PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT · • Subsurface and Geotechnical Laboratory Investigation; and • Preparation of this Geotechnical Investigation report. The assessment

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

HAMPTON INN

1014 Geronimo Avenue

Parker, Arizona

Prepared For:

Greens Group

14252 Culver Drive, A 358

Irvine, CA 92604

October 22, 2014

Project No.: 14238

Prepared by:

ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc.

1701 E. Edinger Ave., Suite A9

Santa Ana, California 92705

Tel.: (888) 220-5596

Fax: (714) 866-4171

A B I ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.

1 7 0 1 E . E d i n g e r A v e . , S u i t e A 9 S a n t a A n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 7 0 5

T e l . : ( 8 8 8 ) 2 2 0 - 5 5 9 6 F a x : ( 7 1 4 ) 8 6 6 - 4 1 7 1

O c t o b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t N o . 1 4 2 3 8

G r e e n s G r o u p 1 4 2 5 2 C u l v e r D r i v e , A 3 5 8 I r v i n e , C A 9 2 6 0 4

A t t e n t i o n : S h a r a d K a d a k i a

S u b j e c t : P r e l i m i n a r y G e o t e c h n i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r p r o p o s e d H a m p t o n I n n D e v e l o p m e n t a t 1 1 4 0 G e r o n i m o A v e n u e , P a r k e r , A r i z o n a

D e a r M r . K a d a k i a :

A B I E n g i n e e r i n g C o n s u l t a n t s , I n c . i s p l e a s e d t o p r e s e n t t h i s r e p o r t o f o u r g e o t e c h n i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r t h e p r o p o s e d c o m m e r c i a l d e v e l o p m e n t t o b e c o n s t r u c t e d a t t h e s u b j e c t l o c a t i o n .

T h i s r e p o r t p r e s e n t s a r e v i e w o f t h e p r o j e c t i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d t o u s , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s u r f a c e a n d s u b s u r f a c e c o n d i t i o n s , g e o t e c h n i c a l r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r f o u n d a t i o n d e s i g n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n , s e i s m i c i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d a s u m m a r y o f e x c a v a t i o n a n d e a r t h w o r k r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r s o i l s e n c o u n t e r e d a t t h e s u b j e c t s i t e . A t t a c h m e n t s t o t h e r e p o r t i n c l u d e a s i t e v i c i n i t y m a p , a s o i l b o r i n g l o c a t i o n p l a n , s o i l b o r i n g l o g s , l a b o r a t o r y t e s t i n g r e s u l t s a n d s e i s m i c a n a l y s e s .

W e a p p r e c i a t e t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r o v i d e o u r s e r v i c e s a n d l o o k f o r w a r d t o a s s i s t i n g as y o u r g e o t e c h n i c a l c o n s u l t a n t t h r o u g h o u t t h i s p r o j e c t . P l e a s e c o n t a c t u s i f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s o r r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n .

S i n c e r e l y , ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc.

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

1014 Geronimo Ave., Parker, Arizona

ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. i October 22, 2014

ABI Project No. 14238

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK............................................................................................... 1

2 SUBSURFACE AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ......................................... 2

2.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION .................................................................... 2

2.2 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING ............................................... 2

3 SITE, GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................. 3

3.1 SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................ 3

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 3

3.3 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................ 3

3.4 EXPANSION POTENTIAL OF SOIL ............................................................... 3

3.5 CORROSIVITY .................................................................................................... 3

4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 4

4.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 4

4.2 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 4

4.2.1 EARTHWORK AND SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 4

4.2.2 OVER-EXCAVATION FOR BUILDING PAD PREPARATION .................. 5

4.2.3 SELECT FILL MATERIALS ............................................................................. 5

4.2.4 FILL AND COMPACTION ................................................................................ 5

4.2.5 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 5

4.2.6 SLAB-ON-GRADE ............................................................................................... 6

4.2.7 LATERAL RESISTANCE ................................................................................... 6

4.2.8 LATERAL EARTH LOADS ............................................................................... 7

4.2.10 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................. 7

4.2.11 CONCRETE .......................................................................................................... 8

4.2.12 ASPHALT CONCRETE (FLEXIBLE) PAVEMENT ...................................... 8

4.2.13 POOL DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 9

4.2.14 SITE GRADING FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE ............................................... 9

5 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ......................................................................... 10

6 CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATION REVIEW ................................ 11

7 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... 12

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. 1 October 22, 2014


1 INTRODUCTION

ABI Engineering Consultants, Inc. (ABI) completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for

a commercial development at 1014 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.





