geotechnical evaluat sunny hills high school …...subsurface evaluation and to provide geotechnical...

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION SUNNY HILLS HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM MODERNIZATION

1801 WARBURTON WAY FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR: Ghataode Bannon Architects, LLP

760 West 16th Street, Unit B Costa Mesa, California 92627

PREPARED BY: Ninyo & Moore

Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants 475 Goddard, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92618

July 29, 2016 Project No. 209734001

July 29, 2016 Project No. 209734001

Mr. David Wooten Ghataode Bannon Architects, LLP 760 West 16th Street, Unit B Costa Mesa, California 92627

Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Sunny Hills High School Auditorium Modernization 1801 Warburton Way Fullerton, California

Dear Mr. Wooten:

In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Auditorium Modernization on the campus of Sunny Hills High School located at 1801 Warburton Way in Fullerton, California. This report summarizes our findings and conclusions regarding the site geotechnical conditions and also provides foundation design criteria and geotechnical recommendations for construction of the planned building. Our study was conducted in general accordance with the scope of services presented in our proposal dated May 26, 2016. Our report was prepared in accordance with the California Geological Survey – Note 48 guidelines.

Ninyo & Moore appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you on this project.

Respectfully submitted, NINYO & MOORE

Zachary Hasten Senior Staff Geologist

Ronald D. Hallum, PG, CEG Chief Geologist

Daniel Chu, PhD, PE, GE Chief Geotechnical Engineer

ZH/DC/RDH/mlc

Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail)

Sunny Hills High School Auditorium Modernization July 29, 2016 Fullerton, California Project No. 209734001

2097340001 R Geo Eval i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................1

3. SITE DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................2

4. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ..............................................................................................2

5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ......................................3

6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................3 6.1. Regional Geology Setting .............................................................................................3 6.2. Site Geology .................................................................................................................4 6.3. Groundwater .................................................................................................................4

7. FLOOD HAZARDS .................................................................................................................5

8. FAULTING, SEISMICITY, AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ..................................................5 8.1. Surface Fault Rupture ...................................................................................................7 8.2. Ground Motion .............................................................................................................7 8.3. Liquefaction Potential ...................................................................................................8 8.4. Landsliding ...................................................................................................................9 8.5. Tsunamis, and Seiches ..................................................................................................9

9. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................9

10. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................10 10.1. Earthwork ...................................................................................................................10

10.1.1. Construction Plan Review and Pre-Construction Conference ..........................10 10.1.2. Site Preparation .................................................................................................11 10.1.3. Excavations .......................................................................................................11 10.1.4. Overexcavation of Existing Fill and Native Soils .............................................12 10.1.5. Fill Characteristics ............................................................................................13 10.1.6. Fill Placement and Compaction ........................................................................13

10.2. Seismic Design Considerations ..................................................................................13 10.3. Foundations.................................................................................................................14

10.3.1. Spread Footings .................................................................................................14 10.3.2. Slabs-On-Grade .................................................................................................15 10.3.3. Exterior Sidewalks ............................................................................................16

10.4. Underground Utilities .................................................................................................16 10.4.1. Pipe Bedding .....................................................................................................16

10.4.2. Trench Backfill..................................................................................................17 10.4.3. Modulus of Soil Reaction .................................................................................17

10.5. Preliminary Pavement Design ....................................................................................17 10.6. Corrosivity ..................................................................................................................18


2097340001 R Geo Eval ii

10.7. Concrete Placement ....................................................................................................18 10.8. Drainage ......................................................................................................................19 10.9. Landscaping ................................................................................................................19

11. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION ....................................................................................19

12. LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................20

13. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................23

Tables Table 1 – Historical Earthquakes .....................................................................................................6

Table 2 – Principal Active Faults .....................................................................................................7 Table 3 – 2013 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria ...............................................14

Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Figure 2 – Boring Locations Figure 3 – Regional Geology Figure 4 – Fault Locations Figure 5 – Seismic Hazard Zones

Appendix Appendix A – Boring Logs Appendix B – Laboratory Testing


2097340001 R Geo Eval 1

1. INTRODUCTION

In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed

Auditorium Modernization on the campus of Sunny Hills High School located at 1801

Warburton Way in Fullerton, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this study was to perform a

subsurface evaluation and to provide geotechnical design recommendations for the

modernization of the auditorium and gymnasium entrances. This report presents our findings,

conclusions, and recommendations regarding the subject project.

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES

Our scope of services for this project included the following:

Project planning and coordination with representatives of Sunny Hills High School and Fullerton Joint Union High School District personnel to perform the work.

Performance of a site reconnaissance to evaluate the existing site conditions and mark proposed boring locations for utility clearance.

