PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

Transcription

1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT HAMPTON INN 14 Geronimo Avenue Parker, Arizona Prepared For: Greens Group Culver Drive, A 358 Irvine, CA October 22, 2014 Project No.: Prepared by: ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc E. Edinger Ave., Suite A9 Santa Ana, California Tel.: (888) Fax: (714)

2 A B I ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC E. Edinger Ave., Suite A9 Santa Ana, California Tel.:(888) Fax: (714) October 22, 2014 Project No Greens Group Culver Drive, A 358 Irvine, CA Attention: Sharad Kadakia Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for proposed 1140 Geronimo Avenue, Parker, Arizona Hampton Inn Development at Dear Mr. Kadakia: A B I Engineering Consultants, Inc. is pleased to present this report of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed commercial development to be constructed at the subject location. This report presents a review of the project information provided to us, a description of the surface and subsurface conditions, geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction, seismic information, and a summary of excavation and earthwork recommendations for soils encountered at the subject site. Attachments to the report include a site vicinity map, a soil boring location plan, soil boring logs, laboratory testing results and seismic analyses. We appreciate this opportunity to provide our services and look forward to assisting as your geotechnical consultant throughout this project. Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc.

3 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE SCOPE OF WORK SUBSURFACE AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING SITE, GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GROUNDWATER EXPANSION POTENTIAL OF SOIL CORROSIVITY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS EARTHWORK AND SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS OVER-EXCAVATION FOR BUILDING PAD PREPARATION SELECT FILL MATERIALS FILL AND COMPACTION FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS SLAB-ON-GRADE LATERAL RESISTANCE LATERAL EARTH LOADS SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS CONCRETE AHALT CONCRETE (FLEXIBLE) PAVEMENT POOL DESIGN SITE GRADING FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS... 6 CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND ECIFICATION REVIEW LIMITATIONS FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Preliminary Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. i October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

4 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona 1 INTRODUCTION ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. (ABI) completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for a commercial development at 14 Geronimo Avenue in the Town of Parker Arizona. This report presents results of subsurface and laboratory investigation and presents geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. The site location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed development consists of construction of 3-story hotel building with maximum height of 40 feet. The preliminary site development plan is presented on Figure 2. The building will be wood-framed structure and be supported on conventional slab-on-grade foundation system with perimeter footings and isolated interior footings. The total floor area of building is 39,984 square feet which includes 61 guest rooms. The anticipated wall loading is in the order of 1 kip per foot. Other Improvements will consist of a swimming pool, asphalt/concrete pavement for driveways and parking, hardscape and landscape development. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to understand the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design of proposed construction. The geotechnical recommendations for earthwork, foundation design, concrete slab-on-grade, asphalt pavement, and seismic parameters. 1.2 Scope of Work The scope of work included the following Literature and map review of the region and vicinity; Review of Site Conditions; Subsurface and Geotechnical Laboratory Investigation; and Preparation of this Geotechnical Investigation report. The assessment of general site environmental conditions, the presence or absences of petroleum impact in the soil, groundwater, or surface water of the site were beyond the scope of this investigation. ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 1 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