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 (SPT-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.





3 SITE, GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Conditions and Proposed Project

The project site is located at south west corner of 11Th 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 11th 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 (SP) 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) 7,100 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.





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

4.2.1 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.





4.2.2 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 over-

excavation 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).

4.2.3 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.

4.2.4 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.

4.2.5 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-on-

grade foundation system with perimeter footings and interior continuous strip footings and/or





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.

4.2.6 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 10-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.

4.2.7 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 one-

third. It is recommended to ignore the passive pressure of upper 12” inches of soil.





4.2.8 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 Level Backfill

Active pressure (EFP) 35 psf per foot of depth

At rest pressure (EFP) 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.

4.2.9 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.

4.2.10 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:





Table 3: Seismic Coefficients

ITEM VALUE

Site Latitude (Decimal-degrees) 34.141984

Site Longitude (Decimal-degrees) -114.28593

Site Class D

Seismic Design Category D

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration - Short Period

(0.2 Sec) – SS 0.216

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration - 1 Second Period – S1 0.144

Short Period Site Coefficient – Fa 1.600

Long Period Site Coefficient – Fv 2.224

Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration @ 0.2 Sec. Period

(SMS) 0.346

Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration @ 1 Sec. Period

(SM1) 0.320

Design Spectral Response Acceleration @ 0.2 Sec. Period

(SDS) 0.230

Design Spectral Response Acceleration @ 1 Sec. Period

(SD1) 0.214

4.2.11 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

1904.3 and ACI 318 Section 4.3.

4.2.12 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 4 3 5

Drive Areas 5.5 4 7

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.





4.2.13 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.

4.2.14 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 10 feet measured

perpendicular to the face of the wall. Impervious surfaces within 10 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.





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.





6 CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATION 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.





7 LIMITATIONS

The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed

project development at the subject site at 1014 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.





FIGURES

Western Fark

PROJECT SITE

I

SITE VICINITY MAP

NORTH

PROJECT: HAMPTONINN gygfugggfug FIGURESWE GERONIMO AVENUE AND 11TH STREET CONSUL TANTS, INC.

PARKER, ARIZONA

1701 EAST EDINGER AVENUE, SUITE A9

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705

TEL: (888) 220-5596

PROJECT NO: 14238FAX: (714) 866-4171

W. lithSTREET

HAMPTON INN

3 STORIES (40' MAX)61 GUESTROOMS B

3 u

(24K/2KMA/31eDO)38,4. .F. BLDG 30

62 PA KING

45,000 5.F. SITE

d (1.03 ACRES) D s' 10

10

,B',

61'-5" ,12 24 19 6 -7"

1014 GERONIMO AVE

PARKER, AZ 85344

5

J_ AREA

LEGEND:

•B-1 SOIL BORING

LOCATION

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 150

NOT TO SCALE

PROJECT: HAMPTON INNFIGURESWE GERONIMO AVENUE AND 11TH STREET CONSUL TANTS, INC.

PARKER, ARIZONA

1701 EAST EDINGER AVENUE, SUITE A9 2SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705

TEL: (888) 220-5596

PROJECT NO: 14238FAX: (714) 866-4171





APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS

JCW

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

30

Typ

e

Piezometer Construction Details

(screen, seal, surface completion)

Groundwater Level

and Date Measured

Project Name:

Project Location:

Project Number:

5

Ele

va

tio

n,

fe

et

De

pth

,

fe

et

0

Drill Rig

Type

Drilling

Method

Date

Drilled

Un

ifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssifica

tio

n

Pe

ne

tra

tio

n

Re

sista

nce

,

Blo

ws/6

in

.

SAMPLES

Nu

mb

er

Logged

By

Drill Bit

Size/Type

Drilling

Contractor

Sampling

Method

Boring Number _____

Sheet 1 of 2

Checked

By

Total Depth

of Borehole

Approximate

Surface Elevation

Hammer

Data

REMARKS

10

15

20

25

Mod. Cal. Ring & SPT

Geomechanics Southwest

10/03/2014

HSA 8" HSA

140LB. 30-inch drop, autotrip

B1@10

SPT

B1@15

RING

B1@20

SPT

B1@25

RING

CME-75

B1@5

RING

B1@0-5

BULK

N/A

35.00FT. BGS

DB

Not Encountered

Gra

ph

ic

Lo

g

HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ

14238

B-1

5

9

Silty SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse grained, low plastic

fines.