Review of background data, including in-house geotechnical data, State of California Earthquake Fault Zone maps, State of California Seismic Hazards Zones Maps, topographic maps, geologic maps and literature, and stereoscopic aerial photographs.

Subsurface exploration consisting of the drilling, logging and sampling of one hollow-stem auger boring using truck-mounted drilling equipment and one hand-auger boring. The borings were excavated to depths of approximately 31½ and 5 feet below the ground surface, respectively. The borings were logged by a representative from our firm, and bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were collected at selected intervals for laboratory testing.

Laboratory testing of selected samples to evaluate in-place moisture and density, gradation, percentage of particles finer than the No. 200 sieve, Atterberg limits, consolidation, shear strength, expansion index, and soil corrosivity.

Data compilation and engineering analysis of the information obtained from our background review, subsurface evaluation, and laboratory testing.

Preparation of this geotechnical evaluation report presenting our conclusions and recommendations regarding design parameters for the proposed construction.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 2

3. SITE DESCRIPTION

The proposed modernization will be located on the existing Sunny Hills High School campus at

1801 Warburton Way in the city of Fullerton, California (Figure 1). The campus is bordered by

Warburton Way to the south, residential properties to the north and west, and to the east by a

slope that descends down towards a railroad track. The slope is approximately 20 feet tall and

was likely constructed as part of the original site grading. The site latitude and longitude are

approximately 33.8837 degrees north and -117.9536 degrees west, respectively (Google, 2016).

Topographically, the project site is relatively level with elevations ranging from approximately

215 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the north end to approximately 200 feet MSL at the

southwest (Google, 2016).

The proposed sites are currently occupied by existing structures. The gymnasium (Building Q) is

located near the center of the campus and is bounded to the west by the boys locker rooms, to the

north by the girls locker room and pool, to the east by asphalt-paved athletic courts, and to the

south by an asphalt-paved, access road. The auditorium (Building V) is located near the center of

the campus and is bounded to the north by the cafeteria and classroom buildings, to the west by

classroom building, to the south by concrete walkways, landscaped areas, and an asphalt-paved,

parking lot, and to the east by the asphalt-paved, parking lot and the baseball field (Figure 2).

Based on our review of the construction plans prepared by William H. Harrison Architect dated

October 28, 1958, for Sunny Hills High School, Gymnasium, and the construction plans

prepared by William Blurock & Partners for Performing Arts Complex, Fullerton High School

District, Sunny Hills High School dated January 18, 1971, both the gymnasium and auditorium

buildings are supported by shallow foundations.

4. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

We understand that the proposed modernization will include an approximate 2,000-square foot,

steel-framed addition to replace the existing gymnasium entrance (Building Q), and a 2,500-

square foot, construction of the main entry to the existing auditorium (Building V). The

construction will include new concrete retaining walls, flatwork, ramps and stairs. We understand

that the addition to the gymnasium will be a seismically separated from the existing building.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 3

Grading to attain the desired finish grades is expected to be relatively minor with cuts and fills of

less than 3 feet.

5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Our subsurface evaluation was conducted on June 20, 2016, and consisted of the drilling,

logging, and sampling of two small-diameter borings to depths of approximately 5 and 31½ feet.

The deeper exploratory boring was drilled using truck-mounted drilling equipment utilizing

hollow-stem augers and the shallow exploratory boring was drilled using hand-auger equipment.

The purpose of the borings was to observe and evaluate the underlying soils in the areas of the

proposed improvements and collect bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples for laboratory

testing. Logs of the exploratory borings are presented in Appendix A. The approximate locations

of the borings are presented on Figure 2.

Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate in-place moisture and density, gradation,

percentage of particles finer than the No. 200 sieve, Atterberg limits, consolidation, shear

strength, expansion index, and soil corrosivity. Our laboratory test results are presented on the

boring logs in Appendix A and in Appendix B.

6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1. Regional Geology Setting

The project site is situated within the central block of the Los Angeles Basin in the

Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Los Angeles Basin has been

divided into four structural blocks, which are generally bounded by prominent fault systems:

the Northwestern Block, the Southwestern Block, the Central Block, and the Northeastern

Block (Norris and Webb, 1990). The Central Block is bordered by the Whittier fault to the

northeast, the Newport-Inglewood fault to the southwest, and the Santa Monica Mountains

to the northwest. The Central block’s main portion is occupied by the Downey Plain, a broad

synclinal sag about 12 to 14 miles wide with deep alluvial deposits, approximately 1,400 to

1,800 feet thick in the vicinity of the project site (Sprotte, et al., 1980). The general site area

includes a broad alluvial plain located south of the Coyote Hills. These hilly areas are


2097340001 R Geo Eval 4

underlain by thick sequences of tectonically uplifted and tilted, Miocene-age to Pliocene-age

marine sedimentary rocks predominantly of the La Habra and San Pedro Formations

(Dibblee, 2001 and Morton, 2004).

