificial (undocumented) fill forms an approximate 3-to 5-foot thick, discontinuous wedge above the colluvial/slopewash soils. Fill was encountered in the level bench east of the swimming pool and along a portion of the slope beneath the bench and access road. The fill composition is variable, and is described in more detail in Section 4.5.1.

4.3.2 Residual Soil/ Slopewash/Colluvium (Qcol) Residual and colluvial soils (colluvium) form a variably thick blanket-like deposit above the bedrock on the ridge top and above the non-marine terrace deposits in the northeast descending slope. Based on the field exploration, the colluvium ranges in thickness from approximately 1 to 7 feet. The colluvium mostly consists of clayey sand to sandy lean clay and sandy fat clay with subangular to angular fragments of siltstone and sandstone.

4.3.3 Non-Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtnm) Non-marine terrace deposits were encountered in Borings BA-5 and BA-6, which were drilled on the east side of the pool. These deposits underlie the colluvium, and appear to be locally exposed above a small exposure of marine terrace deposits in the Gaffey Street roadcut (Figure 3). The non marine terrace deposits mostly consist of sandy lean clay with scattered, angular to subrounded fragments of siltstone and sandstone (up to approximately 5 inches). The terrace deposits have several zones of abundant carbonate filling pores and coating grains.

AMEC


4.3.4 Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) Marine terrace deposits were encountered beneath the non-marine terrace deposits in Boring BA-5, and are locally exposed above bedrock roadcut along Gaffey Street (Figure 3). The marine terrace deposits are about two to three feet thick and mostly consist of silty gravel with varying amounts of sand. The marine terrace deposits also contain some cobbles and small boulders (up to at approximately 12-inches). The marine terrace deposits contain zones of shell fragments and fine to coarse sand with variable subrounded to rounded gravel.

4.3.5 Monterey Formation, Altamira Member (Tma) The site is underlain at shallow to moderate depths by sedimentary bedrock assigned to the Altamira Shale member of the Miocene age Monterey Formation. Bedrock was encountered in the borings drilled beneath the ridge top area (B-1, B-2, and BA-3) at depths ranging from approximately 1 to 5 feet bgs. Bedrock was encountered beneath the terrace deposits in Borings BA-5 and BA-6 at depths ranging from approximately 18 to 23 feet bgs.

The lithologic composition of the bedrock encountered in the borings consists mostly of interbedded clayey siltstone, sandy siltstone, and fine to coarse-grained sandstone. The siltstone beds are typically very thinly to thinly interbedded, and are friable to weak. The sandstone beds are thinly to medium bedded, moderately cemented, and medium strong. The bedrock color varies from pale brown to bluish gray.

4.4 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE As shown on the attached excerpt of Dibblee’s regional geologic map of the Palos Verdes Hills (Figure 3), the subject site is located on the northeast flank of the Point Fermin anticline. This fold trends northwesterly from near Cabrillo Beach to the upper Fort MacArthur Reservation area, as mapped by Woodring et al. (1946) and Dibblee (1999). The fold axis is located about 1,000 feet southwest of the project site. Bedding dip directions shown on the referenced published maps are predominantly toward the northeast on the northeastern limb of the fold. The onsite slopes descend gently to moderately to the northeast, and thus, the regional bedding dip is oriented in the same general direction as the overlying northeast-facing slopes.

The strike and dip of bedding planes exposed in the roadcuts along the east and north borders of the project site indicate gentle flexures are present in the predominantly northeast dipping strata that were observed. Bedding dip vectors observed in the roadcuts are typically between 10 to 35 degrees to the northeast with local shallow dips to the southwest and northwest of about 5 to 13 degrees. The 1:1 and 1-½:1 slopes that comprise the roadcuts are oriented facing to the east and northeast, so the predominant bedding dips in the bedrock tend to be adversely oriented relative to the slope face. Bedding strike and dip measurements are shown on Figure 3.

AMEC


Bedding dip vectors observed on the ridge top in Boring BA-3 are oriented predominantly to the east and northeast, with a localized zone of southwest dipping strata at a depth of 19 feet. The majority of the easterly dip magnitudes are in the range of 20 to 30 degrees and the single southwest dipping measurement is 19 degrees. The predominant dip direction in Boring BA-3 is towards the nearby northeast facing slope, although the dip magnitudes are typically at or slightly greater than the descending slope angle.

Subsurface observations and measurements of bedding attitudes were also performed in two bucket auger borings located on the lower portion of the slope between the existing pool and Gaffey Street (BA-5 and BA-6). A significant thickness of terrace deposits were encountered in Boring BA-5 and measurement of only one bedding attitude was possible in the highly weathered zone of bedrock beneath the marine terrace deposits. However, the observed bedding dip vectors were consistent with the orientation of the local geologic structure and a bedding dip of 30 degrees to the northeast was measured at a depth of 26 feet. In Boring BA-6, a smaller thickness of terrace deposits was encountered, and three bedding measurements were made at depths of 20 and 29 feet. The measured dip vector at 20 feet was inclined at 15 degrees to the southwest and two measurements at 29 feet showed dips to the east-southeast at 15 and 25 degrees. A well-defined, polished shear surface was also measured at a depth of 23 feet, dipping at 50 degrees to the southwest with a strike that parallels the bedding orientation measured approximately 3 feet higher in the borehole. In general, bedding plane measurements in the bucket auger borings on the lower portion of the slope were consistent with the observations in boring BA-3 near the slope crest. However, the local zone of southwest dipping bedding and a possibly associated southwest dipping shear surface in the upper portion of the bedrock section observed in BA-6, suggests a significant flexure of the bedrock structure may be present at that location.

Joint and fracture spacing appear to be closely to moderately-spaced in the bedrock exposures in the roadcuts and in the borings. The bedrock appears to be cut by at least two joint sets and randomly oriented joint fractures. In Boring BA-3, at least two predominant joint sets cut the bedrock. One joint set strikes approximately North-South and dips from 50 to 80 degrees to the East And a second joint set strikes approximately East-West and dips about 75 degrees to the North.

4.5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater was not encountered in any of the six borings to a maximum explored depth of approximately 51 feet bgs. Seepage was not observed emanating from the road-cut area or at the contact between the terrace deposits and bedrock in the borings. Information from the California Geological Survey (CGS) website indicates historically high groundwater levels on the order of 10 feet bgs near the shoreline but no data is provided for the immediate site vicinity. The project site elevations vary between approximately 200 to 270 feet mean sea

AMEC


level. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to be an issue for the proposed construction. However, groundwater levels may vary throughout the year because of seasonal variation, variation in rainfall, and other man-made and natural influences. High soil moisture content and elevated perched water zones may be expected at relatively shallow depths following a rainy season.

4.6 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Physical tests, as described in Section 3.3, were performed on selected samples to characterize the engineering properties of the artificial fill, native soil, and bedrock. These engineering properties are discussed in the following sections.

4.6.1 Artificial Fill (af) Test results on two relatively undisturbed samples from the undocumented fill indicate the moisture contents are similar (15.2 and 16.4 percent), but the in-situ dry densities of the same materials are significantly different (83 and 102 pcf). Based on sieve analyses, the fill material is variable, and consists of sandy silt, clayey sand with gravel, and silty gravel with sand. The results of an Atterberg Limits test indicate the clayey sand with gravel (BA-5) has a plasticity index of 27. The results of an expansion index (EI) test on the same material indicates that the EI value is 35, and based on this value, the expansion potential is considered to be low. A consolidation test was performed on a sample of the sandy silt fill material from Boring BA-6, and the compression curve is presented in Appendix B. A direct shear test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample of the silty gravel with sand from Boring B-4. This material was found to have an ultimate friction angle and cohesion value of 33 degrees and 150 psf, respectively. The peak friction angle of the same material was also found to be 33 degrees, but the peak cohesion was slightly higher (200 psf). A compaction test was performed on the silty gravel with sand (B-4), and based on these test results, the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content is 114 and 14.6 percent, respectively. Finally, the resistance value (R-value) of the clayey sand with gravel (BA-5) was found to be 28.

4.6.2 Colluvium (Qcol) Test results indicate the colluvium has moisture contents ranging from approximately 7.1 to 18.7 percent, and an in-situ dry densities ranging from approximately 91 to 107 pcf. The average moisture content and dry density was found to be approximately 14.2 percent and 101 pcf, respectively. The results of two Atterberg Limits tests indicate the plasticity index ranges from approximately 35 to 41, and based on these test results, the fines content can be classified as fat clay (CH). The results of an expansion index (EI) test on a sample from Boring B-2 indicates that the EI value is 74, and based on this value, the expansion potential is considered to be medium. A consolidation test was performed on an undisturbed sample from

AMEC


Boring BA-5, and the compression curve is presented in Appendix B. A direct shear test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample (Boring BA-5) and on a remolded sample (Boring B-2). The remolded sample was compacted to 92 percent relative compaction at 3 percent above optimum moisture content. The undisturbed sample was found to have an ultimate friction angle and cohesion value of 30 degrees and 200 psf, respectively. The peak friction angle and cohesion value of the same material was found to be 29 degrees and 250 psf, respectively. The remolded sample was found to have an ultimate friction angle and cohesion value of 29 degrees and 300 psf, respectively. The peak friction angle and cohesion value of the same material was found to be 27 degrees and 700 psf, respectively. An unconfined compression test was performed on an undisturbed sample from Boring BA-6, and based on the test results, the unconfined compressive strength was found to be approximately 19.3 ksf. A compaction test was performed on the surficial material from Boring B-2, and based on these test results, the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content is 107 and 17.5 percent, respectively. Finally, the resistance value (R-value) of the surficial material from B-1 was found to be 6.

4.6.3 Non- Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtnm) Test results indicate the non-marine terrace deposits have moisture contents ranging from approximately 11.2 to 29.3 percent, and in-situ dry densities ranging from approximately 83 to 102 pcf. The average moisture content and dry density was found to be approximately 20.1 percent and 93 pcf, respectively. The results of two Atterberg Limits tests indicate the non-marine terrace deposits have a plasticity index ranging from 13 to 29, and based on these test results, the fines content can be classified as lean clay (CL). A direct shear test was performed on an undisturbed sample from Boring BA-6, and based on the test results, this material has an ultimate friction angle and cohesion value of 29 degrees and 450 psf, respectively. The peak friction angle and cohesion value of the same material was found to be 26 degrees and 750 psf, respectively.

4.6.4 Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) No laboratory testing was performed on the marine terrace deposits as no sample was collected from the unit. As shown on the geologic cross-sections (Figure 5) the thickness of the marine terrace deposits is relatively small compared to the other geologic units and does not affect the slope stability analyses. Strength parameters consisting of a friction angle of 34 degrees and zero cohesion were conservatively assigned to the unit based on engineering judgment.

4.6.5 Monterey Formation, Altamira Member (Tma) Test results also indicate the bedrock (Tma) has moisture contents ranging from approximately 7.3 to 38.4 percent, and in-situ dry densities ranging from approximately 79 to

AMEC


115 pcf. The large variation in moisture content and dry densities is attributed to the amount and nature of the fines (silt and clay) within the weathered zones. The average moisture content and dry density of the Tma was found to be approximately 21.0 percent and 98 pcf, respectively. The results of four Atterberg Limits tests indicate the bedrock has a plasticity index ranging from 35 to 60, and based on these test results, the fines content can be classified as fat clay (CH). A direct shear test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample from Boring BA-3. This sample is thought to represent a cross-bedding condition. This sample was found to have an ultimate friction angle and cohesion value of 23 degrees and 700 psf, respectively. The peak friction angle and cohesion value of the same material was found to be 25 degrees and 1350 psf, respectively. An unconfined compression test was performed on an undisturbed sample from Boring BA-5, and based on these test results, the unconfined compressive strength was found to be approximately 6.8 ksf.

5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The following sections present seismic design parameters and discuss seismic hazards for the site.

5.1 LABC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS The following seismic design parameters were developed in accordance with 2011 Los Angeles Building Code, Chapter 16 Section 1613 (LABC 2011), based on mapped spectral acceleration parameters in the LABC, and the site conditions:

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during our field investigation at the site, shallow bedrock formation, the site was classified as “Site Class C”.