SM

16

32

22

SAND, light gray, dry, very dense, fine grained.

SP

50-1"

No Recovery, very dense.

SP

8

9

14

SAND, light brown, dry, medium dense, fine to medium grained.

SP

22

18

Silty SAND, brown, moist, dense, fine to medium grained, low plastic fines.

SM

JCW


60

Typ

e



Groundwater Level

and Date Measured

35

Ele

va

tio

n,

fe

et

De

pth

,

fe

et

30

Drill Rig

Type

Drilling

Method

Date

Drilled

Un

ifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssifica

tio

n

Pe

ne

tra

tio

n

Re

sista

nce

,

Blo

ws/6

in

.

SAMPLES

Nu

mb

er

Logged

By

Drill Bit

Size/Type

Drilling

Contractor

Sampling

Method

Boring Number _____

Sheet 2 of 2

Checked

By

Total Depth

of Borehole

Approximate

Surface Elevation

Hammer

Data

REMARKS

40

45

50

55


HSA 8" HSA


B1@30

SPT

DB

Gra

ph

ic

Lo

g

B-1

Project Name:

Project Location:

Project Number:


10/03/2014

HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ

14238

14

18

12

SAND, brown, damp, medium dense to dense, fine to coarse grained, with 1"

rocks.

SP

CME-75 N/A

35.00FT. BGS

Not Encountered

End of boring at 35.0' below ground surface due to refusal. Backfill borehole

with soil cuttings.

JCW


30

Typ

e



Groundwater Level

and Date Measured

Project Name:

Project Location:

Project Number:

5

Ele

va

tio

n,

fe

et

De

pth

,

fe

et

0

Drill Rig

Type

Drilling

Method

Date

Drilled

Un

ifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssifica

tio

n

Pe

ne

tra

tio

n

Re

sista

nce

,

Blo

ws/6

in

.

SAMPLES

Nu

mb

er

Logged

By

Drill Bit

Size/Type

Drilling

Contractor

Sampling

Method

Boring Number _____

Sheet 1 of 2

Checked

By

Total Depth

of Borehole

Approximate

Surface Elevation

Hammer

Data

REMARKS

10

15

20

25



10/03/2014

HSA 8" HSA


B2@10

RING

B2@15

SPT

B2@20

RING

B2@25

SPT

B2@5

SPT

B2@0-5

BULK

DB

Gra

ph

ic

Lo

g

HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ

14238

B-2

6

14

20

Silty SAND, brown, moist, dense, fine grained, low plastic fines.

SM

6

18

10

12

17

4

8

8

10

12

CME-75 N/A

41.00FT. BGS

Not Encountered

At 8.0' with 3/4" to 2" rocks.

SAND, brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse grained, with 3/4" to 2"

rocks.

SP

Become light grayish brown, dry, medium dense.

SP

SP

Become fine grained, medium dense.

SP

JCW


60

Typ

e



Groundwater Level

and Date Measured

35

Ele

va

tio

n,

fe

et

De

pth

,

fe

et

30

Drill Rig

Type

Drilling

Method

Date

Drilled

Un

ifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssifica

tio

n

Pe

ne

tra

tio

n

Re

sista

nce

,

Blo

ws/6

in

.

SAMPLES

Nu

mb

er

Logged

By

Drill Bit

Size/Type

Drilling

Contractor

Sampling

Method

Boring Number _____

Sheet 2 of 2

Checked

By

Total Depth

of Borehole

Approximate

Surface Elevation

Hammer

Data

REMARKS

40

45

50

55


HSA 8" HSA


B2@40

RING

B2@35

SPT

B2@30

RING

DB

Gra

ph

ic

Lo

g

B-2

Project Name:

Project Location:

Project Number:


10/03/2014

HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ

14238

10

12

Become brown, medium dense, fine to medium grained.

SP

CME-75 N/A

41.00FT. BGS

Not Encountered

38

50

50

SP

14

27

Become dense, at 40.0' with 2" rocks.


with soil cuttings.

Become very dense.

SP

JCW


30

Typ

e



Groundwater Level

and Date Measured

Project Name:

Project Location:

Project Number:

5

Ele

va

tio

n,

fe

et

De

pth

,

fe

et

0

Drill Rig

Type

Drilling

Method

Date

Drilled

Un

ifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssifica

tio

n

Pe

ne

tra

tio

n

Re

sista

nce

,

Blo

ws/6

in

.