5 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona 2 SUBSURFACE AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION A subsurface and geotechnical laboratory investigation was performed to assess subsurface conditions across the site. The subsurface investigation consisted of soil borings, and collection of soil samples for laboratory testing. 2.1 Subsurface Investigation The subsurface conditions beneath the site were explored on October 3, 2014 by drilling five (5) soil borings to depths ranging from 11 to 41 feet below the existing ground surface. The borings were drilled utilizing 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. A truck mounted drill rig equipped with drilling equipment was used. Standard Penetration Test blow counts (T-N) were obtained during drilling at approximately 5-foot intervals. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained by driving 3.0-inch outer diameter Modified California Sampler lined with 2.4-inch internal diameter brass rings. Bulk soil samples were collected from drill cuttings. The collected soil samples were stored in plastic containers or bags to retain the natural moisture content. After completion of logging and sampling, the boreholes were backfilled with on-site soils. The soils were visually classified in the field in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in accordance with ASTM D2488 standard procedure. The logs of the soil borings are presented in appendix A. The logs represent our interpretations of the subsurface conditions based on our field observations, a visual examination of samples, and the indicated laboratory tests performed on selected samples. The line designating the interface between various strata on the soil boring log represents the approximate positions of the interface. The actual transition between strata may be gradual. Ground water was not encountered in any of the boreholes during boring drilled to the maximum depth of 41 feet at the site. 2.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Selected soil samples obtained from the borings were tested for classification and physical properties. Based on the soil type encountered, relevant tests required to provide the geotechnical laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM test standards. The following tests were performed: 1. In-situ Moisture and Density Test (ASTM D2216), 2. Grain Size Distribution (ASTM D 6913), 3. Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080), 4. Compaction Test (ASTM D1557), and 5. Corrosion Tests: Resistivity Test and ph (CA 643), Sulfate Content (CA 417), Chloride Content (CA 422). The test results are included in Appendix B. ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

6 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona 3 SITE, GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Conditions and Proposed Project The project site is located at south west corner of 11 Th Street and Geronimo Avenue in the Town of Parker, Arizona. The site area is 45,000 square feet. The site is generally rectangular in shape in a northwest to southeast orientation. The site is bounded by West 11 th Street to the north, Geronimo Ave. to the east, and commercial property to the south and west. The site generally has flat topography. The approximate elevation of site is 424 feet respect to mean sea level (Source: google earth). The site is in developed area and consists of 3 single story buildings and paved parking lots. The existing buildings and other structures will be demolished. A new 3-story hotel building will be constructed on the western portion of the site, and eastern portion will have driveway and parking areas, with landscape improvements. A swimming pool, including a storage area, will be constructed at southwest corner of the property. 3.2 Subsurface Conditions The subsurface consists of fine to coarse grained Silty Sand (SM) and Sand () with gravel. The soils are in dry, and in medium to dense condition to the explored depth of 41 feet. 3.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in the boring drilled to maximum depth of 41 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater is not anticipated to adversely impact the proposed development. However, the depth to groundwater may fluctuate, depending on rainfall and possible groundwater recharge or pumping activity in the site vicinity. 3.4 Expansion Potential of Soil The subsurface soil is generally non-plastic granular materials. Based on soil type, the on-site soil is considered to have low to none expansion potential. 3.5 Corrosivity Corrosive soils may have an adverse impact on below ground concrete and buried metallic objects. The corrosion tests performed on representative on-site soil sample of the near surface soils obtained from the geotechnical exploration: Table 1: Corrosion Test Results Test Results Minimum Resistivity (per CA 532) 7,0 ohm-cm ph (per CA 643) 8.7 Sulfate Content (per CA 417) 78 ppm Chloride Content (per CA 422) 218 ppm Based on corrosion test result, the on-site soil would not be considered corrosive. ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 3 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

7 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona 4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 CONCLUSIONS It is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from geotechnical consideration. The proposed construction is not expected to adversely impact adjacent structures from a geotechnical perspective provided recommendations in this report are implemented during design and construction of the project. 4.2 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS Earthwork and Site Grading recommendations Site Preparation and Grading Prior to grading operations, all existing buildings, including their foundations should be completely demolished and removed. All demolition debris and deleterious materials, including any remaining buried obstructions and underground utilities should be removed. Any undocumented fill should be removed and stockpiled for reuse. Surface vegetation should be stripped from areas of proposed construction. After clearing the site, the exposed soils should be carefully inspected to verify the removal of all unsuitable deposits, including, organic material consisting of vegetation and roots, top soil and loose or soft soil. The exposed excavations should be scarified to a depth of at least eight inches, brought to within than three percent optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D1557). The final bottom surface of all excavations should be observed and approved by the project soil engineer prior to placing any fill and/or structures. Based on these observations, removal of localized areas deeper than this recommendation may be required during grading. Therefore, some variations in depth and lateral extent of excavation recommended in this report should be anticipated. Temporary Excavation All excavations shall be made in accordance with the requirement of OSHA and other public agencies having jurisdiction. Any excavations over 5 feet high shall be sloped back at minimum gradient of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or be shored or braced for safety and should be protected from erosion during construction. The contractor is solely responsible for site safety during construction. The contractor should be aware the excavation height, slope should no case exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 4 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