• Mapped spectral accelerations for short periods SS: 1.78 g

• Mapped spectral accelerations for a 1-s period S1: 0.74 g

• Site Class: C

• Site Coefficient Fa: 1.0

• Site Coefficient Fv: 1.3

• Adjusted MCE spectral acceleration for short periods SMS= FaSS = 1.78 g

• Adjusted MCE spectral acceleration for a 1-s period SM1= FvS1 = 0.96 g

• Five-percent damped design spectral response acceleration at short periods SDS: 1.19 g

AMEC


• Five-percent damped design spectral response acceleration at 1-second period SD1: 0.64 g

• Long-period transition period TL: 8 seconds

A site location with Latitude 33.714465 N and Longitude 118.293455 W was used in developing the seismic design parameters.

5.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS This section provides an assessment of the earthquake-related geologic/geotechnical hazards for the site, including the potential for surface fault rupture; liquefaction; and seismically-induced settlement.

5.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture Earthquakes generally are caused by a sudden slip or displacement along a zone of weakness, termed a fault, in the Earth’s crust. Surface fault rupture, which is a manifestation of the fault displacement at the ground surface, usually is associated with moderate to large-magnitude earthquakes (magnitudes of about 6 or larger) occurring on active faults having mapped traces or zones at the ground surface. The amount of surface fault displacement can be as much as 10 feet or more, depending on the earthquake magnitude and other factors. The displacement associated with surface fault rupture can damage structures situated astride the zone of rupture.

As mentioned, the Cabrillo fault is located within approximately ½ mile of the project site. However, the City of Los Angles Seismic Safety Element Plan shows the Cabrillo fault is not located within a fault rupture study area. Based on the California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Study Zones maps (2000) and the City of Los Angles Seismic Safety Element Plan, the project site is not located within a State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. Therefore, we do not expect a geologic report would be required to address the issue of surface fault rupture.

5.2.2 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated granular soil materials transform from a solid to a liquefied state when subjected to large, rapid loadings such as strong ground shaking during an earthquake. The transformation to a liquid state occurs due to the tendency of granular materials to compact, which consequently results in increased pore water pressure accompanied by a significant reduction in the effective stress. The change of state occurs most readily in recently deposited (i.e., geologically young) loose to moderately dense granular soils. The liquefaction susceptibility is highly dependent on the density of the soil and looser soils are generally more susceptible. Furthermore, the consequences of liquefaction are also

AMEC


density dependent. In loose materials, soil liquefaction can result in a significant loss of shear strength, which is often accompanied by large shear deformations. In moderately dense to dense materials, liquefaction may temporarily induce high excess pore water pressures, but the tendency to dilate during shear inhibits major strength loss and large ground deformations.

Groundwater was not encountered during drilling at the time of our investigation, Based on the absence of groundwater, and the fine-grained nature of the native soils overlying the bedrock, the potential for liquefaction to occur at the site is considered remote.

5.2.3 Seismically-Induced Landsliding The Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the San Pedro Quadrangle (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1999), as presented on Figure 6, indicates the site is not located in an area that is susceptible to seismically induced landsliding. An evaluation of seismically-induced landsliding was performed as part of our scope of work, and is discussed in Section 6.0.

6.0 EVALUATION OF EXISTING SLOPES

Limit-equilibrium analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the existing slopes on the east/northeastern side of the pool and proposed bathhouse. Details of the slope stability analyses are discussed in the following sections.

6.1 CROSS-SECTIONS AND SLOPE CONFIGURATIONS The stability of the existing slopes was evaluated by analyzing two geologic cross-sections. The locations of the geologic cross-sections are shown on Figure 3, and the cross-section profiles are depicted on Figure 5. These cross-sections were analyzed as they are thought to represent an adverse condition due to the dip direction of the Monterey Formation in relation to the steep roadcut along Gaffey Street. The cross-section locations were based primarily on the location of the pool and available geologic data from the borings.

6.2 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS The stability of the existing slopes is largely controlled by the shear strength of the Monterey Formation (Tma). Shear strength parameters are also required for the existing undocumented fill (af), colluvium (Qcol), non-marine terrace deposits (Qtnm), and marine terrace deposits (Qtm). The strength parameters used in our analyses, as summarized in Table 2, are mostly based on the results of direct shear tests (see Section 4.5). The shear strength of the marine terrace deposits plays a very minor role in the results of the stability analyses due to its relatively small thickness. Nonetheless, this gravelly material was assumed to have both an ultimate and peak friction angle of 34 degrees (no cohesion).

AMEC


The long-term static stability was evaluated using ultimate shear strength parameters for all materials. The seismic stability was evaluated using peak shear strength parameters for all materials, except for the along bedding strength of the bedrock. The shear strength properties of the bedrock, including the along bedding strength, are discussed below.

The shear strength of the Monterey Formation (Tma) bedrock at this site is largely controlled by the orientation of the beds (i.e. cross-bedding vs. along-bedding). The adverse bedding condition, as depicted on the geologic cross-sections (Figure 5), was modeled using an anisotropic Mohr-Coulomb model to account for the differences between cross-bedding and along-bedding strengths. As discussed in Section 4.6.5, the ultimate cross-bedding friction angle and cohesion values used in the static slope stability analyses were 23 degrees and 700 psf, respectively. The peak cross-bedding friction angle and cohesion values were 25 degrees and 1350 psf, respectively. The along bedding shear strength values for the Monterey Formation were estimated using correlations by Stark et al. (2005) for a fully softened material. The results of our Atterberg Limits tests on three samples of the bedrock indicate the liquid limits range from 50 to 86. The results of our hydrometer tests on the same samples indicate the ASTM clay fraction (0.002 mm) ranges from approximately 16 to 24 percent. Based on Stark et al.’s correlations, the theoretical ball milled clay fractions are between 28 and 37 percent. The results of the empirical strength envelopes for the three samples are shown on Figure 7. Conservatively, we selected an along bedding friction angle that agrees reasonably well with the lower bound shear strength envelope of the three samples for the stress range of the anticipated failure surface. In addition, a small cohesion value was also selected to account for healing effects. As shown on Figure 7, the along bedding friction angle and cohesion values selected were 20 degrees and 100 psf, respectively. Finally, the anisotropic strength properties (along bedding vs. cross bedding) used in the analyses are based on field measurements of the strike and dip. Based on these measurements and our interpretation of the geology, along bedding strength properties were assigned to Section A-A’ for slip surface inclinations between 10 and 19 degrees and to Section B-B’ for slip surface inclinations between 15 and 30 degrees.

6.3 LIMIT-EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS Two-dimensional limit-equilibrium analyses were performed to evaluate the global stability of the subject slopes and compute a factor of safety (FS) against sliding. The computer program Slope/W (Geo-Slope, 2007) was used to perform Spencer’s limit-equilibrium analysis method (Spencer, 1967) because it satisfies both force and moment equilibrium, and accounts for inter-slice forces. Slope/W is a commercially available computer program with a comprehensive formulation that makes it possible to analyze complex geometric configurations and loading conditions.

AMEC


In terms of slope stability, the FS against slope instability is defined as the ratio of resulting shear strength (friction and cohesion along a potential failure surface) to driving stresses (gravitational forces pulling downslope). A FS of unity (1.0) indicates a delicate balance between the resisting and driving stresses and represents incipient failure. A FS below unity indicates slope instability. For the limit-equilibrium analyses, the minimum static FS for slope stability was evaluated. The calculated static FS was compared to the design criterion for static slope stability for the City of LA (2011). For a long-term static condition, the FS criterion used to evaluate the static stability was 1.50.

The seismic stability was evaluated using the pseudostatic analysis method within Slope/W. In this method, the earthquake forces are represented by a static lateral force equal to the product of the horizontal seismic coefficient (k) and the weight of the slide mass, and a FS is computed using conventional limit-equilibrium analysis. The seismic stability was also evaluated in accordance with the City of LA (2011) guidelines, which is based on the recommended procedures provided in Special Publication 117A (California Geological Survey, 2008). This method, which is known as a screening analysis, involves calculating a “k” coefficient and evaluating the stability using a minimum required FS = 1.0. The “k” coefficient is dependent on the contributing earthquake magnitude and distance to the fault, the peak ground acceleration (PGA), and the amount of tolerable displacement. The City of LA requires that the amount of tolerable displacement should be a maximum of 5 centimeters (approximately 2 inches) for slopes that may affect the integrity of structures. The calculated “k” coefficient used in our analyses was determined to be 0.265, which is based on a Mw=7.2 from the Palos Verdes Fault located approximately 4 km from the site, and a PGA = 0.48 g.

6.4 SURFICIAL STABILITY Surficial slope stability was evaluated in accordance the City of LA requirements (2011). The City of LA (2011) requires an evaluation of an infinite slope condition with seepage parallel to the slope surface and a minimum FS = 1.50. In addition, a minimum saturated depth of 3 feet should be used in the analysis.

Based on the City of LA’s (2011) requirements, the surficial stability of the colluvium and Monterey Formation bedrock was evaluated under saturated conditions, and assuming a 4-ft saturation depth. The cross-bedding shear strength was used to evaluate the surficial stability of the Monterey Formation.

The slope stability equation (Abramson et al., 2002) for a fully saturated condition is as follows:

ββhγ(βγγhc

F w

cossin'tan)cos)('

sat

2sat φ−+

=

AMEC


where:

c’ = cohesion (psf) – ultimate values based on direct shear test results h = vertical height ground surface and theoretical failure surface (ft) – assumed to be 4 γs = saturated unit weight (pcf) – assumed to be 120 γw = unit weight of water (62.4 pcf) β = slope angle (degrees) – 17 for colluvium case and 37 for bedrock case φ’ = angle of internal friction (degrees) – ultimate values based on direct shear test results

6.5 RESULTS OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES The results of the slope stability analyses, except for the surficial stability, are provided in Appendix C. Based on the results of our analyses, the minimum FS criterion (FS>=1.50) is satisfied for the static cases. The minimum FS criterion (FS>=1.0) is also considered satisfied for the pseudostatic cases in terms of potential failures affecting the integrity of proposed structures. The minimum FS criterion is not satisfied for the pseudostatic cases where the scarp of the failure surface moves closer towards Gaffey Street. Therefore, it should be anticipated that small failures may occur during an earthquake in the lower portion of the slope, but they are not expected to affect structures in the upper areas. For the saturated surficial stability, FS = 3.11 and 3.30 were computed for the colluvium and bedrock cases, respectively.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the results of our investigation, the proposed improvements are considered geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design and construction. If changes in the design of the structures are made, or variations or changed conditions are encountered during construction, AMEC should be contacted to evaluate their effects on these recommendations.

The following geotechnical engineering recommendations are based on our data review and the results of the field investigation and laboratory test programs.

7.1 EARTHWORK All earthwork, including excavation, backfill and preparation of subgrade, should be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report and applicable portions of the grading code of local regulatory agencies. The grading contractor is responsible to notify governmental agencies, as required, and the geotechnical engineer at the start of site cleanup, the initiation of grading and any time that grading operations are resumed after an interruption. All earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical engineer.

AMEC


Prior to any grading, all vegetation, trash and debris should be removed and disposed off-site. Organic matter and other material that may interfere with the completion of the work should be removed from the limits of the construction area. Large roots from trees should be removed to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing and finished grade. Vegetation, debris, and organic matter should not be incorporated into engineered fill. Organic rich soil may be stockpiled for future landscaping.

As discussed previously, undocumented fill ranging from about 4 to 6½ feet in thickness was encountered in Borings B-4 and BA-5. All undocumented fill should be removed beneath building and pavement areas. Also, Borings B-1 and B-2 encountered potentially expansive colluvial material to depths of 3 to 4.5 feet bgs. This material should be removed and replaced with granular, low-expansion material to a depth of 3 feet below new footings or to 18 inches below new pavements. Alternatively, the material should be removed and recompacted per the compaction requirements provided below.

Based on the approximate locations of proposed improvements provided in the TOS, the proposed bathhouse will be located in the area of Boring B-4 or BA-5. As indicated above, these borings encountered 4 to 6.5 feet of undocumented fill, which will require removal and recompaction per the requirements in Section 7.1.1. The limits of excavation should extend horizontally a distance equal to the depth of excavation or at least 5 feet, whichever is greater, outside the perimeter of the building. The excavation and replacement should result in a minimum of 3 feet of engineered fill beneath the bottom of footings and 18 inches below the bottom of concrete slabs-on-grade. The excavation and recompaction in new pavement areas should extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the original ground surface and should result in a minimum of 12 inches of recompacted soil below all pavement aggregate base sections. The excavation and recompaction in concrete flatwork areas should extend to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the original ground surface and should result in a minimum of 12 inches of recompacted soil below the pavement. Recompacted sections should extend at least 2 feet beyond all pavement and concrete flatwork areas.