6.2. Site Geology

The project site is situated on an older alluvial fan along the southern edge of the Coyote

Hills (Figure 3). Regional geologic mapping indicates that the materials underlying the site

generally consist of alluvial gravel and sand deposits (Morton, 2004). The alluvial soils

underlying the site are expected to be relatively thick and underlain at depth by older

sedimentary rocks.

The materials encountered in the borings generally consisted of roughly four feet of fill

overlying alluvial deposits to the depths explored of up to approximately 31½ feet. The fill

soils generally consisted of loose, silty sand and poorly graded sand with clay, and stiff,

sandy clay. The underlying alluvial soils generally consisted of interbedded very dense,

sandy silt, clayey to silty sand, and stiff to hard, sandy clay. More detailed descriptions of

the subsurface conditions are shown on the boring logs presented in Appendix A.

6.3. Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. Groundwater

monitoring well data from the State of California Water Resources Control Board’s

GeoTracker website (GeoTracker, 2016) indicates that the depth to groundwater at

monitoring wells located approximately 1 mile southwest of the site were approximately 18

feet below the ground surface or deeper. Review of maps showing the depth to historic high

groundwater (California Geological Survey [CGS], 2001) indicates that the historic high

depth to groundwater at the site is greater than 10 feet.

Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in ground surface

topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, irrigation practices, and other factors which

may not have been evident at the time of our field evaluation.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 5

7. FLOOD HAZARDS

Based on our review of flood insurance rate maps for the project area (Federal Emergency

Management Agency [FEMA], 2009), the project site is not located in the 100-year Flood

Hazard Zone, A99. Zone A99 includes areas to be protected from a 100-year flood by the Federal

Flood Protection System under construction at the time of publication of the FEMA map; no base

flood elevations are given. The majority of the site is located within Other Areas - Zone X, which

includes areas determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain. The eastern most edge of the

campus along the railroad tracks is located within Other Flood Areas - Zone X, which includes

areas of 500-year floods and areas of 100-year floods with average depths of less than one foot

and areas protected by levees from 100-year floods, and Flood Zone AO, which includes the area

with flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain). The average flood depth

for this portion of the campus is 2 feet.

Based on our review of the County of Orange General Plan (2014), the site is not located within

an area considered susceptible to flood or inundation hazards resulting from failures of

upgradient reservoirs or dams.

8. FAULTING, SEISMICITY, AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as

Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). However, the site is located in a seismically active area, as

is the majority of southern California, and the potential for strong ground motion in the project

area is considered significant during the design life of the proposed structure. The numerous

faults in southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. As defined by

the CGS, active faults are faults that have ruptured within Holocene time, or within

approximately the last 11,000 years. Potentially active faults are those that show evidence of

movement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years) but for which

evidence of Holocene movement has not been established. Inactive faults have not ruptured in

the last approximately 1.6 million years. The approximate locations of major faults in the site

vicinity and their geographic relationship to the site are shown on Figure 4. Historical

earthquakes with a magnitude of 6.5 or greater, or that caused significant loss of life and property


2097340001 R Geo Eval 6

within approximately 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the subject site were obtained from the CGS

Regional Geologic Hazards and Mapping Program website (CGS, 2015) and are presented in

Table 1.

Table 1 – Historical Earthquakes

Date Name, Location, or Region Affected

Approximate Earthquake Epicenter to Site Distance

in miles (km)

Earthquake Magnitude

March 11, 1933 Long Beach 12.9 (20.8) 6.4 October 1, 1987 Whittier Narrows 14.8 (23.7) 6.0

December 8, 1812 Wrightwood 37.8 (60.8) 7.3 July 22, 1899 Wrightwood 38.7 (62.3) 6.4

January 17, 1994 Northridge 40.5 (65.1) 6.7 February 9, 1971 San Fernando 44.4 (71.4) 6.6

December 25, 1899 San Jacinto and Hemet 55.1 (88.8) 6.7 April 2, 1918 San Jacinto 55.6 (89.5) 6.8

Note: CGS, 2015.