8 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona Over-excavation for building pad preparation Over-excavation and re-compaction below the building footprint is recommended to result in uniform subgrade conditions below the proposed building. We recommend over-excavation and compaction of near surface deposits in areas of building pad. We recommend minimum depth of overexcavation is 5 feet below adjacent grade and the over-excavation should extend a minimum horizontal distance of 5 feet outside the building footprint. The over-excavation shall be backfilled using suitable fill materials and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density determined by Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D1557) Select Fill Materials On-site soils are generally considered to be suitable fill materials provided the soils are free of deleterious materials and oversized rocks greater than 3-inches. If import material needs to be utilized, it should be granular and non-expansive soils, and free of deleterious materials and rocks larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension. Each source of proposed imported fill materials should be sampled, tested, and approved by project geotechnical engineer prior to delivery to site. A bulk sample of potential import material, weighing at least 35 pounds, should be submitted to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours before fill operations. All proposed import materials should be approved prior to their placement at the site Fill and Compaction The exposed excavations should be scarified to a depth of at least eight inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D1557). Fill should then be placed on the compacted natural soil in layers not exceeding 8-inches in loose lifts; moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content. All structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D1557), and non-structural fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined per modified proctor. The fill surface must be maintained during construction to achieve the recommended compaction. We recommend that the fill surface be sloped to provide drainage and to prevent water from ponding on the fill. If precipitation is expected, fill construction should be temporarily halted and the surface should be rolled with a steel drum or rubber-tire roller to improve surface runoff. If the surface soils become excessively wet, fill operations should be halted. The fill operations shall be continued after allowing sufficient time for soils to dry and upon approval by the Geotechnical Consultant Foundation Design Recommendations The proposed structure can be supported on a shallow foundation system established on competent native soil or certified compacted fill. The foundation may be conventional slab-ongrade foundation system with perimeter footings and interior continuous strip footings and/or ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 5 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

9 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona isolated spread footings. The footings may be designed to impose a net dead plus live load pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) when established on competent native soil or certified compacted fill. The allowable bearing value may also be increased by one-third for short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). The bottoms of the strip footings should be embedded below the lowest adjacent grade or floor level to a minimum of 18 inches for interior and 24 inches for exterior footings. The width of strip footings should be at least 18 inches. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade or floor level. While the actual bearing value of the fill placed at the site will depend on the materials used and the compaction methods employed, the quoted bearing value will be applicable if acceptable soils are used and are compacted as recommended in this report. Steel reinforcement for footing should be designed by the project structural engineer. We recommend minimum reinforcement shall be 4 #4 bars, 2 at top and 2 at bottom for exterior footing; and 2 #4 bars, 1 at top and 1 at bottom for interior strip footings Slab-On-Grade Design of the slab-on-grade supported on firm and non-yielding subgrade may be designed based on a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch. Structural elements such as thickness, reinforcement, joint spacing should be selected based on the anticipated loading, the modulus of subgrade reaction, and minimum geotechnical requirements recommended below. We recommend the interior and exterior concrete slabs-on-grade to have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with equivalent to # 4 bars at 18 on-center each way. For interior slabs, it is recommended that a minimum 4-inch thick base layer of ½-inch or larger clean aggregate capillary break shall be installed underneath the concrete pavement. This base layer should be compacted and should exhibit a firm and unyielding condition prior to concrete placement. For interior concrete slab, a -mil thick polyethylene vapor retarder with joints lapped not less than 6 inches shall be placed between the base course and the concrete slab. The polyethylene sheet shall be protected from tears and rupture during the placement of rebar and formwork for concrete. The concrete slab should be allowed to cure properly before placing vinyl or other moisture-sensitive floor covering Lateral Resistance Lateral loading in foundation structures and retaining structures should be resisted by passive resistance of the soils, and by the soil friction. The passive earth pressure for the side of structures poured against undisturbed soil may be computed as an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3,500 psf. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by onethird. It is recommended to ignore the passive pressure of upper 12 inches of soil. ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 6 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