The bottom of excavations in building and slab areas should be moisture-conditioned and compacted to the minimum requirements discussed in Section 7.1.1 prior to placement of engineered fill.

All trenches and excavations should conform to the current CAL-OSHA requirements for work safety. In addition, excavations should be located so that no structures existing at the time of construction are located above a plane projected 45 degrees upward from any point in an excavation.

AMEC


7.1.1 Backfill and Compaction Requirements Engineered fill material should be free of organic material, debris, and other deleterious substances, and not contain fragments greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension and have expansion index (EI) less than 40.

Based on two EI tests on surficial materials, the onsite soils have a low to medium expansion potential (EIs of 35 and 74). The existing clayey fill and native materials may be reused as engineered fill provided that they are properly moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent over optimum moisture content and kept moist until concrete has been placed. Highly pervious materials, such as sand, are not recommended for utility trench backfill where they can serve as conduit for water because they more readily transmit water to the shallow expansive soils.

All fill and backfill materials should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Each lift should be brought to uniform moisture content prior to compacting by either spraying the soil with water if it is too dry or aerating the material if it is too wet. All fill materials should be moisture-conditioned to within three percent above optimum moisture content (minimum of 3 percent over optimum for clayey site soils). Fill should be compacted to the following degree of compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition):

Fill Location Degree of Compaction (percent) General engineered fill 90

Utility trench backfill 90

Fill beneath foundations and floor slabs (onsite medium expansive soil) 90

Aggregate base and subgrade beneath pavements (upper 12 inches) 95 Grading operations during the wet season or in areas where the materials are saturated may require special provisions for drying of soil prior to compaction.

7.1.2 Utilities Utility backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 7.1.1. Compaction of trench backfill should be by mechanical means; jetting or flooding is not recommended.

7.1.3 Drainage Final grades and pavements should be sloped to direct surface water away from foundations and slabs and toward suitable discharge facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be

AMEC


allowed anywhere on site. The water from any downspouts should be directed in closed pipes to storm drains or other appropriate points of discharge. The contractor should implement drainage provisions during construction to divert rain and construction water away from open excavations.

7.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS Following the site preparation recommended in the Earthwork section (Section 7.1), foundations for the bathhouse may be designed as discussed below.

7.2.1 Bearing Capacity and Settlement The building may be supported on continuous and isolated spread footings bearing entirely upon at least three feet of engineered fill material. Continuous or isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches and be embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous spread footings placed on at least 3 feet of engineered fill may be designed using an allowable (net) bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). A safety factor of 3 was incorporated in the bearing values. The allowable bearing value applies to combined dead and sustained live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient live loads, including seismic and wind forces.

Based on the allowable bearing value recommended above, total settlement of the shallow spread footings are anticipated to be less than 1 inch, provided foundation preparations conform to the recommendations described in this report. Differential settlement is expected to be on the order of ½-inch.

7.2.2 Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance for the spread footings will be developed by passive soil pressure against the sides of footings below grade and by friction acting at the base of the footings bearing on compacted engineered fill. An allowable passive pressure of 175 psf per foot of depth may be used for design purposes. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.37 may be used for dead and sustained live load forces to compute the frictional resistance of the footings constructed directly on compacted fill. The upper 1-foot of soil below the lowest adjacent grade should not be used in calculating passive resistance.

Safety factors of 2.0 and 1.5 have been incorporated in development of allowable passive and frictional resistance values, respectively. Under seismic and wind loading conditions, the passive pressure and frictional resistance may be increased by one-third.

7.3 CONCRETE SLAB SUPPORT Slabs-on grade should be should be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars with a 12-inch center to center spacing in both longitudinal and latitudinal directions. The above

AMEC


recommendations have been made solely for geotechnical considerations. These recommendations may be superseded by the structural design requirements. Structural design information should include mix design, reinforcement, placement procedures, curing, and control joints.

Where interior fixtures or floor coverings may be adversely affected by moisture, a continuous impermeable membrane, such as 10-mil polyethylene sheeting or similar moisture barrier, may be installed over a minimum 2-inch thick sand layer to inhibit soil moisture from affecting the slabs. Edges of the moisture barrier sheets typically should overlap each other a minimum of 18 inches. Also, a 2-inch-thick clean fine sand typically should be placed on top of the membrane before pouring the concrete, and the sand should be moistened slightly prior to placing concrete.

7.4 CONCRETE FLATWORK Typical recommendations (LADBS, 2011a) for concrete flatwork underlain by moderately expansive soils include a minimum thickness of 3.5 inches of concrete and steel reinforcement consisting of #4 bars spaced at 16 inches center to center in both directions. Control joints should be established in concrete slabs at a maximum spacing of 10 feet. These recommendations may be superseded by the requirement of structural design.

7.5 PROPOSED STAIRWAY The project includes a new stairway that will provide access to the pool from Gaffey Street. Based on the TOS, the location of the stairs will be in the area of Boring BA-6. Details of the stairway were not known at the time of preparation of this report. However, it is anticipated that a portion of the proposed stairway will be underlain by colluvium and exposed bedrock in the Gaffey Street roadcut, and the rest of the stairs will be underlain by artificial fill, colluvium, and non-marine deposits (Boring BA-6). Stairway footings on the cut slope will need to be founded in undisturbed bedrock. It is recommended that a geologist observe excavations into the Gaffey road cut to assess the presence and potential impact of adverse bedding orientations. Above the road cut, stair foundations should be supported on spread foundations as described in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. Footings founded in or above the slope wash deposits may be prone to differential settlement and soil creep.

Shallow footings should in general be suitable for support of the stairs bearing on compacted fill, bedrock or terrace deposits. If potential differential movement due to creep within the slope wash deposits is unacceptable, the footings may need to be deepened such that they are founded at a minimum within the non-marine terrace deposits. These deposits were encountered at approximately 8.5 feet bgs in Boring BA-6.

AMEC


7.6 RETAINING WALLS AND BELOW GRADE WALLS It is anticipated that the proposed improvements to the Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse project may include relatively short retaining walls typically, less than 6 feet in height. This section presents design lateral earth pressures, backfill criteria, and drainage recommendations for the retaining walls and below grade walls.

Retaining walls and below grade walls should be supported on shallow foundations bearing on compacted fill and the foundations should be designed in accordance with Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of this report.

Onsite soils are considered to have medium expansive potential. Therefore, select non-expansive material is recommended to be used as below-grade wall backfill. This material should be placed in a zone defined by a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall. Assuming non-expansive backfill, retaining walls constructed in a restrained condition (e.g., below grade building wall) should be designed to withstand “at-rest” pressures with an equivalent fluid pressure of 56 pcf. Walls that are capable of rotating at their bases should be designed to withstand “active” pressures with an equivalent fluid pressure of 37 pcf. These recommended lateral earth pressure values assume that the surface of the backfill behind the retaining walls is close to horizontal (inclination of 5:1 or flatter).

If surcharge loads (live or dead) are applied, they should be added to the lateral earth pressures above by applying a uniform (rectangular) pressure. Lateral earth pressure coefficients for a uniform vertical surcharge load applied behind walls are 0.47 for at-rest (restrained) and 0.31 for active (unrestrained) conditions. Surcharge pressures due to concentrated loads may be evaluated after geometric constraints and loading conditions are determined.

Seismically induced earth pressures for retaining walls were estimated using the guidelines presented in the LA County Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical Reports (2010). Based on these recommendations, seismic earth pressures must be considered for wall heights greater than 12 feet. Seismic active pressures should also be applied for stepped retaining walls if the combined height is greater than 12 feet. The seismically induced earth pressures have been estimated using the Mononobe-Okabe method, and the horizontal acceleration, kh, was calculated using one half the site PGA (i.e., kh = 0.48/2 = 0.24) per LA County Manual. The total unit weight and effective friction angle used to calculate the theoretical seismic earth pressure was 120 pcf, and 30 degrees, respectively. Therefore, the recommended seismically induced earth pressure increment is 11 H (H being the height of the retained earth), which.can be approximated by a uniform, rectangular distribution along the retained height of the wall.

AMEC


Wall backfill should be protected against infiltration of surface water. Backfill adjacent to walls should be sloped so that surface water drains freely away from the wall and will not pond.

The foregoing lateral earth pressures assume non-expansive fill is used for backfill behind the retaining walls. The design earth pressures were also developed assuming that no buildup of hydrostatic pressure occurs behind the walls. To prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures, a subsurface drainage system should be installed behind the walls. For walls that are at least 3 feet high and have exposed soil backfill, the subsurface drainage system should consist of granular filter material and a perforated subdrain pipe. A 12-inch-thick layer of filter material should be placed against the wall and extended up to approximately 12 inches below the backfill surface. The filter material should be a clean, well-graded mixture of sand and gravel meeting the following grading requirements:

Sieve Size Percentage Passing Sieve 1" 100 ¾" 90-100 ⅜" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3

An alternative to graded filter material is to use clean gravel (¾-inch size) with a geotextile placed between the gravel and backfill soil. The geotextile should be Mirafi 140NC or similar material.

The perforated subdrain pipe should be installed within the filter material near the bottom of the wall (below the elevation of adjacent floor slabs, if present). The pipe should be at least 4 inches in diameter and be placed with the perforations downward. The pipe should be surrounded with granular material. If clogging of perforated pipe is a concern, then wrapping the pipe with filter fabric may be considered. The subdrain pipe should be conveyed to a free discharge outlet. If the pipe discharges to a surface drainage or storm drainage system, the outlet configuration should be designed to ensure that surface drainage or storm drainage water does not enter the subdrain pipe.

7.7 LIGHT POLES AND SPORTS LIGHTING POLES It is anticipated that the proposed improvements to the Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse project site could include light poles and sport lighting poles. This section presents design lateral earth pressures for the light and sports lighting poles.

The foundations for the proposed light poles and sports lighting poles may be designed in general accordance with LABC 2011 Section 1807.3. It is anticipated that lateral loading will

AMEC


control the design of the poles. The locations of the proposed poles were not known at the time of preparing this report. Therefore, the allowable passive pressures shown in Table 3 are based on the various geologic units encountered in the exploratory borings. Appropriate passive resistance may be selected from the table based on the locations of the poles.

The allowable passive pressures in Table 3 may be considered as acting over a plane one and one-half times the pole diameter. The contribution to passive resistance in the upper 2 feet should be neglected. A safety factor of 2.0 has been incorporated in development of allowable passive pressures.

7.8 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN Preliminary pavement design has been prepared for both the upper parking lot and the lower parking lot areas, which will undergo improvements as part of the project. Based on the results of laboratory tests, R-values of 6 and 28 were obtained for the upper parking lot area and lower parking lot area, respectively. These values were used to evaluate the pavement design for the individual areas. It is recommended that samples of the prepared subgrade be collected and tested following grading to verify the sections provided below and finalize pavement design sections. Based upon California Department of Transportation Design Procedures, and a range of assumed traffic indexes, the recommended flexible structural pavement sections are presented below.

Structural Pavement Sections

Traffic Index

Upper Parking Lot Area Lower Parking Lot Area Asphalt Layer

Thickness (ft)

Aggregate Base Layer Thickness

(ft)

Asphalt Layer

Thickness (ft)

Aggregate Base Layer Thickness

(ft)

5.0 0.25 0.80 0.25 0.45

6.0 0.30 1.00 0.30 0.65

7.0 0.35 1.25 0.35 0.80

Asphaltic concrete and aggregate base (either crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) should conform to the current Caltrans Standard Specifications. Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density (ASTM D1557).

AMEC


All pavement areas should be designed for a minimum surface gradient of at least 2 percent and all flow lines should have enough gradient to minimize water percolation through the pavement and subsequent saturation of the subgrade. It would be desirable to locate the flow lines away from high traffic areas.

7.9 CORROSION AND CHEMICAL ATTACK RESISTANCE AP Engineering & Testing, Inc. of Pomona, California performed chemical analyses, pH, and minimum resistivity tests on a near surface sample taken from Boring B-2. Corrosion test results are presented in Appendix B.

The soil pH value was determined to be 7.4 which is considered to be neutral. Based on correlations in the Navy Design Manual (NAVFAC DM-5), resistivity results on saturated soils samples indicate that on-site soils are considered to be severely corrosive when in contact with ferrous materials. Measured chloride concentrations on the sample indicate the soils are slightly corrosive. Typical recommendations for mitigation of the corrosive potential of the soil in contact with ferrous materials include the following:

• Below-grade ferrous metals should be given a high quality protective coating, such as an 18-mil plastic tape, extruded polyethylene, coal tar enamel, or Portland cement mortar.