In addition to the mapped faults shown on Figure 4, the Coyote Hills segment of the Puente Hills

blind thrust fault is located within approximately 0.7 miles from the site, the Santa Fe Springs

segment of the Puente Hills blind thrust fault is located approximately 5.0 miles from the site, the

Los Angeles segment of the Puente Hills blind thrust fault is located approximately 11.6 miles

from the site, the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust fault is located approximately 13.0 miles from

the site, and the Upper Elysian Park blind thrust fault is located approximately 15.3 miles from

the site (United States Geological Survey [USGS], 2008). Blind thrust faults are low-angle faults

at depths that do not break the surface and are, therefore, not shown on Figure 4. Although blind

thrust faults do not have a surface trace, they can be capable of generating damaging earthquakes

and are included in Table 2.

Table 2 lists selected principal known active faults that may affect the site and the maximum

moment magnitude (Mmax) as published by the USGS (USGS, 2008). The approximate fault-to-

site distances were calculated using the USGS web-based program (USGS, 2008).


2097340001 R Geo Eval 7

Table 2 – Principal Active Faults

Fault Approximate

Fault-to-Site Distance 1 miles (kilometers)

Maximum Moment Magnitude 1

(Mmax) Puente Hills Blind Thrust (Coyote Hills) 0.7 (1.1) 6.9 Whittier 4.9 (7.9) 7.9 Puente Hills Blind Thrust (Santa Fe Springs) 5.0 (8.0) 6.7 San Jose 11.5 (18.6) 6.7 Puente Hills Blind Thrust (LA) 11.6 (18.6) 7.0 Newport-Inglewood (LA Basin) 12.2 (19.6) 7.5 San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust 13.0 (21.0) 7.1 Chino-Central Ave. (Elsinore) 15.1 (24.3) 6.8 Upper Elysian Park Blind Thrust 15.3 (24.6) 6.7 Sierra Madre 18.4 (29.6) 7.3 Raymond 18.5 (29.7) 6.8 Palos Verdes 19.7 (31.7) 7.7 San Andreas 37.1 (59.6) 8.2

Notes: 1 USGS, 2008

In general, seismic hazards that could impact the project might include ground surface rupture,

strong ground motion, and liquefaction. These potential hazards are discussed in the following

sections.

8.1. Surface Fault Rupture

The probability of damage due to surface ground rupture is relatively low due to the lack of

known active faults crossing the site. Surface ground cracking related to shaking from

nearby events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility.

8.2. Ground Motion

The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) specifies that the Risk-Targeted, Maximum

Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motion response accelerations be used to evaluate

seismic loads for design of buildings and other structures. The MCER ground motion

response accelerations are based on the spectral response accelerations for 5 percent

damping in the direction of maximum horizontal response and incorporate a target risk for

structural collapse equivalent to 1 percent in 50 years with deterministic limits for near-


2097340001 R Geo Eval 8

source effects. The horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) that corresponds to the

MCER for the site was calculated as 0.72g using the USGS (USGS, 2015) seismic design

tool (web-based). Spectral response acceleration parameters, consistent with the 2013 CBC,

are also provided in Section 10.2 for the evaluation of seismic loads on buildings and other

structures.

The 2013 CBC specifies that the potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss be

evaluated, where applicable, for the mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric

Mean (MCEG) peak ground acceleration (PGAM) with adjustment for site class effects in

accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers 7-10 Standard. The MCEG PGA is

based on the geometric mean PGA with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.

The PGAM was calculated as 0.68g using the USGS (USGS, 2016c) seismic design tool.

8.3. Liquefaction Potential

Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited granular soils and cohesionless

fine-grained soils located below the water table undergo rapid loss of shear strength due to

excess pore pressure generation when subjected to strong earthquake-induced ground

shaking. Sufficient ground shaking duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact due

to a rapid rise in pore water pressure. This causes the soil to behave as a fluid for a short

period of time. Liquefaction is known generally to occur in saturated or near-saturated

cohesionless soils at depths shallower than 50 feet below the ground surface. Factors known

to influence liquefaction potential include composition and thickness of soil layers, grain

size, relative density, groundwater level, degree of saturation, and both intensity and

duration of ground shaking.

The State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Figure 5) indicates the project area is

not located within an area mapped as subject to seismically induced liquefaction hazards.

Based on our exploratory borings and due to the very dense nature of subsurface soils below

the depth of 10 feet, it is our opinion that soil liquefaction is not a design consideration for

this project.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 9

8.4. Landsliding

The site is located in an area of relatively flat terrain. There are no mapped landslides on site

or in the vicinity, and landsliding is not considered to be a potential hazard at the site.

8.5. Tsunamis, and Seiches

Tsunamis are long wavelength, seismic, sea waves (long compared to ocean depth)

generated by the sudden movements of the ocean floor during submarine earthquakes,

landslides, or volcanic activity. Seiches are waves generated in a large, enclosed body of

water. The project area is not mapped within an area considered susceptible to tsunamis or

seiche inundation. Therefore, damage due to tsunamis or seiches is not a design

consideration.