SAMPLES

Nu

mb

er

Logged

By

Drill Bit

Size/Type

Drilling

Contractor

Sampling

Method

Boring Number _____

Sheet 1 of 1

Checked

By

Total Depth

of Borehole

Approximate

Surface Elevation

Hammer

Data

REMARKS

10

15

20

25



10/03/2014

HSA 8" HSA


B3@10

SPT

B3@5

RING

B3@0-5

BULK

DB

Gra

ph

ic

Lo

g

HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ

14238

B-3

23

20

Silty SAND with 2" rocks, brown, moist, dense, fine to medium grained, low

plastic fines.

SM

CME-75 N/A

11.00FT. BGS

Not Encountered

10

15

50

SAND, light gray, dry, very dense, fine grained.

SP


with soil cuttings.

JCW


30

Typ

e



Groundwater Level

and Date Measured

Project Name:

Project Location:

Project Number:

5

Ele

va

tio

n,

fe

et

De

pth

,

fe

et

0

Drill Rig

Type

Drilling

Method

Date

Drilled

Un

ifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssifica

tio

n

Pe

ne

tra

tio

n

Re

sista

nce

,

Blo

ws/6

in

.

SAMPLES

Nu

mb

er

Logged

By

Drill Bit

Size/Type

Drilling

Contractor

Sampling

Method

Boring Number _____

Sheet 1 of 1

Checked

By

Total Depth

of Borehole

Approximate

Surface Elevation

Hammer

Data

REMARKS

10

15

20

25



10/03/2014

HSA 8" HSA


B4@10

RING

B4@5

SPT

B4@0-5

BULK

DB

Gra

ph

ic

Lo

g

HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ

14238

B-4

12

13

10

SAND, light brown, dry, medium dense, fine to medium grained.

SP

CME-75 N/A

11.00FT. BGS

Not Encountered

20

21

SP


with soil cuttings.

Become dense.

JCW


30

Typ

e



Groundwater Level

and Date Measured

Project Name:

Project Location:

Project Number:

5

Ele

va

tio

n,

fe

et

De

pth

,

fe

et

0

Drill Rig

Type

Drilling

Method

Date

Drilled

Un

ifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssifica

tio

n

Pe

ne

tra

tio

n

Re

sista

nce

,

Blo

ws/6

in

.

SAMPLES

Nu

mb

er

Logged

By

Drill Bit

Size/Type

Drilling

Contractor

Sampling

Method

Boring Number _____

Sheet 1 of 2

Checked

By

Total Depth

of Borehole

Approximate

Surface Elevation

Hammer

Data

REMARKS

10

15

20

25



10/03/2014

HSA 8" HSA


B5@10

SPT

B5@15

RING

B5@20

SPT

B5@25

RING

B5@5

RING

B5@0-5

BULK

DB

Gra

ph

ic

Lo

g

HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ

14238

B-5

11

22

SAND, light gray, dry, dense, fine to medium grained, with 3/4" to 2" rocks.

SP

8

10

18

SP

11

19

No Recovery, become medium dense to dense.

SP

10

20

18

No Recovery, become dense.

SP

11

16

Become fine grained, medium dense.

SP

CME-75 N/A

41.00FT. BGS

Not Encountered

Become medium dense.

JCW


60

Typ

e



Groundwater Level

and Date Measured

35

Ele

va

tio

n,

fe

et

De

pth

,

fe

et

30

Drill Rig

Type

Drilling

Method

Date

Drilled

Un

ifie

d S

oil

Cla

ssifica

tio

n

Pe

ne

tra

tio

n

Re

sista

nce

,

Blo

ws/6

in

.

SAMPLES

Nu

mb

er

Logged

By

Drill Bit

Size/Type

Drilling

Contractor

Sampling

Method

Boring Number _____

Sheet 2 of 2

Checked

By

Total Depth

of Borehole

Approximate

Surface Elevation

Hammer

Data

REMARKS

40

45

50

55


HSA 8" HSA


B5@40

SPT

B5@35

RING

B5@30

SPT

DB

Gra

ph

ic

Lo

g

B-5

Project Name:

Project Location:

Project Number:


10/03/2014

HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ

14238

11

24

SP

10

20

38

Become light brown, very dense.

SP

9

50-5"

Become light gray, very dense.

SP


with soil cuttings.

CME-75 N/A

41.00FT. BGS

Not Encountered

Become dense.