• Below-grade ferrous metals should be electrically insulated (isolated) from above grade ferrous metals and other dissimilar metals, by means of dielectric fittings in utilities and exposed metal structures breaking grade.

• Steel and wire reinforcement within concrete having contact with the site soils should have at least two inches of concrete cover.

If ferrous materials are expected to be placed in contact with site soils, it may be desirable to consult a corrosion specialist regarding chosen construction materials, and/or protection design for the proposed facilities.

The corrosion test results also indicate that in-situ soils have negligible sulfate attack potential on concrete, according to ACI 318-05, Table 4.3.1. Refer to ACI-318 for appropriate concrete mix design. ACI makes no special requirements for cement type or water content when sulfate attack potential is negligible.

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The following paragraphs discuss key considerations during construction of the Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse project and associated improvements.

AMEC


8.1 EXCAVATION DIFFICULTY Based on our field exploration program, most earthwork can be performed with conventional construction equipment (e.g. excavators, backhoes, loader. etc.)

8.2 TEMPORARY DEWATERING Excavations are expected to be within the upper 5 to 10 feet. Therefore, the need for dewatering is not anticipated.

8.3 CONSTRUCTION SLOPES Excavations during construction should be conducted so that slope failure and excessive ground movement will not occur. The short-term stability of excavation depends on many factors, including slope angle, engineering characteristics of the subsoils, height of the excavation and length of time the excavation remains unsupported and exposed to equipment vibrations, rainfall, and desiccation.

Where spacing permits, and providing that adjacent facilities are adequately supported, open excavations may be considered. In general, unsupported slopes for temporary construction excavations should not be expected to stand at an inclination steeper than 1½:1 (horizontal:vertical) for the upper 5 feet of existing undocumented fill and 1:1(horizontal:vertical) for the upper 5 feet of colluvium and bedrock. Unsupported slopes should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer during excavation.

Surcharge loads from vehicle parking or stockpiled materials should be kept away from the top of temporary excavations 10 feet or a horizontal distance equal to at least one-half the depth of excavation, whichever is greater. Surface drainage should be controlled along the top of temporary excavations to preclude wetting of the soils and erosion of the excavation faces. Even with the implementation of the above recommendations, sloughing of the surface of the temporary excavations may still occur, and workmen should be adequately protected from such sloughing.

8.4 TEMPORARY SHORING If there is insufficient space for sloped excavations, shoring should be used to support the sides of these excavations. Cantilever or braced shoring may be considered at this site. Cantilevered shoring can be utilized where some deflection is acceptable. However, where shoring will support adjacent improvements or facilities and excessive deflection can lead to settlement, braced shoring should be utilized.

Settlement of structures or facilities founded adjacent to the shoring will occur in proportion to both the distance between the shoring and the facilities, and the amount of horizontal deflection of the shoring system. The vertical settlement will be a maximum at the shoring

AMEC


face and decrease as the horizontal distance from the shoring increases. Beyond a distance from the shoring equal to the height of the shoring, the settlement is expected to be negligible. The maximum vertical settlement is expected to be about 75 percent of the horizontal deflection of the shoring system.

Prior to excavation, it is recommended that walls, structures, or portions of structures within a horizontal distance of 1.5 times the depth of the excavation be inspected to determine their present condition. For documentation purposes, photographs should be taken of preconstruction distress conditions and level surveys of adjacent grade and pavement should be performed.

During construction, deflection of the shoring system should be monitored initially on a frequent (weekly) basis until it can be demonstrated that no movement is occurring. At that time, less frequent monitoring can be performed. In addition, the structures should be periodically inspected for signs of distress. Adjacent grade and pavement should be monitored to determine the amount of movement resulting from the construction activities. In the event that distress or settlement is noted, an investigation should be performed and correction measures taken so that continued or worsened distress or settlement is mitigated.

8.4.1 Temporary Lateral Earth Pressures Cantilever or braced shoring should be designed for the lateral earth pressures shown on Figure 8. These values are based on the assumption that (1) the shored soil material is level at ground surface, (2) the exposed height of the shoring is no greater than 15 feet for cantilevered shoring, and (3) the shoring is temporary, and will not be required to support the soil longer than about six months. Surcharge coefficients of 0.33 and 0.50 may be used with uniform vertical surcharges for cantilever and braced shoring lateral earth pressures, respectively. These surcharge pressures should be added to the lateral earth pressures for design.

8.4.2 Soldier Piles and Lagging For the design of soldier piles, allowable lateral bearing values (passive values) are provided on Figure 8 for piles spaced at least 2.5 diameters on center or piles with closer spacing. The allowable lateral bearing values should be limited to a maximum of 5,000 psf. The passive resistance should be discounted to a depth of at least one diameter of the soldier pile below the lowest adjacent excavation level, as shown on Figure 8. The above lateral bearing values incorporate a factor of safety (FS) of 2.0.

The portion of the soldier piles below the lowest excavated level should be concreted to assure firm contact between the pile and supporting soils. To develop firm contact between

AMEC


the upper portion of the shoring and the retained soils, the upper portion of the soldier pile excavation should be filled with a lean mix concrete or sand-cement slurry.

To limit sloughing and caving of the earth materials, it is recommended that lagging or gunite be used between soldier piles. Lagging should be installed such that no more than 5 vertical feet of earth is exposed. All lumber to be left in the ground should be pressure-treated in accordance with Specification C-2 of the American Wood Preservers Association.

8.4.3 Slot Cut Excavations Excavation along existing foundations should be performed in slots in an “A-B-C” sequence to prevent exposing at the same time significant lengths of the existing foundations. The width of each slot along the existing foundations should not exceed 5 feet. First, all the slots designated as “A” should be excavated, backfilled and recompacted. The procedure should continue with the “B” slots and end with the “C” slots. All slot excavation and backfilling procedures should be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical engineer.

8.5 POST INVESTIGATION SERVICES It is recommended that final project plans, specifications, and shoring plans be reviewed by AMEC to determine the extent that the recommendations presented herein have been properly interpreted and incorporated into the contract documents. Following review of plans and specifications, observation and testing should be performed by a geotechnical engineer during construction to confirm that foundation elements are founded on and penetrate the recommended soils, and that suitable backfill soils are placed upon competent materials and properly compacted at the recommended moisture content.

9.0 CLOSURE

The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented herein are: (1) based upon our evaluation and interpretation of the limited data obtained from our field and laboratory programs; (2) based upon an interpolation of soil conditions between and beyond the borings; (3) are subject to confirmation of the actual conditions encountered during construction; and, (4) are based upon the assumption that sufficient observation and testing will be provided during construction.

If parties other than AMEC are engaged to provide construction geotechnical services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the findings and recommendations in this report or providing alternate recommendations.

AMEC


If pertinent changes are made in the project plans or conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than indicated in this report, please contact this office. Significant variations may necessitate a re-evaluation of the recommendations presented in this report.

AMEC


10.0 REFERENCES

Abramson, L.W., Lee, T.S., Sharma, S., and Boyce, G.M., 2002, Slope Stability and Stabilization Measures, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., p. 344-345.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2003, Corrosion Guidelines, September, Version 1.0.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, San Pedro Quadrangle, Official Map, released March 25, 1999.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Evaluation for the San Pedro 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 033, text updated in 2001, updated figure 3.5 in 2005.

California Geological Survey, 2000, Digital images of official maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG CD 2000-003.

California Geological Survey, 2008. Guidelines for Evaluationg and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.

California Highway Design Manual, 2008.

City of Los Angeles, 1996, Safety Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan, Nov. 26.

City of Los Angeles, Department of Building and Safety, 2011, Slope Stability Evaluation and Acceptance Standards, Information Bulletin, Reference No: LABC 7006.3, 7014.1.

City of Los Angeles, Department of Building and Safety, 2011a, Foundation Design For Expansive Soils, Information Bulletin, Reference No: LABC 1803.5.3.

Conrad, C.L., and Ehlig, P.L., 1983, The Monterey Formation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, California – an example of sedimentation in a tectonically active basin within the California continental Borderland, in Larue, D.K., and Steel, R.J., eds., Cenozoic marine sedimentation, Pacific margin: Pacific Sections, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, p. 103-116.

County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical Reports, July 2010.

Dibblee, Jr, T.W., 1999, Geologic map of the Palos Verdes peninsula and vicinity, Redondo beach, Torrance, and San Pedro Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California; Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-70.

Geene, H.G. and Kennedy, M.P., 1986, California Continental Margin Geologic Map Series, Inner Southern Area,” California Division of Mines and Geology, CMM001, scale 1:250,000.

Geo-Slope/W International, Ltd., 2007, GeoStudio 2004: Software for Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental Modeling, Calgary.

AMEC


Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity of California, California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000.

LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1972, Report of Soil and Geologic Investigation - Proposed Housing Development, Site No.3 – Fort MacArthur, Upper Reservation, Paseo Del Mar and Gaffey Street, Los Angeles, California for the United States Navy, Job No. 72224.

Los Angeles Building Code, 2011

McNeilan, T.W, Rockwell, T.K., and Resnick, G.S., 1996, Style and rate of slip, Palos Verdes fault, southern California; Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.101, No. B4, p.8317-8334, April 10.

Poland, J.F., Garrett, A.A., and Sinnott, A., 1959, Geology, hydrology and chemical character of ground waters in the Torrance-Santa Monica area, California, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1461, p. 425.

Saucedo, G. J. et al., 2003, Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California: Version 1.0, California Geological Survey, Geologic Atlas of California, scale 1:100,000.

Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1996, Shattered Crust Series #2- The Palos Verdes Fault Guide

Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 2002, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, February, 2002.

Spencer, E., 1967, A Method of Analysis of the Stability of Embankments Assuming Parallel Inter-Slice Forces, Geotechnique, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 11-26.

Stark, T.D., Choi, H., and McCone, S., 2005, Drained Shear Strength Parameters for Analysis of Landslides, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 5, May 1.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)/ California Geological Survey (CGS), 1998a, Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States, Fault #129a, Cabrillo fault, onshore section http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults.

USGS/CGS, 1998b, Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States, Fault #129b, Cabrillo fault, offshore section http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults.

USGS, 2008, United States National Seismic Hazard Maps.

Woodring, W.P., Bramlette, M.N., and Kew, W.S.W., 1946, Geology and Paleontology of Palos Verdes Hills, California; U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 207.

Woodward-Clyde, 1987, Final technical report late Quaternary activity along the onshore portion of the Palos Verdes fault zone; USGS Contract No. 14-08-0001-21304.

http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults

http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults

AMEC


Ziony, J.I. and Jones, L.M., 1989, Map showing late Quaternary faults and 1978-84 seismicity of the Los Angeles region, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1964, scale 1:250,000.