9. CONCLUSIONS

Based on our subsurface evaluation, and our experience in the area, it is our opinion that the

proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the following

recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed project. In

general, the following conclusions were made:

Based on subsurface evaluation, the site is underlain by relatively thick alluvium. The alluvial soils generally consist of interbedded very dense, sandy silt, clayey to silty sand, and stiff to hard, sandy clay. Due to the potential for some loose, sand layers of the alluvium in the near-surface soils, a recompacted fill mat will be appropriate under the foundations.

Excavations during site grading should be feasible with heavy-duty earthmoving equipment in good working order. We anticipate that the near-surface soils should be generally suitable for use as compacted fill.

Our laboratory test results indicate that some on-site clayey soils have very low expansion potential.

Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory borings to depths of up to approximately 31½ feet below the ground surface. Groundwater in monitoring wells approximately 1 mile from the site was previously measured ranging from approximately 18 feet below the ground surface. Seasonal fluctuations in groundwater will occur and shallower groundwater conditions should be anticipated for design and construction.

We estimated a PGAMCE of 0.72g at the subject site. The mapped peak ground acceleration, PGAM is 0.68g.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 10

The subject site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone for the potential for fault rupture as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

The site is located not in a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction. It is our opinion that the site is not susceptible to liquefaction during the design seismic event.

The site is not located in an area considered susceptible to landsliding, tsunamis, or seiches.

The site is not located within a designated flood inundation zone from the Prado and Santiago Reservoirs and it is not located within a County of Orange Flood Zone.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following sections include our geotechnical recommendations for construction of the

proposed additions and associated improvements. These recommendations are based on our

evaluation of the site geotechnical conditions and our understanding of the planned construction.

The proposed site improvements should be constructed in accordance with the requirements of

the DSA for school facilities and other applicable governing agencies.

10.1. Earthwork

Earthwork at the site is anticipated to consist of site clearing, removal and recompaction of

the loose alluvial soils below the proposed structure, and excavation for foundations.

Earthwork will also include trenching for new pipelines, grading for the new hardscape

areas, and finish grading for establishment of site drainage. Earthwork should be performed

in accordance with the requirements of applicable governing agencies and the

recommendations presented in the following sections.

10.1.1. Construction Plan Review and Pre-Construction Conference

We recommend that the grading and foundation plans be submitted to Ninyo & Moore

for review to evaluate conformance to the geotechnical recommendations provided in

this report. We further recommend that a pre-construction conference be held in order to

discuss the grading recommendations presented in this report. The owner and/or their

representative, the governing agencies’ representatives, the civil engineer, Ninyo &

Moore, and the contractor should be in attendance to discuss the work plan, project

schedule, and earthwork requirements.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 11

10.1.2. Site Preparation

Prior to excavation and fill placement, the site should be cleared of existing site

improvements, surface obstructions, other deleterious materials, and abandoned utilities

and stripped of rubble, debris, and vegetation, as well as surface soils containing

organic materials. Existing utilities to remain in place (if any) should be located and

protected from damage by construction activities. Obstructions that extend below the

finished grade, if any, should be removed and the resulting holes filled with compacted

soil. The materials generated from the clearing operations should be removed from the

site and disposed of at a legal dump site.

10.1.3. Excavations

We anticipate that excavations in the alluvium should be feasible with heavy-duty

earthmoving equipment in good working order. The subsurface soils encountered in the

exploratory borings are comprised predominantly of very loose to very dense, sandy

silt, clayey to silty sand, poorly graded sand, and poorly graded sand with silt, and

interbedded stiff to hard, silty to sandy clay. In our opinion, temporary slopes should

generally be stable at inclinations up to approximately 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). Some

surficial sloughing may occur, and temporary excavations should be evaluated in the

field in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

guidelines. The surficial soils should be considered as OSHA Soil Type B, and

temporary excavations should conform with OSHA regulations.

Trenching will be performed for planned underground utilities. In general, dry utilities

are anticipated to be relatively shallow (less than 5 feet deep). Some utilities, such as

storm drain and sewer trenches, however, may be deeper, and shoring requirements may

vary depending on trench depths and materials encountered. Shoring should conform to

OSHA requirements. Spoils should not be placed near the edge of the open cut

excavation. For open cut excavations, the spoil pile should be placed a distance more

than the depth of excavation from the top of the excavation. OSHA and other applicable


2097340001 R Geo Eval 12

agency requirements pertaining to worker safety should be met during the excavation

activities.