10 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona Lateral Earth Loads The lateral earth pressure behind retaining structures depends primarily on the allowable movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic pressures. Lateral earth pressure for level backfill condition may be calculated using the values presented below in table 2. We recommend following lateral earth pressure parameters on the assumption that typical granular compacted fill will be used as structural backfill materials. These values should be verified once the material has been selected and may be altered based on the gradation of the actual material to be used for the construction. At rest pressure and active pressure should be used in the design of non-yielding and yielding walls respectively. Table 2: Allowable Lateral Load Parameter Active pressure (EFP) At rest pressure (EFP) Level Backfill 35 psf per foot of depth 55 psf per foot of depth If a functioning drainage system is not installed, then lateral earth pressures should be determined using the buoyant weight of the soil and hydrostatic pressures Settlement Provided that structure are founded on compacted fill soils as recommended, we estimate that the maximum settlement will be less than one inch, and that differential settlements will be less than 1/2 inch within a horizontal distance of 30 feet Seismic Design Parameters Seismically resistant structural design in accordance with local building ordinances should be followed during the design of all structures. Building Codes have been developed to reduce the potential for structural damage. However, some level of damage as the result of ground shaking generated by nearby earthquakes is considered likely in the general area. Table 3 provides the most recent seismic coefficients and seismic data in accordance with requirements included in the 2006 International Building Code of Regulations: ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 7 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

11 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona Table 3: Seismic Coefficients ITEM VALUE Site Latitude (Decimal-degrees) Site Longitude (Decimal-degrees) Site Class D Seismic Design Category D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration - Short Period (0.2 Sec) SS Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration - 1 Second Period S Short Period Site Coefficient Fa Long Period Site Coefficient Fv Adjusted Spectral Response 0.2 Sec. Period (SMS) Adjusted Spectral Response 1 Sec. Period (SM1) Design Spectral Response 0.2 Sec. Period (SDS) Design Spectral Response 1 Sec. Period (SD1) Concrete Based on the result of sulfate test performed previously on on-site soil, soluble sulfates on on-site soil is 78 ppm which indicates that sulfate attack on buried concrete is anticipated to be negligible. However, concrete should be designed in accordance with the 2006 IBC Section and ACI 318 Section Asphalt Concrete (Flexible) Pavement The pavement section for proposed development were determined based on an assumed R-value of 20 for on-site sandy soils. Table 4: Asphalt Pavement Design Types of Traffic Traffic Index Asphalt Thickness (in.) Base Course Thickness (in.) Parking Stalls Drive Areas Base course material shall consist of ¾ inch Aggregate Base, Class 2 material or equivalent and should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction as compared to the maximum value obtained from ASTM D1557 test method. ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 8 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