TABLES

P:\163270\Docs\Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report\Tables\Table 1 AMEC

B-1 5-Dec 277 245.5 31.5 Martini Upper Parking Lot 245' South and 425' East 1718601.4 6472198.8 33.714470 -118.294172 N/E1

B-2 5-Dec 272 240.5 31.5 Martini Proposed Bathhouse 150' South and 290' East 1718686.3 6472317.0 33.714704 -118.293784 N/EBA-3 7-Dec 277 226.0 51.0 Alroy Top of Slope 295' South and 300' East 1718553.1 6472308.7 33.714338 -118.293810 N/EB-4 5-Dec 252 220.5 31.5 Martini Driveway to Lower Parking Lot 125' South and 200' East 1718707.9 6472400.4 33.714764 -118.293510 N/E

BA-5 6-Dec 247 216.0 31.0 Alroy Lower Parking Lot 190' South and 120' East 1718652.7 6472468.7 33.714613 -118.293285 N/EBA-6 6-Dec 246 213.0 33.0 Alroy Lower Parking Lot/ Stairways 300' South and 95' East 1718548.5 6472509.4 33.714327 -118.293150 N/E

Notes:1. N/E = Not Encountered

LatitudeBoring

Designation Longitude

Bottom Elevation

(ft)

Coordinates

Northing Easting

Description of Boring Location Measured from the Intersection

of Gaffey and W 32nd Street

TABLE 1

Top Elevatio

n (ft)

Total Depth

(ft)

Gaffey Pool and BathhouseSan Pedro, California

SUMMARY OF FIELD EXPLORATION

Approximate Groundwater

Depth (ft)

Date Drilled (2012)

Drilling Company Location


Cohesion(psf)2

Friction Angle(degree)

Cohesion(psf)


Artificial Fill (af) 105 150 33 200 33

Colluvium (Qcol) 115 200 30 250 29

Non Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtnm) 115 450 29 750 26

Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) 115 0 34 0 34

Monterey Formation (Tm) Cross Bedding 115 700 23 1350 25

Monterey Formation (Tm) Along Bedding 115 100 20 100 20

Notes:1. pcf = pounds per cubic foot2. psf = pounds per square foot

SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES USED FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

TABLE 2

StaticShear Strength Parameters

PseudostaticShear Strength Parameters

Material DescriptionUnit Weight

(pcf)1



Cohesion(psf)2


Artificial Fill (af) 105 150 33 180 2700

Colluvium (Qcol) 115 200 30 175 2625

Non Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtnm) 115 450 29 165 2475

Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) 115 0 34 205 3075

Monterey Formation (Tm) Cross Bedding 115 700 23 250 3750

Notes:1. pcf = pounds per cubic foot2. psf = pounds per square foot

Maximum Allowable Bearing

Pressure (psf)

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF ALLOWABLE LATERAL BEARING PRESSURESGaffey Pool and Bathhouse


StaticShear Strength Parameters

Material DescriptionUnit Weight

(pcf)1

Allowable Lateral Bearing Pressure

(psf/ft)

FIGURES

0

Approximate Scale in Feet

SITE LOCATION

Basemap from BING Maps (© 2013 Microsoft Corporation)

Project No.Date:By: jbd IR12163270

Figure 1

SITE LOCATION MAPGaffey Pool and Bathhouse

3351 S. Gaffey StreetSan Pedro, California

01/14/2013Plo

t Dat

e:

1/14

/201

3 2:

01:3

5 P

M, P

lotte

d by

: jim

.dep

oorte

rD

raw

ing

Pat

h: Y

:\IR

1216

3270

\AC

AD

\_TB

-001

_SIT

E.D

WG

, Fi

gure

1_L

ocat

ion

Map

0


REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAPGaffey Pool and Bathhouse


Excerpted from Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Vicinity, RedondoBeach, Torrance, and San Pedro Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California;

Thomas W. Dibblee, Jr., 1999

Plo

t Dat

e:

1/16

/201

3 9:

34:4

2 A

M, P

lotte

d by

: jim

.dep

oorte

rD

raw

ing

Pat

h: Y

:\IR

1216

3270

\AC

AD

\_TB

-001

_SIT

E_G

EO

LOG

Y.D

WG

, Fi

gure

2_R

egio

nal_

Geo

logy

_Map

Geologic Units

Surficial Sediments

af artificial fill or cut and fill; many areas may not be shown

Qs Beach sediment, ranging from sand to cobbel-boulder gravel

Qls Landslide debris; mostly of Monterey Shale

Older Surficial Sediments

Qoa older alluvium - nonmarine terrace cover of Woodring et al., 1946; Poland etal., 1959; Cleveland, 1972; sandy loam and loamy clay, includes sand andpebble gravel in Palos Verdes Hills, with pebbles derived mostly fromMicoene hard siliceous shale and limestone; includes Palos Verdes Sand ofWoodring et al., 1946, not differentiated on this map

Monterey Formation

(equivalent to lower Puente Formation, north of Palos Verdes Fault) deep marinebiogenic, clastic, and volcanic sediments; early middle to late Miocene age,described below in descending stratigraphic order.

Tmv Valmonte Diatomite - soft, white, punky, laminated diatomaceous shale andmudstone, in places up to 125 m thick; Mohnian Stage (Rowell, 1982)

Tma Altamira Shale - upper part: white-weathering, thin-bedded siliceous andphosphatic shale with interbeds of limestone and siltstone, locally organic anddiatomaceous; 40 m thick; with cherty and porcelaneous shale at base, up to15 m thick (Conrad and Ehlig, 1983); Relizian (?) - Mohnian Stages (Rowell,1982)

Tmf Point Fermin Sandstone member - light gray, bedded, indurated sandstone,contains abundant grains, pebbles and cobbles of blueschist, few of quartziteand basaltic rocks; ±40 m thick; early Mohnian Stage (Sloan, 1987)

Explanation

Fault - dashed where indefinite or inferred, dotted where concealed

Anticline - dotted where concealed. Arrowhead on axis showsdirection of plunge

Inclined strike and dip of stratified rock

af

Qs

Qls

Qoa

Tmv

Tma

SITE LOCATION

Tmf

Project No.Date:By: pah IR12163270

Figure 201/16/2013

Plo

t Dat

e:

1/23

/201

3 3:

15:4

8 P

M, P

lotte

d by

: jim

.dep

oorte

rD

raw

ing

Pat

h: Y

:\IR

1216

3270

\AC

AD

\_TB

-001

_GE

OLO

GY

.DW

G,

Figu

re 3

_Geo

-Exp

lr M

ap


Figure 3

SITE GEOLOGY AND FIELD EXPLORATION MAPGaffey Pool and Bathhouse


01/23/20130


Basemap modified from topographic map provided by LAUSD forNo. 15, San Pedro High School, undated

[_Site

Fault

FaultChino

Hills

Canyon

Norwalk

Raymond

WhittierCharnock

San Jose

Hollywood

Walnut Crk.

Los Alimitos

Shady Canyon

Santa MonicaPelican

Hill

Compton Thrust

PalosVerdes

San Pedro Basin

Newport-Inglewood

Newport-Inglewood

Elysian Park Thrust

LOS ANGELES CO.

ORANGE CO.

R

Peralta

Redondo

Cabrillo

Central Ave

Indian Hill

118°0'0"W

118°0'0"W

118°30'0"W

118°30'0"W

34°0'0"N

34°0'0"N

33°30'0"N

33°30'0"N

jbd 01/11/2013 IR12163270

4

REGIONAL FAULT MAPGaffey Pool and Bathhouse


By: Date: Project No.

Figure

Historic earthquakes, 1769-2003

Magnitude3.0 to < 4.04.0 to < 5.05.0 to < 6.06.0 to < 7.07.0 or greater

8.5 0 8.54.25

Miles10 0 105

Kilometers

ExplanationFault Recency Classification (Jennings, 1994)

Pre Quaternary-solid

Faults with historic surface rupture or creep

Faults that displace Holocene (~10 ka) deposits or geomorphic surfacesFaults that displace late Quaternary (~700 ka) deposits or geomorphic surfacesQuaternary faults; show evidence for displacement within past 1.6 Million yearsPre-Quaternary faultsFault Segments[Anza]

Note: See text of report for description of seismicity catalog.

Pat

h: Y

:\IR

1216

3270

\Esr

i\Fau

lt M

ap.m

xd

Plo

t Dat

e:

1/23

/201

3 3:

30:3

2 P

M, P

lotte

d by

: jim

.dep

oorte

rD

raw

ing

Pat

h: Y

:\IR

1216

3270

\AC

AD

\_TB

-001

_SE

CTI

ON

S.D

WG

, Fi

gure

5_S

ectio

ns


Figure 5

GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONS A-A' AND B-B'Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse


01/23/20130


0


Basemap from "State of California Seismic Hazard Zones",San Pedro Quadrangle, March 25, 1999


Figure 6

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONESGaffey Pool and Bathhouse


01/14/2013Plo

t Dat

e:

1/14

/201

3 1:

59:5

1 P

M, P

lotte

d by

: jim

.dep

oorte

rD

raw

ing

Pat

h: Y

:\IR

1216

3270

\AC

AD

\_TB

-001

_SIT

E.D

WG

, Fi

gure

2_S

eism

ic H

azar

d Zo

ne

P:\163270\Docs\Draft Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report\Figures\Figure 7

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Effective Shear S

tress (psf)

B‐1/4 @ 6.5‐7 feet B‐2/5 @ 10‐11.5 feet B‐3/8 @ 26‐26.5 feet

Selected Shear Strength Parameters:' = 200, c' = 100 psf

ALONG BEDDING SHEAR STRENGTH ENVELOPE OF MONTEREY FORMATION *Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse


Project No.: IR12163270

7Date: 01/08/2013

Figure

By: MBD

00 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Effective Normal Stress (psf)

* Based on Stark et al. (2005), "Drained Shear Strength Parameters for Analysis of Landslides" , using Liquid Limit and Clay Fraction laboratory test data.

P:\163270\Docs\Draft Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report\Figures\Figure 8

d26

(psf)

d 40(psf)(psf)

H

Brace

H

Z

Zσ Z1

Z1

Existing Ground Surface Existing Ground Surface

σ = 360 pcf for soldier piles spaced at least 2.5d apartσ = 180 pcf for sheet piles or soldier piles spaced less than 2.5d apart

Notes:1. Not to scale.2. Dimensions are in feet.3. Earth pressures shown are based on level backfill conditions behind shoring elements and groundwater below bottom of shoring elements.

(psf)

BRACED SHORING CANTILEVER SHORING

(psf)

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR TEMPORARY SHORING SYSTEMS


Project No.: IR12163270

8Date: 01/08/2013

Figure

By: MBD

APPENDIX A

Field Exploration Program

AMEC

P:\163270\Docs\Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report\Appendix A - Field Exploration\Appendix A.doc A-1

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report

Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse San Pedro, California

The field exploration program described in this appendix was performed on December 5, 6 and 7, 2012, for the proposed Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse improvement project located at 3351 South Gaffey Street in San Pedro, California. The field exploration program included pre-drilling activities, drilling 3 hollow-stem auger borings, drilling 3 bucket auger borings, downhole logging of the bucket auger borings and collecting soil samples. The information provided herein depicts subsurface conditions at the specific locations and at the particular times that the explorations were made. Soil and groundwater conditions at these locations may have changed since these explorations were performed.

Pre-Drilling Activities

Prior to beginning the field exploration, AMEC conducted a site reconnaissance to evaluate site access. Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified at least 48 hours prior to drilling to mark the locations of underground utilities. AMEC utilized a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) device with an accuracy of approximately 2 feet to locate the boring locations in the field.

Hollow-Stem Auger Borings

A total of three exploratory borings (B-1, B-2 and B-4) were drilled for this project using the Hollow-Stem auger drilling method. Drilling services were provided by Martini Drilling Corporation of Huntington Beach, California, on December 5, 2012. Approximate boring locations for the proposed project are shown on Figure 3.

The borings were drilled using a CME 75 truck-mounted drill rig equipped with continuous flight hollow-stem augers (HSA) of eight inches in outside diameter. All borings were drilled to approximately 31.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs).

Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed in the HSA borings at selected depths. The SPT consists of driving a standard sampler, as described in the ASTM D1586 Standard Method, using a 140-pound automatic-trip hammer falling 30 inches. The SPT sampler had room for liners inside the barrel, but no liners were used. The number of blows required to drive the SPT sampler six inches of the sampling interval is recorded on the blow count column of the boring logs.

AMEC


Depth-discrete engineering soil samples were collected at selected depth intervals from the HSA exploratory borings using a 2½-inch inside diameter (I.D.) modified California split-barrel sampler fitted with 12 brass rings of 2½-inches in O.D. and 1-inch in height, and one brass liner (2½-inch O.D. by 6 inches long) above the brass rings. The sampler was lowered to the bottom of the boreholes and driven into the soil with the same hammer used for SPT. The number of blows required to drive the sampler six inches of the sampling interval is shown on the blow count column of the boring logs.

After removing the sampler from the boreholes, the sampler was opened and the brass rings and liner containing the soil were removed and observed for soil classification. Brass rings containing the soil were placed in polyethylene bags and sealed in plastic canisters to preserve the natural moisture content of the soil. Bulk samples of soil cuttings were collected from the exploratory borings and placed in polyethylene bags. Soil samples and bulk samples collected from the borings were labeled, and submitted to the laboratory for geotechnical testing.

Soil classifications and descriptions were recorded on field logs by a licensed California Civil Engineer using visual/manual procedures described in ASTM D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). These procedures are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

The borings were logged by the AMEC project engineer under the direction of a California-licensed Geotechnical Engineer. Final boring logs were prepared based on the field logs, examination of samples in the laboratory, and laboratory test results, and are presented in this appendix. All borings were backfilled with soil cuttings. The surface completion in pavement areas consisted of approximately 6 inches of cold asphalt patch.

Bucket Auger Borings

A total of three bucket auger borings were drilled, sampled and logged for this project. AMEC’s bucket auger borings were identified by a “BA” designation. The subject borings are, therefore, designated as BA-3, BA-5 and BA-6. Bucket auger drilling was performed by Al-Roy Drilling Services of Yorba Linda, California on December 6 and 7, 2012. The borings were drilled using a truck mounted Earth Drill Bucket rig equipped with a bucket auger 24 inches in diameter. Total exploration depths ranged from 31 feet (BA-5) to 51 feet (BA-3) below the ground surface (bgs). Approximate boring locations for the proposed project are shown on Figure 3.