10.1.4. Overexcavation of Existing Fill and Native Soils

Based on our subsurface evaluation, it is our opinion that suitable foundation support

for the proposed at-grade structure and associated improvements may be provided by

remedial grading consisting of the overexcavation and recompaction of the near-surface

fill and alluvial soils. For the proposed construction, we recommend that the near-

surface soils be overexcavated and recompacted to a depth of approximately five feet

below the existing ground surface or three feet below the deepest planned footing,

whichever is deeper. The limits of overexcavation should extend laterally beyond the

building footprint to a distance of five or more feet. The actual depths and limits of

overexcavation should be evaluated by our representative based on the materials

exposed at the time of construction.

The subgrade at the bottom of the overexcavation should be scarified to a depth of

8 inches, moisture conditioned to slightly above the laboratory optimum moisture

content, and compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM

International (ASTM) D 1557. Depending on the time of the year, the bottom of the

excavation may be moist and soft. Accordingly, provisions may be appropriate to

stabilize the bottom with a reinforcing fabric such as Mirafi 600X or equivalent. Details

regarding mitigating soft subgrade soils may be provided at the time of construction.

The overexcavated areas should be backfilled to the finished grade with on-site soils

compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent.

Exterior flatwork may be supported on compacted, low to medium expansion potential

soil. Subgrade for exterior flatwork areas should be prepared by scarifying the upper

approximately 12 inches of exposed subgrade, moisture conditioning to slightly over

optimum moisture content and compacting to 90 percent relative compaction as

evaluated by ASTM D 1557.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 13

10.1.5. Fill Characteristics

In general, the on-site, very low-expansion potential, materials should be suitable for re-

use as fill. On-site and import soils to be placed as fill should be free of trash, debris,

roots, vegetation, contaminated material, or deleterious materials. Fill should generally

be free of rocks or hard lumps of material larger than approximately 4 inches in

diameter. Rocks or hard lumps larger than about 4 inches in diameter should be broken

into smaller pieces or should be removed from the site.

Imported materials should consist of clean, granular material with a low expansion

potential, corresponding to an expansion index of 50 or less as evaluated in accordance

with ASTM D4829. Import material should be submitted to Ninyo & Moore for review

prior to importing to the site.

10.1.6. Fill Placement and Compaction

Fill soils placed should be compacted in horizontal lifts to a relative compaction of

90 percent or more in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. The lift thickness for fill

soils will vary depending on the type of compaction equipment used but should

generally be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Fill

soils should be placed at slightly above the optimum moisture content as evaluated by

ASTM D 1557. Special care should be taken to avoid damage to wet and dry utility

lines when compacting fill and subgrade materials.

10.2. Seismic Design Considerations

Design of the proposed new improvements should be performed in accordance with the

requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes. Table 3 presents the

seismic design parameters for the site in accordance with the CBC (CBC, 2013) guidelines

and adjusted MCER spectral response acceleration parameters.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 14

Table 3 – 2013 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria

Seismic Design Factors Value Site Class D Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.5 Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, Ss 1.804 g Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, S1 0.650 g Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, SMS 1.804 g Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, SM1 0.975 g Site-Specific Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, SDS 1.202 g Site-Specific Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, SD1 0.650 g

10.3. Foundations

The proposed additions may be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on engineered

fill material compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Earthwork

section of this report. Foundations should be designed in accordance with structural

considerations and the following recommendations. In addition, requirements of the

appropriate governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes should be considered in

the design of the structure.

10.3.1. Spread Footings

Spread footings for the additions should extend 24 inches or more below the adjacent

finished grade. Continuous footings should have a width of 24 inches or more. Isolated

pad footings are anticipated to have a width of 4 feet or more. In addition, the footings

constructed near the existing underground utility lines should be deepened such that the

utility line is located above a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected downward from

the base of the footing. Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No. 4 steel

reinforcing bars, two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom of the footings,

and further detailed in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer.

Footings, as described above, may be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of

2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The bearing capacity may be increased by 400 and


2097340001 R Geo Eval 15

800 psf for every additional foot of width and depth, respectively, up to a value of 3,500

psf. The bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering loads of

short duration such as wind or seismic forces. Total and differential settlements for

footings designed and constructed in accordance with the above recommendations are

estimated to be less than approximately 1 and ½ inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet,

respectively.

Footings bearing on compacted fill may be designed using a coefficient of friction

of 0.30, where the total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction times the

dead load. Footings may be designed using a passive resistance of 300 psf per foot of

depth for level ground condition up to a value of 3,000 psf. The allowable lateral

resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and passive resistance,

provided the passive resistance does not exceed one-half of the total allowable

resistance. The passive resistance may be increased by one-third when considering

loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.

10.3.2. Slabs-On-Grade

Building floor slabs should be designed by the project structural engineer based on the

anticipated loading conditions. Building floor slabs may be supported by compacted fill

prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Earthwork section.