APPENDIX B

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Tested By DS

Date 10/14/2014

Checked By DB

Date Sampled : 10/3/2014 Date 10/20/2014

Date Received : 10/3/2014

Boring Sample No.Depth

(ft.)Moisture Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)

B-1 B1@5 5 5.9 85.7

B-1 B1@25 25 3.6 107.3

B-2 B2@10 14 27.2 82.2

B-2 B2@20 20 2.8 95.4

B-2 B2@30 30 4.2 97.4

B-2 B2@40 40 7.7 111.4

B-3 B3@5 5 7.7 118.1

B-4 B4@10 10 6.3 87.3

B-5 B5@5 5 1.0 136.5

B-5 B5@25 25 1.8 97.6

B-5 B5@35 35 2.6 95.3

PROJECT:

PROJECT NO : 14238

MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST RESULTS

DATE

10/20/2014

HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ

FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Depth

(ft.)% Gravel % Sand % Fines

0- 5' 7 8120' 21.4 64.4

Depth

(ft.)D10 D30 D60 Cu

0- 5' N/A N/A N/A N/A

20' N/A N/A N/A N/A

PROJECT:

Cc

N/A

B-1 N/A

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORTASTM D6913

B-1

B-1

SANDGRAVEL

COARSE

Silty SAND (SM)

with some gravelSand (SP)

SILT AND CLAY

Boring No. Description

10/20/2014

HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ

12

14.2

PROJECT NO.: 14238

DATE

B-1

Boring No.

1/2"3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 2003/4"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

GRAIN SIZE-mm

B-1@0-5

B-1@20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES

FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Depth

(ft.)% Gravel % Sand % Fines

0- 5' 18 5710' 46.1 41.7

Depth

(ft.)D10 D30 D60 Cu

0- 5' N/A N/A N/A N/A

10' N/A N/A N/A N/A

PROJECT:

DATEHAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ 10/20/2014PROJECT NO.: 14238

Boring No.Cc

B-5 N/A

B-5 N/A

25

B-5 Silty Sand (SM) 12.2

B-5 Sandy SILT(ML)

Boring No. Description

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORTASTM D6913

GRAVEL SANDSILT AND CLAY

COARSE

1/2"3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 2003/4"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

GRAIN SIZE-mm

B-5@0-5

B-5@10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES

Boring No.: B2 Tested By: DS Date:

Sample No.: B2@0-5 Depth: 0-5' Checked By: DB Date:

Soil Description: Light gray silty SANd with gravel (SM)

Date Sampled: 10/3/2014

Date Received: 10/3/2014 Method "B"

Curve No.: A

TEST RESULTS

MAXIMUM DENSITY = 130.5 pcf

OPTIMUM MOISTURE = 7.0 %

PROJECT:

COMPACTION TEST REPORTASTM D1557

10/14/2014

10/20/2014

DATE:HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ10/20/2014

PROJECT NO.: 14238

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Dry

Den

sit

y, p

cf

Water Content, %

COMPACTION CURVE

COMPACTION CURVE

ZAV Line for S.G.=2.70



Boring No.: B5 Tested By: DS Date:

Sample No.: B5@0-5 Depth: 0-5' Checked By: DB Date:

Soil Description: Light gray silty SANd with gravel (SM)

Date Sampled: 10/3/2014

Date Received: 10/3/2014 Method "B"

Curve No.: A

TEST RESULTS

MAXIMUM DENSITY = 128.5 pcf

OPTIMUM MOISTURE = 8.5 %

PROJECT:

COMPACTION TEST REPORTASTM D1557

10/14/2014

10/20/2014

DATE:

10/20/2014PROJECT NO.: 14238

HAMPTON INN

PARKER, AZ

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Dry

Den

sit

y, p

cf

Water Content, %

COMPACTION CURVE

COMPACTION CURVE




ANAHEIM TEST LAB, INC 3008 ORANGE AVENUE

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707 PHONE (714) 549-7267

ABI Engineering DATE: 10/10/14 1701 E. Edinger Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92705 P.O. NO. Verbal LAB NO. B-7686 SPECIFICATION: CA-417/422/643 Attn: Daya MATERIAL: Soil Project #: 14238 Hampton Inn Parker B-2 @ 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 8.7 78 218 7,100 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

________________________________ WES BRIDGER CHEMIST

Documents

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT · • Subsurface and Geotechnical Laboratory Investigation; and • Preparation of this Geotechnical Investigation report. The assessment