Depth-discrete engineering soil samples were collected at selected depth intervals from the BA exploratory borings using a 2½-inch inside diameter (I.D.) modified California split-barrel sampler fitted with 12 brass rings of 2½-inches in O.D. and 1-inch in height, and one brass liner (2½-inch O.D. by 6 inches long) above the brass rings. The sampler was lowered to the bottom of the boreholes and driven into the soil with a Kelly bar falling 12 inches. The Kelly bar drives

AMEC


with a force equivalent to 2,400 lbs in the upper 24 feet, 1,550 lbs between 24 and 43 feet and 850 lbs between 43 and 63 feet. The number of blows required to drive the sampler six inches of the sampling interval is shown on the blow count column of the boring logs.

After removing the sampler from the boreholes, the sampler was opened and the brass rings and liner containing the soil were removed and observed for soil classification. Brass rings containing the soil were placed in polyethylene bags and sealed in plastic canisters to preserve the natural moisture content of the soil. Bulk samples of soil cuttings were collected from the exploratory borings and placed in polyethylene bags. Soil samples and bulk samples collected from the borings were labeled, and submitted to the laboratory for geotechnical testing.

Soil classifications and descriptions were recorded on field logs by an AMEC engineer using visual/manual procedures described in ASTM D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). These procedures are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

The borings were logged by the AMEC project engineer under the direction of a California-licensed Geotechnical Engineer. Final boring logs were prepared based on the field logs, examination of samples in the laboratory, and laboratory test results, and are presented in this appendix. All borings were backfilled with periodically tamped soil cuttings.

Downhole Logging

After the bucket auger borings reached the target depth of exploration, a California-Certified Engineering Geologist was lowered into the borings for downhole observations of the bedrock structure. The bulk of the information on the bucket auger logs was derived from downhole observations and logging of the borehole wall by the engineering geologist.

After surface logging of the drill cuttings, the upper portion of the boreholes was secured with a temporary surface casing and the open borehole was tested to its full depth with gas monitoring instrumentation prior to entry. The logging stand used to enter the borings consisted of an approximately 18-inch diameter steel mesh bottom and a cone-shaped steel cap of a similar diameter that were connected by heavy strapping on two sides to provide an area to stand in the middle. The steel cap was equipped with a light and a heavy-duty welded loop on the top of the cap for connection to the free-line of the drill rig using a “D” shackle. The drill rigs were also equipped with a separate emergency winch system that was connected to the harness worn by the geologists during the downhole logging operations. Air was circulated in the borings using a surface blower and flexible hose that extended to the bottom of the boreholes. The engineering geologist was in continuous communication with the surface logger to record his observations and measurements. Logging of the bucket auger borings included primarily: descriptions of the bedrock lithologies and associated discontinuities, measurement of the orientation of selected

AMEC


discontinuities, groundwater observations, preparation of a graphic log to illustrate the downhole observations and other pertinent data regarding the borehole conditions and drilling operations.

Copies of the “BA” boring logs are attached in this appendix.

Field Screening

Soil samples obtained from the borings during exploration were field-screened for the presence of possible flammable gases and organic vapors using a MultiRae Four-Gas Monitor with Photoionization Ionization Detector (PID). The Multi Rae is capable of measuring the lower explosive limit (LEL) of potential gases, the percent of oxygen, carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen sulfide gases (H2S). In general, a portion of each soil sample was placed in a resealable bag and allowed to set for several minutes. Then, the tip of the PID probe was inserted into the bag and the highest stabilized organic vapor reading in units of parts per million (ppm) was recorded on the soil boring log. In addition to the head space readings from the bags, the immediate vicinity of the boreholes was also checked periodically for possible organic vapors and flammable gases with the CGM. The results of the PID readings are shown on the boring logs in this appendix. The PID monitoring revealed background to relatively low readings for photoionizable constituents in soil samples collected from most borings. Elevated PID readings were recorded for a soil sample from boring B-1. In this case, AMEC confirmed that the driller had used WD-40 to lubricate the sample barrel prior to collecting the sample. WD-40 contains volatile chemicals that are detectable using the PID; consequently, AMEC requested that the driller avoid using WD-40 as a lubricant on the sample barrel.

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Testing Program

AMEC P:\163270\Docs\Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Report\Appendix B - Lab Test Results\AppxB_Text.doc B-1

APPENDIX B

RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse


Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The following tests, except for corrosion, were performed in accordance with ASTM standards:

• Moisture content and dry density

• Fines Content

• Sieve Analyses

• Expansion Index

• Atterberg limits

• Consolidation

• Direct Shear

• Unconfined Compression

• Compaction

• R-Value

• Corrosion

All laboratory tests were performed by AP Engineering and Testing of Pomona, California. Test procedures are described herein. The results of all tests are presented in laboratory data sheets and/or graphs in this appendix. Abbreviations for the above tests and test results are also given at the corresponding sample locations on the boring logs in Appendix A.

Moisture Content and Dry Density

The field moisture contents, as a percentage of the dry weight of the soils, were determined by weighing samples before and after oven drying. The dry density, in pounds per cubic foot, was also determined for all relatively undisturbed ring samples


collected. These analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM Methods D2216 and D7263 Method B. Results of the tests are presented at the corresponding sample locations on the boring logs in Appendix A, and on summary laboratory data sheets in this appendix.

Fines content

The fines contents (fraction passing the #200 sieve) of a sample was determined to assist in classification of the soil. The test was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D422. The results of the tests are presented at the corresponding sample location on the boring log (B-6/BA-6) in Appendix A, and on a summary laboratory data sheet in this appendix.

Sieve Analyses

Sieve analyses were performed on representative soil samples to quantitatively determine the grain size distribution of the site soils and to assist in their classification. Test procedures were in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D6913. The results of the grain size distribution analyses are shown graphically as gradation curves on laboratory data sheets included in this appendix. The fines contents are presented at the corresponding sample locations on the boring logs in Appendix A, and on summary laboratory data sheets in this appendix.

Expansion Index

Remolded samples were tested to determine the Expansion Index (EI) of fine grained soils in accordance with UBC 18-2 or ASTM D 4829. The results are presented on laboratory test sheets in this appendix.

Atterberg Limits

Atterberg Limits were performed on representative soil samples to determine the plasticity of the soils and to assist in their classification. The test procedures were performed in accordance with ASTM D4318. The liquid limit and plasticity index are presented at the corresponding sample locations on the boring logs in Appendix A, and the results are also presented on laboratory test sheets in this appendix.

Consolidation


One-dimensional consolidation tests were performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples and on one remolded sample in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2435. The remolded sample was compacted to 92 percent relative compaction at 3 percent above optimum moisture content. The compression curves from the consolidation tests are presented in this appendix.

Direct Shear

Direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples and on one remolded soil sample in accordance with ASTM Method D3080. The remolded sample was compacted to 92 percent relative compaction at 3 percent above optimum moisture content. All samples were soaked prior to testing. A different normal stress was applied vertically to each soil sample ring, which was then sheared in a horizontal direction. A new ring was used for each load. Each shear test was performed on a single ring with no multiple re-shearing.

The resulting shear strength for the corresponding normal stress was measured at maximum shear stress and at a shear deformation of approximately 0.3 inch. Results of the direct shear tests are shown graphically on laboratory data sheets included in this appendix.

Unconfined Compression

Unconfined compression tests were performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2166. The test results, including photographs of the sample at failure, are presented in this appendix.

Compaction

A compaction test establishes the relationship between varying moisture content and dry density when the soil is compacted under standardized conditions. The maximum dry density achievable under these conditions and the corresponding optimum moisture content are then obtained. Compaction curves were determined for representative bulk samples to evaluate the relationship between dry density and moisture for compacted soil. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. The results of the tests are presented in this appendix.

R-Value


Representative bulk samples were tested to determine the R-value of the samples. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D2844. Results of the R-value test are shown on laboratory data sheets in this appendix.

Corrosion

Analytical laboratory tests were performed in accordance with California Test Methods 471, 422 and 643 to provide data regarding the physical and chemical characteristics commonly used to assess corrosivity potential of soils. Tests performed include minimum resistivity, pH, sulfate content, and chloride content. Results of the various tests performed are included in this appendix.

Client: AMEC E&I Laboratory No.: 12-1224Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Date: 12/17/12Project No.: IR12163270

Boring Sample Sample Moisture Dry DensityNo. No. Depth Content (%) (pcf)B-1 2 3.5-4 29.3 93.2B-1 3 5-5.5 20.4 102.1B-1 5 8.5-9 28.8 92.4B-1 7 16-16.5 14.2 110.6B-1 9 26-26.5 37.6 79.2

MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST RESULTS


Boring Sample Sample Moisture Dry DensityNo. No. Depth Content (%) (pcf)B-2 4 8.5-9 7.3 106.3B-2 6 15.6-16.1 20.7 89.9B-2 8 26-26.5 15.3 99.6



Boring Sample Sample Moisture Dry DensityNo. No. Depth Content (%) (pcf)B-3 2 2.8-3.3 9.8 102.7B-3 3 5.5-6 18.8 95.9B-3 4 8-8.5 29.4 91.1B-3 5 10-10.5 14.7 110.1B-3 6 16-16.5 9.6 107.7B-3 8 26-26.5 32.6 92.2B-3 9 31-31.5 38.4 88.9B-3 10 35.5-36 16.9 115.0B-3 11 40.5-41 37.5 84.3B-3 12 45.5-46 38.1 83.9B-3 13 50.5-51 23.1 103.2



Boring Sample Sample Moisture Dry DensityNo. No. Depth Content (%) (pcf)B-4 4 8.3-8.8 16.1 107.2B-4 6 16-16.5 12.3 96.3B-4 8 25.4-25.9 10.6 97.2



Boring Sample Sample Moisture Dry DensityNo. No. Depth Content (%) (pcf)B-5 2 3-3.5 12.1 90.5B-5 4 8-8.5 14.5 98.7B-5 5 10-10.5 11.2 82.6B-5 6 15.5-16 5.9 105.7B-5 7 20.5-21 13.1 94.5B-5 8 25.5-26 7.7 99.5B-5 9 30.5-31 15.8 101.7



Boring Sample Sample Moisture Dry DensityNo. No. Depth Content (%) (pcf)B-6 3 5-5.5 15.4 106.3B-6 4 8.5-9 18.7 101.4B-6 6 16-16.5 19.5 92.6B-6 7 21-21.5 36.0 84.6B-6 8 25.5-26 11.5 106.4B-6 9 30.5-31 18.2 103.3


Client: AMEC E&I Laboratory No.: 12-1224Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Date: 12/12/12

Project Number: IR12163270

Boring Sample Percent FinesNo. No. (%)B-6 3 5-5.5 85.41

2607 Pomona Boulevard. Pomona, California 91768

Tel. (909) 869-6316, Fax (909) 869-6318

PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

SampleDepth (ft)

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVEASTM D 6913

Client Name: AMEC E&I Tested by: ST Date: 12/17/12

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Computed by:KM Date: 12/25/12

Project No.: IR12163270 Checked by: AP Date: 12/27/12

Gravel Sand Fines

B-1 1 0.8-2.5 1 26 73 CH

B-1 4 6.5-7 4 19 77 CH

Soil Symbol ASTM D 2487

Atterberg Limits LL:PL:PI

53:15:38

50:15:35

Symbol Boring No. Sample No.