12 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona Pool Design The swimming pool walls should be designed for lateral earth pressure recommended in Table 2. Any surcharge load, if applicable, should be considered in design of the pool walls. Groundwater is not likely to occur at shallow depth on site. Hydrostatic pressure on pool walls should be considered in design of pool walls if saturated subsurface condition is expected due to irrigation. Hydrostatic pressures calculated with the unit weight of water (62.4 pcf) should be added to earth pressures recommended in Table 2 to obtain the total stresses for design. The worst case loading condition is when the pool is empty during pool maintenance. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used along pool walls to resist buoyancy forces. A design factor of safety of 2.0 against uplift pressure is recommended Site Grading for Surface Drainage We recommend that the building/structures be placed at an elevated gradient within the site and that provisions for positive surface drainage be incorporated into the site grading plans. The construction of an elevated building pad may be required for achievement of site drainage. We recommend ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 2 percent for a minimum distance of feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. Impervious surfaces within feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 1 percent away from the building. All roofs should be guttered and discharge away from the structure in non-erosive manner. It is recommended that trees should not be planted a minimum of one half their anticipated mature height from a footing. Alternatively, all planters adjacent to footings should be sealed. ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 9 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

13 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona 5 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS The firm should also be retained to perform on-site construction observations and testing to ascertain that conditions correspond to the findings and conclusions presented herein and that construction generally conforms to the recommendations presented herein. If variations in subsurface soil conditions become evident during construction, the recommendations presented herein may warrant a revision. The geotechnical and geological consultants should be called for testing and observations as indicated in this report and at least for the following: 1. Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete to verify embedment into the required bearing material. 2. Exposed subgrades in areas to receive fill and in areas where excavation has resulted in the desired finished subgrade. 3. Suitability of on-site and import soils for fill placement; collect and submit soil samples for required or recommended laboratory testing where necessary 4. Fill Placement and compaction. 5. Utility trenches backfilling beneath and adjacent to structures. 6. Retaining Structures backfilling. 7. Observation of the sand and vapor barrier placement prior to placement of reinforcement and concrete. The governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project should be notified before commencement of the grading so that the necessary grading permits can be obtained and arrangements can be made for required inspection(s). The contractor should be familiar with the inspection requirements of the reviewing agencies. ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

14 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona 6 CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND ECIFICATION REVIEW We recommend that ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. be retained to perform a review of the foundation and earthwork plans and specifications prepared from the recommendations presented in this report to determine if the plans and specifications are in compliance with the intent of our recommendations. Our report has been written in a guideline recommendation format and is not appropriate for use as a specification without being reworded into a specification-type format. ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 11 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

15 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona 7 LIMITATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed project development at the subject site at 14 Geronimo Avenue, Parker, Arizona, and on our interpretation of the data collected. We have made our recommendations based on experience with similar subsurface conditions under similar building conditions. These recommendations apply to the project site specifically discussed in this report; therefore, any changes in load conditions or site grades should be provided to us so that we may review our conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary modifications. The recommendations provided in this report are also based upon the assumption that the necessary geotechnical observations and testing during construction will be performed by qualified technical representatives. The field observation services are considered a continuation of the geotechnical investigation and essential to check that the actual soil conditions are as expected. This also provides for the procedure whereby the client can be advised of unexpected or changed conditions that would require modifications of our original recommendations. In addition, the presence of a qualified representative at the site provides the client with an independent professional opinion regarding the geotechnical related construction procedures. If a separate firm other than ABI is retained for the geotechnical observation services, our professional responsibility and liability would be limited to the extent that we would not be the geotechnical engineer of record. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other uses. ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 12 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

16 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona FIGURES ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 1 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

17 I Western Fark PROJECT SITE SITE VICINITY MAP NORTH PROJECT: HAMPTONINN gygfugggfug SWE GERONIMO AVENUE AND 11TH STREET FIGURE CONSUL TANTS, INC. PROJECT NO: PARKER, ARIZONA 1701 EAST EDINGER AVENUE, SUITE A9 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA TEL: (888) FAX: (714)

18 W. lithstreet HAMPTON INN 3 STORIES (40' MAX) 61 GUESTROOMS B (24K/2KMA/31eDO) 38,4..F. BLDG 62 PA KING 45,000 5.F. SITE 30 3 u d (1.03 ACRES) D s',b', 61'-5", " 14 GERONIMO AVE PARKER, AZ J_ AREA LEGEND: B-1 SOIL BORING LOCATION PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 150 NOT TO SCALE PROJECT: HAMPTON INN SWE GERONIMO AVENUE AND 11TH STREET PARKER, ARIZONA PROJECT NO: CONSUL TANTS, INC. FIGURE 1701 EAST EDINGER AVENUE, SUITE A9 2 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA TEL: (888) FAX: (714)