We recommend that floor slabs have a thickness of 5 inches or more and be reinforced

with No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed 24 inches on-center (each way) in the middle

one-third of the slab height. The placement of the reinforcement in the slab is vital for

satisfactory performance. The floor slab and foundations should be tied together by

extending the slab reinforcement into the footings.

The slab should be underlain by a 4-inch-thick layer of clean sand overlain by a

polyethylene vapor retarder, 10-mil or thicker. The vapor retarder is recommended in

areas where moisture-sensitive floor coverings are anticipated. Soils underlying the

slabs should be moisture conditioned and compacted in accordance with the

recommendations presented in this report prior to concrete placement. Joints should be


2097340001 R Geo Eval 16

constructed at intervals designed by the structural engineer to help reduce random

cracking of the slab.

10.3.3. Exterior Sidewalks

Exterior flatwork may be supported on compacted on-site soils provided the soils are

moisture conditioned as indicated in the Earthwork section of this report. Exterior

slabs-on-grade may be 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars at a

spacing of 18 inches and doweled to curbs. In areas abutting landscape areas, the edge

of the slab should be deepened to approximately 8 inches below the adjacent finish

subgrade. The vapor retarder and 4 inches of sand may be excluded beneath exterior

slabs unless tile, paint, or other potentially moisture-sensitive surface treatments are

used.

10.4. Underground Utilities

We anticipate that utility pipelines will be supported on compacted fill or alluvial deposits.

The depths of the pipelines are not known; however, we anticipate that the pipe invert depths

will not exceed 10 feet. Trenches should not be excavated parallel to building footings. If

needed, trenches can be excavated adjacent to a continuous footing, provided that the bottom

of the trench is located above a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected downward from

the bottom of the adjacent footing. Utility lines that cross beneath footings should be

encased in concrete below the footing.

10.4.1. Pipe Bedding

We recommend that pipelines be supported on 4 inches or more of granular bedding

material. Bedding material should be placed around pipe zones to 1 foot or more above

the top of the pipe. The bedding material should be classified as sand, be free of organic

material, and have a sand equivalent of 30 or more. We do not recommend gravel be

used for bedding material because of the nature of the subsurface material. It has been

our experience that the voids within gravel material are sufficiently large to allow fines

to migrate into the voids, thereby creating the potential for sinkholes and depressions to

develop at the ground surface.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 17

Special care should be taken not to allow voids beneath and around the pipe.

Compaction of the bedding material and backfill should proceed along both sides of the

pipe concurrently. Trench backfill, including bedding material, should be placed in

accordance with the recommendations presented in the Earthwork section of this report.

10.4.2. Trench Backfill

Based on our subsurface evaluation, the on-site soils should generally be suitable for re-

use as trench backfill provided they are free of organic material, clay lumps, debris, and

rocks more than approximately 4 inches in diameter. We recommend that trench

backfilling be in general conformance with the Standard Specifications for Public

Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for structure backfill. Fill should be moisture-

conditioned to at or slightly above the laboratory optimum. Wet soils should be allowed

to dry to a moisture content near the optimum prior to their placement as trench backfill.

Trench backfill should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent or more.

Lift thickness for backfill will depend on the type of compaction equipment utilized, but

fill should generally be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose

thickness. Special care should be exercised to avoid damaging the pipe during

compaction of the backfill.

10.4.3. Modulus of Soil Reaction

The modulus of soil reaction is used to characterize the stiffness of soil backfill placed

along the sides of buried flexible pipelines for the purpose of evaluating deflection

caused by the weight of the backfill above the pipe. We recommend that a modulus of

soil reaction of 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi) be used for design, provided that

granular bedding material be placed adjacent to the pipe, as recommended in the

previous section.

10.5. Preliminary Pavement Design

In general, any pavement repair required as part of the proposed construction should match

the existing pavement section and should conform to the requirements of the appropriate


2097340001 R Geo Eval 18

governing agency. Aggregate base material and asphalt concrete should be compacted to a

relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557

10.6. Corrosivity

Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples of fill and alluvial soils to

evaluate pH, electrical resistive, water-soluble chloride content, and water-soluble sulfate

content. The soil pH and electrical resistivity tests were performed in general accordance

with California Test Method (CT) 643. Chloride content tests were performed in general

accordance with CT 422. Sulfate testing was performed in general accordance with CT 417.