Sample Depth (feet)

Percent

4" 3" 2" 1½"

1" ¾"

⅜"

#4 #10

#20

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G B

Y W

EIG

HT

SAND SILT OR CLAY

HYDROMETERSIEVE NUMBER

GRAVEL

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SIEVE OPENING



Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Computed by: KM Date: 12/25/12


Gravel Sand Fines

B-2 1 0-2.5 3 19 78 CH

B-2 5 10-11.5 2 26 72 CH


Sample Depth (feet)

Percent Soil Symbol ASTM D 2487


52:17:35

86:26:60

4" 3" 2" 1½"

1" ¾"

#20

#60

#100

#140

#200

⅜"

#4 #10

#40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G B

Y W

EIG

HT

SAND SILT OR CLAY


GRAVEL


SIEVE OPENING





Gravel Sand Fines

B-3 4 8-8.5 0 11 89 CH

B-3 8 26-26.5 0 30 70 CH



66:20:46

62:20:42


Sample Depth (feet)

Percent

4" 3" 2" 1½"

1" ¾"

⅜"

#4 #10

#20

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G B

Y W

EIG

HT

SAND SILT OR CLAY


GRAVEL


SIEVE OPENING





Gravel Sand Fines

B-4 1 0.3-2.5 37 29 34 GM


Sample Depth (feet)



N/A

4" 3" 2" 1½"

1" ¾"

#20

#60

#100

#140

#200

⅜"

#4 #10

#40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G B

Y W

EIG

HT

SAND SILT OR CLAY


GRAVEL


SIEVE OPENING





Gravel Sand Fines

B-5 1 0.3-2.5 25 37 38 SC

B-5 5 10-10.5 1 22 77 CL

B-5 7 20.5-21 7 38 55 CL



48:21:27

48:19:29

43:15:28


Sample Depth (feet)

Percent

4" 3" 2" 1½"

1" ¾"

⅜"

#4 #10

#20

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G B

Y W

EIG

HT

SAND SILT OR CLAY


GRAVEL


SIEVE OPENING





Gravel Sand Fines

B-6 1 0-2.5 11 21 68 ML


Sample Depth (feet)



N/A

4" 3" 2" 1½"

1" ¾"

#20

#60

#100

#140

#200

⅜"

#4 #10

#40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G B

Y W

EIG

HT

SAND SILT OR CLAY


GRAVEL


SIEVE OPENING

EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTSASTM D 4829

Client Name: AMEC E&I AP Job No.: 12-1224 Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Date: 12/17/12 Project No.: IR12163270

Boring Sample Depth Soil Description Molded Molded Init. Degree Measured CorrectedNo. No. (ft) Dry Density Moisture Saturation Expansion Expansion

(pcf) Content (%) (%) Index Index

B-2 1 0-2.5 Fat Clay w/sand 87.2 16.3 47.3 76 74

ASTM EXPANSION CLASSIFICATIONExpansion Index Classification

0-20 V. Low21-50 Low51-90 Medium

91-130 High>130 V. High

EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTSASTM D 4829

Client Name: AMEC E&I AP Job No.: 12-1224 Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Date: 12/17/12 Project No.: IR12163270

Boring Sample Depth Soil Description Molded Molded Init. Degree Measured CorrectedNo. No. (ft) Dry Density Moisture Saturation Expansion Expansion

(pcf) Content (%) (%) Index Index

B-5 1 0.3-2.5 Clayey Sand w/gravel 94.5 14.7 50.8 34 35

ASTM EXPANSION CLASSIFICATIONExpansion Index Classification

0-20 V. Low21-50 Low51-90 Medium

91-130 High>130 V. High

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Tested By: DK Date: 12/17/12Project No.: IR12163270 Checked By: AP Date: 12/27/12

PROCEDURE USED

Wet Preparation

X Dry Preparation

X Procedure A

Multipoint Test

Procedure B

One-point Test

SymbolBoring Number

Sample Number

Depth (feet)

LL PL PIU.S.C.S Symbol

♦ B-1 1 0.8-2.5 53 15 38 CH

▲ B-1 4 6.5-7 50 15 35 CH

ATTERBERG LIMITSASTM D 4318

CL-ML

CL

ML or OL

CH

MH or OH

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

PI)

40

45

50

55

60

10 100Number of Blows

Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t (%

)

25


PROCEDURE USED

Wet Preparation

X Dry Preparation

X Procedure A

Multipoint Test

Procedure B

One-point Test

SymbolBoring Number

Sample Number

Depth (feet)


♦ B-2 1 0-2.5 52 17 35 CH

▲ B-2 5 10-11.5 86 26 60 CH


CL-ML

CL

ML or OL

CH

MH or OH

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

PI)

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90


Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t (%

)

25


PROCEDURE USED

Wet Preparation

X Dry Preparation

X Procedure A

Multipoint Test

Procedure B

One-point Test

SymbolBoring Number

Sample Number

Depth (feet)


♦ B-3 4 8-8.5 66 20 46 CH

▲ B-3 8 26-26.5 62 20 42 CH


CL-ML

CL

ML or OL

CH

MH or OH

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

PI)

60

65

70

75

80


Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t (%

)

25


PROCEDURE USED

Wet Preparation

X Dry Preparation

X Procedure A

Multipoint Test

Procedure B

One-point Test

SymbolBoring Number

Sample Number

Depth (feet)


♦ B-4 4 8.3-8.8 58 17 41 CH


CL-ML

CL

ML or OL

CH

MH or OH

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

PI)

50

55

60

65

70


Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t (%

)

25


PROCEDURE USED

Wet Preparation

X Dry Preparation

X Procedure A

Multipoint Test

Procedure B

One-point Test

SymbolBoring Number

Sample Number

Depth (feet)


♦ B-5 1 0.3-2.5 48 21 27 CL

▲ B-5 5 10-10.5 48 19 29 CL


CL-ML

CL

ML or OL

CH

MH or OH

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

PI)

40

45

50

55

60


Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t (%

)

25


PROCEDURE USED

Wet Preparation

X Dry Preparation

X Procedure A

Multipoint Test

Procedure B

One-point Test

SymbolBoring Number

Sample Number

Depth (feet)


♦ B-5 7 20.5-21 43 15 28 CL


CL-ML

CL

ML or OL

CH

MH or OH

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

PI)

40

45

50

55

60


Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t (%

)

25


PROCEDURE USED

Wet Preparation

X Dry Preparation

X Procedure A

Multipoint Test

Procedure B

One-point Test

SymbolBoring Number

Sample Number

Depth (feet)


♦ B-6 5 10.3-10.8 37 24 13 CL


CL-ML

CL

ML or OL

CH

MH or OH

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

PI)

30

35

40

45

50


Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t (%

)

25

Boring No. : B-2 Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 97.3

Sample No.: 2 Initial Moisture Content (%): 20.5

Depth (feet): 3.5-4 Final Moisture Content (%): 25.5

Sample Type: Remolded to 92% RC@OMC+3% Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7

Soil Description: Fat Clay w/sand Initial Void Ratio: 0.73

Remarks:

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and BathhouseProject No.: IR12163270Date:

AP No: 12-1224

CONSOLIDATION CURVEASTM D 2435 12/23/2012

-5-4-3-2-10123456789

101112131415

0.1 1 10 100VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)

CO

NSO

LID

ATI

ON

(Per

cent

of S

ampl

e Th

ickn

ess)

At Field Moisture After Saturation



Depth (feet): 5.5-6 Final Moisture Content (%): 23.2

Sample Type: Mod Cal Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7

Soil Description: Clayey Sand Initial Void Ratio: 0.58

Remarks:


AP No: 12-1224


-3-2-10123456789

101112131415


CO

NSO

LID

ATI

ON

(Per

cent

of S

ampl

e Th

ickn

ess)




Depth (feet): 3-3.5 Final Moisture Content (%): 24.2

Sample Type: Mod Cal Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7

Soil Description: Lean Clay w/sand Initial Void Ratio: 0.66

Remarks:


AP No: 12-1224


-5-4-3-2-10123456789

101112131415


CO

NSO

LID

ATI

ON

(Per

cent

of S

ampl

e Th

ickn

ess)


Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Tested By DRE Date: 12/27/12

Boring No.: B-2 Checked By AP Date: 12/28/12

Sample No.: 2 Depth (ft): 3.5-4

Description: Fat Clay w/sand

Sample Type: Remolded to 92% RC at OMC+3%

Test Condition:

Sample Diameter (in) 2.415 Moisture Determination Before Test After Test

Sample Height (in) 1.00 Cont. Weight (g) 409.75 143.67

Total Soil+Ring Weight(g) 557.42 Wet Soil+Cont. (g) 479.55 602.29

Total Ring Weight (g) 129.96 Dry Soil+Cont. (g) 467.69 508.72

Wet Density (pcf) 118.50 Moisture Content (%) 20.5 25.6

Dry Density (pcf) 98.36 Degree Saturation 77.4 99.6

METHOD OF SHEARING

X Regular Shearing Shear Rate (in/min): 0.025

Residual Shearing 5 Passes Shear Distance (in): 0.3

Sample Sample + Ring Wt. Normal Load Max. Shear Ultimate Shear

Number Ring Wt. (ksf) Reading (psf) Reading (psf)

1 187.84 45.14 0.5 938 469

2 184.95 42.49 1.0 1173 816

3 184.63 42.33 2.0 1685 1356

DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA

Inundated

Remarks

ASTM D 3080

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Initial Dry Density: 98.4 pcfBoring No.: B-2 Moisture Content (before): 20.5 %Sample No.: 2 Moisture Content (after): 25.6 %Depth (ft): 3.5-4Sample Type: Remolded to 92% RC at OMC+3%Soil Description: Fat Clay w/sandTest Condition: Inundated

Strength Parameters Peak Ultimate

Cohesion (psf): 700 300Friction Angle: 27 ° 29 °

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTSASTM D 3080

0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Normal Stress (ksf)

Shea

r Str

ess

(ksf

)

Peak Ultimate

0.0

1.0

2.0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Shear Deformation (inches)

Shea

r Str

ess

(ksf

)



Sample No.: 7 Depth (ft): 21-21.5

Description: Fat Clay w/sand (Monterey Formation)

Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

Test Condition:







METHOD OF SHEARING





1 186.96 44.75 1.0 1836 1116

2 181.91 42.76 2.0 2328 1668

3 183.69 42.17 4.0 3252 2357


Inundated

Remarks

ASTM D 3080

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Initial Dry Density: 96.6 pcfBoring No.: B-3 Moisture Content (before): 21.4 %Sample No.: 7 Moisture Content (after): 27.0 %Depth (ft): 21-21.5Sample Type: Mod. Cal.Soil Description: Fat Clay w/sand (Monterey Formation)Test Condition: Inundated




0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Normal Stress (ksf)

Shea

r Str

ess

(ksf

)

Peak Ultimate

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0


Shea

r Str

ess

(ksf

)




Description: Silty Gravel w/sand


Test Condition:







METHOD OF SHEARING





1 156.66 45.52 0.5 468 456

2 167.74 45.57 1.0 996 816

3 158.01 42.37 2.0 1428 1392


Inundated

Remarks

ASTM D 3080

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Initial Dry Density: 83.1 pcfBoring No.: B-4 Moisture Content (before): 16.4 %Sample No.: 2 Moisture Content (after): 37.4 %Depth (ft): 3.5-4Sample Type: Mod. Cal.Soil Description: Silty Gravel w/sandTest Condition: Inundated




0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Normal Stress (ksf)

Shea

r Str

ess

(ksf

)

Peak Ultimate

0.0

1.0

2.0


Shea

r Str

ess

(ksf

)




Description: Clayey Sand


Test Condition:







METHOD OF SHEARING





1 169.14 43.12 0.5 514 475

2 159.14 42.93 1.0 900 864

3 179.56 42.61 2.0 1296 1296


Inundated

Remarks

ASTM D 3080

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Initial Dry Density: 98.1 pcfBoring No.: B-5 Moisture Content (before): 7.1 %Sample No.: 3 Moisture Content (after): 25.7 %Depth (ft): 5.5-6Sample Type: Mod. Cal.Soil Description: Clayey SandTest Condition: Inundated




0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Normal Stress (ksf)

Shea

r Str

ess

(ksf

)

Peak Ultimate

0.0

1.0

2.0


Shea

r Str

ess

(ksf

)



Sample No.: 5 Depth (ft): 10.3-10.8

Description: Sandy Lean Clay


Test Condition:







METHOD OF SHEARING





1 185.00 44.93 0.5 1008 723

2 182.78 45.72 1.0 1240 1026

3 175.62 43.59 2.0 1753 1548


Inundated

Remarks

ASTM D 3080

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Initial Dry Density: 94.5 pcfBoring No.: B-6 Moisture Content (before): 20.1 %Sample No.: 5 Moisture Content (after): 28.2 %Depth (ft): 10.3-10.8Sample Type: Mod. Cal.Soil Description: Sandy Lean ClayTest Condition: Inundated




0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Normal Stress (ksf)

Shea

r Str

ess

(ksf

)

Peak Ultimate

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0


Shea

r Str

ess

(ksf

)

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST RESULTSASTM D 2166

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Sample Type: CoreProject No.: IR12163270 Soil Description SiltstoneBoring No.: B-5 Dry Density (pcf): 98.4Sample No.: 8 Moisture Content (%) 8.8Depth (feet): Test Date: 12/18/12

Sample Diameter (inch): 2.424 Wt. Wet Soil+Container(gms) 797.52Sample Height (inch): 4.977 Wt. Dry Soil+Container(gms) 745.12Sample Weight (gms): 645.91 Wt. Container (gms) 152.43