19 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona APPENDIX A BORING LOGS ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

20 Project Name: Project Location: Project Number: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ Boring Number B-1 Sheet 1 of 2 Date Drilled /03/2014 Drilling Method HSA Drill Rig Type CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Piezometer Construction Details (screen, seal, surface completion) Logged By Drill Bit Size/Type Drilling Contractor Sampling Method JCW 8" HSA Geomechanics Southwest Mod. Cal. Ring & T Checked By Total Depth of Borehole Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data DB 35.00FT. BGS N/A 140LB. 30-inch drop, autotrip SAMPLES Elevation, feet Depth, feet 0 Type Number B1@0-5 BULK Penetration Resistance, Blows/6 in. Graphic Log Unified Soil Classification MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS 5 B1@5 RING 5 9 SM Silty SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse grained, low plastic fines. B1@ T SAND, light gray, dry, very dense, fine grained. 15 B1@15 RING 50-1" No Recovery, very dense. 20 B1@20 T SAND, light brown, dry, medium dense, fine to medium grained. 25 B1@25 RING SM Silty SAND, brown, moist, dense, fine to medium grained, low plastic fines. 30

21 Project Name: Project Location: Project Number: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ Boring Number B-1 Sheet 2 of 2 Date Drilled /03/2014 Drilling Method HSA Drill Rig Type CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Piezometer Construction Details (screen, seal, surface completion) Logged By Drill Bit Size/Type Drilling Contractor Sampling Method JCW 8" HSA Geomechanics Southwest Mod. Cal. Ring & T Checked By Total Depth of Borehole Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data DB 35.00FT. BGS N/A 140LB. 30-inch drop, autotrip SAMPLES Elevation, feet Depth, feet 30 Type Number B1@30 T Penetration Resistance, Blows/6 in Graphic Log Unified Soil Classification MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAND, brown, damp, medium dense to dense, fine to coarse grained, with 1" rocks. REMARKS 35 End of boring at 35.0' below ground surface due to refusal. Backfill borehole with soil cuttings

22 Project Name: Project Location: Project Number: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ Boring Number B-2 Sheet 1 of 2 Date Drilled /03/2014 Drilling Method HSA Drill Rig Type CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Piezometer Construction Details (screen, seal, surface completion) Logged By Drill Bit Size/Type Drilling Contractor Sampling Method JCW 8" HSA Geomechanics Southwest Mod. Cal. Ring & T Checked By Total Depth of Borehole Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data DB 41.00FT. BGS N/A 140LB. 30-inch drop, autotrip SAMPLES Elevation, feet Depth, feet 0 Type Number B2@0-5 BULK Penetration Resistance, Blows/6 in. Graphic Log Unified Soil Classification MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS 5 B2@5 T SM Silty SAND, brown, moist, dense, fine grained, low plastic fines. At 8.0' with 3/4" to 2" rocks. B2@ RING 6 18 SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse grained, with 3/4" to 2" rocks. 15 B2@15 T Become light grayish brown, dry, medium dense. 20 B2@20 RING 4 8 Become fine grained, medium dense. 25 B2@25 T

23 Project Name: Project Location: Project Number: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ Boring Number B-2 Sheet 2 of 2 Date Drilled /03/2014 Drilling Method HSA Drill Rig Type CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Piezometer Construction Details (screen, seal, surface completion) Logged By Drill Bit Size/Type Drilling Contractor Sampling Method JCW 8" HSA Geomechanics Southwest Mod. Cal. Ring & T Checked By Total Depth of Borehole Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data DB 41.00FT. BGS N/A 140LB. 30-inch drop, autotrip SAMPLES Elevation, feet Depth, feet 30 Type Number B2@30 RING Penetration Resistance, Blows/6 in. 12 Graphic Log Unified Soil Classification MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Become brown, medium dense, fine to medium grained. REMARKS 35 B2@35 T Become very dense. 40 B2@40 RING Become dense, at 40.0' with 2" rocks. End of boring at 41.0' below ground surface due to refusal. Backfill borehole with soil cuttings