0 0.00019 0.00532 0.01079 0.020113 0.025149 0.030220 0.045195 0.06093 0.090

After Test

25.5-26

1.214.70 2.85 1.814.67 6.01

0.604.66 6.80 0.904.64 4.62

0.404.64 3.51 0.504.63 2.46

0.000.10

4.62 1.00 0.204.624.61 0.00

0.59

Axial Strain(lbs) (inch) (sq.in) (ksf)Load Deformation Area Compressive Stress

(%)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r Str

ess

(ksf

)

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST RESULTSASTM D 2166

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Sample Type: CoreProject No.: IR12163270 Soil Description Sandy Lean ClayBoring No.: B-6 Dry Density (pcf): 99.3Sample No.: 4 Moisture Content (%) 19.8Depth (feet): Test Date: 12/18/12

Sample Diameter (inch): 2.432 Wt. Wet Soil+Container(gms) 870.32Sample Height (inch): 5.020 Wt. Dry Soil+Container(gms) 749.85Sample Weight (gms): 728.67 Wt. Container (gms) 142.32

0 0.00029 0.00557 0.010114 0.020146 0.025178 0.030383 0.060598 0.090634 0.103300 0.120

Axial Strain(lbs) (inch) (sq.in) (ksf)Load Deformation Area Compressive Stress

(%)0.000.10

4.65 1.76 0.204.654.65 0.00

0.90

0.404.67 4.50 0.504.66 3.52

0.604.70 11.73 1.204.67 5.48

1.794.74 19.25 2.044.73 18.20

2.394.76 9.08

After Test

8.5-9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Axial Strain (%)

Dev

iato

r Str

ess

(ksf

)

COMPACTION TESTClient: AMEC E&I AP Number: 12-1224Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Tested By: JT Date: 12/17/12Project No. : IR12163270 Calculated By: KM Date: 12/21/12Boring No.: B-2 Checked By: AP Date: 12/28/12Sample No.: 1 Depth (ft.): 3.5-4Visual Sample Description: Fat Clay w/sand

Compaction Method X ASTM D1557 ASTM D698

METHOD A Preparation Method MoistMOLD VOLUME (CU.FT) 0.0333 X Dry

Trial No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 3702 3744 3598 3713

Wt. of Mold (gm.) 1846 1846 1846 1846

Net Wt. of Soil (gm.) 1856 1898 1752 1867

Container No.

Wt. of Container (gm.) 180.74 150.35 149.55 156.74

Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 550.50 711.76 632.52 611.13

Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 499.85 624.07 577.48 534.39

Moisture Content (%) 15.87 18.51 12.86 20.32

Wet Density (pcf) 122.75 125.53 115.87 123.48

Dry Density (pcf) 105.94 105.92 102.67 102.63

Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 107.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%) 17.5 Maximum Dry Density w/ Rock Correction (pcf) N/A Optimum Moisture Content w/ Rock Correction (%) N/A

PROCEDURE USEDX METHOD A: Percent of Oversize: 2.6%

Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)

METHOD B: Percent of Oversize: N/A

Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)

METHOD C: Percent of Oversize: N/A

Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)

100

110

120

130

140

0 10 20 30 40

Moisture (%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)

100% Saturation @ S.G.= 2.6100% Saturation @ S.G.= 2.7100% Saturation @ S.G.= 2.8

COMPACTION TESTClient: AMEC E&I AP Number: 12-1224Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Tested By: JT Date: 12/17/12Project No. : IR12163270 Calculated By: KM Date: 12/25/12Boring No.: B-4 Checked By: AP Date: 12/28/12Sample No.: 1 Depth (ft.): 0.3-2.5Visual Sample Description: Silty Gravel w/sand

Compaction Method X ASTM D1557 ASTM D698

METHOD C Preparation Method MoistMOLD VOLUME (CU.FT) 0.0752 X Dry

Trial No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 7035 6726 7025 6919

Wt. of Mold (gm.) 2716 2716 2716 2716

Net Wt. of Soil (gm.) 4319 4010 4309 4203

Container No.

Wt. of Container (gm.) 411.67 411.68 411.73 411.75

Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 551.55 625.67 644.96 700.80

Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 533.38 606.62 609.02 652.35

Moisture Content (%) 14.93 9.77 18.22 20.14

Wet Density (pcf) 126.62 117.56 126.32 123.21

Dry Density (pcf) 110.17 107.09 106.86 102.55

Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 110.5 Optimum Moisture Content (%) 16.0 Maximum Dry Density w/ Rock Correction (pcf) 114.0 Optimum Moisture Content w/ Rock Correction (%) 14.6

PROCEDURE USED METHOD A: Percent of Oversize: N/A

Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)

METHOD B: Percent of Oversize: N/A

Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)

X METHOD C: Percent of Oversize: 9.0%

Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)

100

110

120

130

140

0 10 20 30 40

Moisture (%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)

100% Saturation @ S.G.= 2.6100% Saturation @ S.G.= 2.7100% Saturation @ S.G.= 2.8

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and BathhouseProject Number: IR12163270Boring No.: B-1Sample No.: 1 Depth (ft.): 0.8-2.5Location: N/ASoil Description: Sandy Fat Clay

Mold Number D E FWater Added, g 10 40 70Compact Moisture(%) 23.2 26.6 29.9Compaction Gage Pressure, psi 130 50 40Exudation Pressure, psi 772 393 287Sample Height, Inches 2.6 2.7 2.7Gross Weight Mold, g 3065 3078 2988Tare Weight Mold, g 1971 1957 1871Net Sample Weight, g 1094 1121 1117Expansion, inchesx10-4 0 0 0Stability 2,000 (160 psi) 48/128 58/134 68/148Turns Displacement 3.49 4.61 5.04R-Value Uncorrected 15 10 4R-Value Corrected 16 11 5Dry Density, pcf 103.5 99.4 96.5Traffic Index 5.0 5.0 5.0G.E. by Stability 0.84 0.89 0.95G.E. by Expansion 0.00 0.00 0.00

2607 Pomona Blvd, Pomona, CA 91768, Tel (909)869-6316 Fax (909) 869-6318

Date:

12/14/12

01/14/13Checked By:

STKMAP

R-VALUE TEST DATAASTM D2844

Tested By:Computed By: 12/25/12

Date:Date:

Gf = 1.60, and 0.2 % Retained on the ¾" *Not

ApplicableRem

arks

By Exudation:

By Expansion:

At Equilibrium:

(by Exudation)

R-V

ALU

E

6

*N/A

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0100200300400500600700800

EXUDATION PRESSURE - PSI

R-V

ALU

E

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION (FT.)

CO

VE

R T

HIC

KN

ES

S B

Y S

TAB

ILO

ME

TER

(FT.

)

Project Name: Gaffey Pool and BathhouseProject Number: IR12163270Boring No.: B-5Sample No.: 1 Depth (ft.): 0.3-2.5Location: N/ASoil Description: Clayey Sand w/gravel

Mold Number A C BWater Added, g 60 70 80Compact Moisture(%) 16.6 17.6 18.7Compaction Gage Pressure, psi 150 100 70Exudation Pressure, psi 589 383 225Sample Height, Inches 2.6 2.7 2.7Gross Weight Mold, g 3090 3100 3113Tare Weight Mold, g 1970 1969 1968Net Sample Weight, g 1120 1131 1145Expansion, inchesx10-4 16 5 0Stability 2,000 (160 psi) 22/50 35/94 47/118Turns Displacement 3.78 3.77 4.12R-Value Uncorrected 59 32 18R-Value Corrected 61 36 20Dry Density, pcf 111.9 107.9 108.3Traffic Index 5.0 5.0 5.0G.E. by Stability 0.39 0.64 0.80G.E. by Expansion 0.53 0.17 0.00

2607 Pomona Blvd, Pomona, CA 91768, Tel (909)869-6316 Fax (909) 869-6318

Date:

12/14/12

12/29/12Checked By:

STKMAP

R-VALUE TEST DATAASTM D2844

Tested By:Computed By: 12/25/12

Date:Date:

Gf = 1.60, and 4.1 % Retained on the ¾"

Rem

arks

By Exudation:

By Expansion:

At Equilibrium:

(by Exudation)

R-V

ALU

E

28

56

28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0100200300400500600700800

EXUDATION PRESSURE - PSI

R-V

ALU

E

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION (FT.)

CO

VE

R T

HIC

KN

ES

S B

Y S

TAB

ILO

ME

TER

(FT.

)

CORROSION TEST RESULTS

Client Name: AMEC E&I AP Job No.: 12-1224 Project Name: Gaffey Pool and Bathhouse Date 12/17/12 Project No.: IR12163270

Boring Sample Depth Soil Type pH Sulfate Content Chloride Content No. No. (feet) (ppm) (ppm)

B-2 1 0-2.5 CH 7.4 118 67

NOTES: Resistivity Test and pH: California Test Method 643Sulfate Content : California Test Method 417Chloride Content : California Test Method 422ND = Not DetectableNA = Not Sufficient SampleNR = Not Requested

2607 Pomona Boulevard, Pomona, CA 91768Tel. (909) 869-6316 Fax. (909)869-6318

MinimumResistivity (ohm-cm)

1121

APPENDIX C

Results of Slope Stability Analyses

1.01

Directory: K:\IR12163270 Gaffey Pool\Slope Stability Analyses\Section A\File Name: Pseudostatic Block.gsz

Name: Colluvium (Qcol) Unit Weight: 115 pcfCohesion: 250 psfPhi: 29 °

Name: Artificial Fill (af) Unit Weight: 105 pcfCohesion: 200 psfPhi: 33 °

Name: Non Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtnm) Unit Weight: 115 pcfCohesion: 750 psfPhi: 26 °

Name: Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) Unit Weight: 115 pcfCohesion: 0 psfPhi: 34 °Name: Monterey Formation (Tm)

Unit Weight: 115 pcfCohesion: 1350 psfPhi: 25 °C-Anisotropic Strength Fn.: Along Bedding Cohesion Phi-Anisotropic Strength Fn.: Along Bedding Phi

FS =

Section A-A'Pseudostatick = 0.265

Footing surcharge load = 1500 psf

BA

- 6

(pro

ject

ed)

BA

- 3

(pro

ject

ed)

Gaffey St.

Gaffey Pool

TD = 50' bgs

TD = 32' bgs

Distance (ft)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

180

200

220

240

260

280

1.73

Directory: K:\IR12163270 Gaffey Pool\Slope Stability Analyses\Section A\File Name: Static Block.gsz




Name: Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) Unit Weight: 115 pcfCohesion: 0 psfPhi: 34 °Name: Monterey Formation (Tm)

Unit Weight: 115 pcfCohesion: 700 psfPhi: 23 °C-Anisotropic Strength Fn.: Along Bedding Cohesion Phi-Anisotropic Strength Fn.: Along Bedding Phi

FS =

Section A-A'Long Term Static

Footing surcharge pressure = 1500 psf

Gaffey St.

Gaffey Pool

TD = 50' bgs

TD = 32' bgs

BA

- 3

(pro

ject

ed)

BA

- 6

(pro

ject

ed)

Distance (ft)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

180

200

220

240

260

280

1.00

TD = 50' bgs

BA

-3

BA

-5

TD = 30' bgs

Gaffey Pool

Gaffey St.Name: Monterey Formation (Tm) Unit Weight: 115 pcfCohesion: 1350 psfPhi: 25 °C-Anisotropic Strength Fn.: Along Bedding Cohesion Phi-Anisotropic Strength Fn.: Along Bedding Phi




Name: Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) Unit Weight: 115 pcfCohesion: 0 psfPhi: 34 °

FS =


Section B-B'Pseudostatick = 0.265

K:\IR12163270 Gaffey Pool\Slope Stability Analyses\Section B\Pseudostatic Block.gsz

Distance (ft)20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

1.74

TD = 50' bgs

BA

-3

BA

-5

TD = 30' bgs

Gaffey Pool

Gaffey St.Name: Monterey Formation (Tm) Unit Weight: 115 pcfCohesion: 700 psfPhi: 23 °C-Anisotropic Strength Fn.: Along Bedding Cohesion Phi-Anisotropic Strength Fn.: Along Bedding Phi




Name: Marine Terrace Deposits (Qtm) Unit Weight: 115 pcfCohesion: 0 psfPhi: 34 °

FS =


Section B-B'Long Term Static

K:\IR12163270 Gaffey Pool\Slope Stability Analyses\Section B\Static Block.gsz

Distance (ft)20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300