24 Project Name: Project Location: Project Number: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ Boring Number B-3 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Drilled /03/2014 Drilling Method HSA Drill Rig Type CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Piezometer Construction Details (screen, seal, surface completion) Logged By Drill Bit Size/Type Drilling Contractor Sampling Method JCW 8" HSA Geomechanics Southwest Mod. Cal. Ring & T Checked By Total Depth of Borehole Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data DB 11.00FT. BGS N/A 140LB. 30-inch drop, autotrip SAMPLES Elevation, feet Depth, feet 0 Type Number B3@0-5 BULK Penetration Resistance, Blows/6 in. Graphic Log Unified Soil Classification MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS 5 B3@5 RING SM Silty SAND with 2" rocks, brown, moist, dense, fine to medium grained, low plastic fines. B3@ T SAND, light gray, dry, very dense, fine grained. End of boring at 11.0' below ground surface due to refusal. Backfill borehole with soil cuttings

25 Project Name: Project Location: Project Number: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ Boring Number B-4 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Drilled /03/2014 Drilling Method HSA Drill Rig Type CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Piezometer Construction Details (screen, seal, surface completion) Logged By Drill Bit Size/Type Drilling Contractor Sampling Method JCW 8" HSA Geomechanics Southwest Mod. Cal. Ring & T Checked By Total Depth of Borehole Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data DB 11.00FT. BGS N/A 140LB. 30-inch drop, autotrip SAMPLES Elevation, feet Depth, feet 0 Type Number B4@0-5 BULK Penetration Resistance, Blows/6 in. Graphic Log Unified Soil Classification MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS 5 B4@5 T SAND, light brown, dry, medium dense, fine to medium grained. B4@ RING Become dense. End of boring at 11.0' below ground surface due to refusal. Backfill borehole with soil cuttings

26 Project Name: Project Location: Project Number: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ Boring Number B-5 Sheet 1 of 2 Date Drilled /03/2014 Drilling Method HSA Drill Rig Type CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Piezometer Construction Details (screen, seal, surface completion) Logged By Drill Bit Size/Type Drilling Contractor Sampling Method JCW 8" HSA Geomechanics Southwest Mod. Cal. Ring & T Checked By Total Depth of Borehole Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data DB 41.00FT. BGS N/A 140LB. 30-inch drop, autotrip SAMPLES Elevation, feet Depth, feet 0 Type Number B5@0-5 BULK Penetration Resistance, Blows/6 in. Graphic Log Unified Soil Classification MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS 5 B5@5 RING SAND, light gray, dry, dense, fine to medium grained, with 3/4" to 2" rocks. B5@ T 8 18 Become medium dense. 15 B5@15 RING No Recovery, become medium dense to dense. 20 B5@20 T No Recovery, become dense. 25 B5@25 RING Become fine grained, medium dense. 30

27 Project Name: Project Location: Project Number: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ Boring Number B-5 Sheet 2 of 2 Date Drilled /03/2014 Drilling Method HSA Drill Rig Type CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Piezometer Construction Details (screen, seal, surface completion) Logged By Drill Bit Size/Type Drilling Contractor Sampling Method JCW 8" HSA Geomechanics Southwest Mod. Cal. Ring & T Checked By Total Depth of Borehole Approximate Surface Elevation Hammer Data DB 41.00FT. BGS N/A 140LB. 30-inch drop, autotrip SAMPLES Elevation, feet Depth, feet 30 Type Number B5@30 T Penetration Resistance, Blows/6 in Graphic Log Unified Soil Classification Become light brown, very dense. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS 35 B5@35 RING Become dense. 40 B5@40 T " Become light gray, very dense. End of boring at 41.0' below ground surface due to refusal. Backfill borehole with soil cuttings

28 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 14 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. 3 October 22, 2014 ABI Project No

29 MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST RESULTS Tested By DS Date /14/2014 Checked By DB Date Sampled : /3/2014 Date /20/2014 Date Received : /3/2014 Boring Sample No. Depth (ft.) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) B-1 B1@ B-1 B1@ B-2 B2@ B-2 B2@ B-2 B2@ B-2 B2@ B-3 B3@ B-4 B4@ B-5 B5@ B-5 B5@ B-5 B5@ PROJECT: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ PROJECT NO : DATE /20/2014

30 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT ASTM D6913 GRAVEL COARSE SAND FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 0 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" PERCENT FINER B-1@0-5 B-1@ GRAIN SIZE-mm Boring No. B-1 B-1 Depth Description % Gravel % Sand % Fines (ft.) Silty SAND (SM) 0-5' with some gravel 20' Sand () Boring No. Depth D (ft.) D 30 D 60 Cu C c B-1 0-5' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A B-1 20' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PROJECT: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ PROJECT NO.: DATE /20/2014

31 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT ASTM D6913 GRAVEL COARSE SAND FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 0 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" PERCENT FINER B-5@0-5 B-5@ GRAIN SIZE-mm Boring No. Depth (ft.) Description % Gravel % Sand % Fines B-5 0-5' Sandy SILT(ML) B-5 ' Silty Sand (SM) Boring No. Depth D (ft.) D 30 D 60 Cu C c B-5 0-5' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A B-5 ' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PROJECT: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ PROJECT NO.: DATE /20/2014

32 COMPACTION TEST REPORT ASTM D1557 Boring No.: B2 Tested By: DS Date: /14/2014 Sample No.: Depth: 0-5' Checked By: DB Date: /20/2014 Soil Description: Light gray silty SANd with gravel (SM) Date Sampled: /3/2014 Date Received: /3/2014 Method "B" 135 COMPACTION CURVE Curve No.: A COMPACTION CURVE ZAV Line for S.G.=2.70 ZAV Line for S.G.=2.65 ZAV Line for S.G.= Dry Density, pcf Water Content, % TEST RESULTS MAXIMUM DENSITY = pcf OPTIMUM MOISTURE = 7.0 % PROJECT: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ PROJECT NO.: DATE: /20/2014

33 COMPACTION TEST REPORT ASTM D1557 Boring No.: B5 Tested By: DS Date: /14/2014 Sample No.: Depth: 0-5' Checked By: DB Date: /20/2014 Soil Description: Light gray silty SANd with gravel (SM) Date Sampled: /3/2014 Date Received: /3/2014 Method "B" 130 COMPACTION CURVE Curve No.: A COMPACTION CURVE ZAV Line for S.G.=2.70 ZAV Line for S.G.=2.65 ZAV Line for S.G.= Dry Density, pcf Water Content, % TEST RESULTS MAXIMUM DENSITY = pcf OPTIMUM MOISTURE = 8.5 % PROJECT: HAMPTON INN PARKER, AZ PROJECT NO.: DATE: /20/2014

34 ANAHEIM TEST LAB, INC 3008 ORANGE AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA PHONE (714) ABI Engineering DATE: // E. Edinger Ave. Santa Ana, CA P.O. NO. Verbal LAB NO. B-7686 Attn: Daya ECIFICATION: CA-417/422/643 MATERIAL: Soil Project #: Hampton Inn Parker 0-5 ANALYTICAL REPORT CORROSION SERIES SUMMARY OF DATA ph SOLUBLE SULFATES SOLUBLE CHLORIDES MIN. RESISTIVITY per CA. 417 per CA. 422 per CA. 643 ppm ppm ohm-cm ,0 REECTFULLY SUBMITTED WES BRIDGER CHEMIST