The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

The soil pH was measured at approximately 7.3 and the electrical resistivity was measured

to be approximately 972 ohm-centimeters (ohm-cm). The chloride content of the samples

was measured to be approximately 60 parts per million (ppm). The sulfate content of the

tested samples is approximately 0.033 percent (330 ppm). Based on the laboratory test

results and Caltrans criteria, the project site can be classified as a corrosive site, which is

defined as having earth materials with more than 500 ppm chlorides, more that 0.20 percent

sulfates (i.e., 2,000 ppm), an electrical resistivity of less than 1,000 ohm-cm, or a pH of less

than 5.5. If corrosion susceptible improvements are planned on site, we recommend that a

corrosion engineer be consulted for further evaluation and recommendations.

10.7. Concrete Placement

Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of water-soluble

sulfates can be subject to premature chemical and/or physical deterioration. The sample

tested during this evaluation indicated a water-soluble sulfate content of approximately

0.033 percent by weight (i.e., about 330 ppm). Based on the CBC criteria (CBC, 2013), the

potential for sulfate attack is negligible for water-soluble sulfate contents in soils ranging

from 0.00 percent to 0.10 percent by weight (0 to 1,000 ppm), indicating that the on-site

soils may be considered to have a negligible potential for sulfate attack. Therefore, based on

a CBC criteria (CBC, 2013), Type II cement may be used for concrete construction. The


2097340001 R Geo Eval 19

concrete should have a water-cement ratio no higher than 0.50 by weight for normal weigh

aggregate concrete and a 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi or more.

In order to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracks in the concrete during curing, we

recommend that the concrete for the proposed structures be placed with a slump of 4 inches

based on ASTM C 143. The slump should be checked periodically at the site prior to

concrete placement. We also recommend that crack control joints be provided in slabs in

accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer to reduce the potential for

distress due to minor soil movement and concrete shrinkage. We further recommend that

concrete cover over reinforcing steel for slabs-on-grade and foundations be provided in

accordance with CBC (2013). The structural engineer should be consulted for additional

concrete specifications.

10.8. Drainage

Good surface drainage is imperative for satisfactory site performance. Positive drainage

should be provided and maintained to channel surface water away from foundations and off-

site. Positive drainage is defined as a slope of 2 percent or more for a distance of 5 feet or

more away from foundations and tops of slopes. Runoff should then be transported by the

use of swales or pipes into a collective drainage system. Surface waters should not be

allowed to pond adjacent to footings or on pavements. Concentrated runoff should not be

allowed to flow over asphalt pavement as this can result in early deterioration of the

pavement. We recommend that the structure have roof drains and downspouts installed to

collect runoff. Area drains for landscaped and paved areas are recommended.

10.9. Landscaping

Project landscaping should consist of drought tolerant plants. Landscape irrigation should be

kept to a level just sufficient to maintain plant vigor. Overwatering should not be permitted.

11. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION

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

project and on our evaluation of the data collected based on subsurface conditions disclosed by


2097340001 R Geo Eval 20

widely spaced exploratory borings. It is imperative that the interpolated subsurface conditions be

checked by our representative during construction. Observation and testing of compacted fill and

backfill should also be performed by our representative during construction. We further

recommend that the project plans and specifications be reviewed by this office prior to

construction. In addition, we should review the plans and specifications prior to construction. It

should be noted that, upon review of these documents, some recommendations presented in this

report might be revised or modified.

During construction, we recommend that the duties of the geotechnical consultant include, but

not be limited to:

Observing clearing, grubbing, and removals.

Observing excavation bottoms and the placement and compaction of fill, including trench backfill.

Evaluating imported materials prior to their use as fill.

Performing field tests to evaluate fill compaction.

Observing foundation excavations for bearing materials and cleaning prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.

The recommendations provided in this report assume that Ninyo & Moore will be retained as the

geotechnical consultant during the construction phase of this project. If another geotechnical

consultant is selected, we request that the selected consultant indicate to Fullerton Joint Union

High School District and to our firm in writing that our recommendations are understood and

that they are in full agreement with our recommendations.

12. LIMITATIONS

The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical

report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care

exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty,

expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions

presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface


2097340001 R Geo Eval 21

condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be

encountered during construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced

through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed

upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical

aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental

concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials.

This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is

designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore

should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the

content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.

This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an

accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant

perform an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The

independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports

prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory

testing.

Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site

conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are

encountered, our office should be notified, and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be

provided upon request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with

time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In

addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur

due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may,

therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore

has no control.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 22

This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings,

conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken

at said parties’ sole risk.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 23

13. REFERENCES

Bedrossian, T.L., Roffers, P.D., Hayhurst, C.A., Lancaster, J.T., and Short, W.R., 2012, Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California, California Geological Survey Special Report 217 (Revised), dated December.

California Building Standards Commission, 2013, California Building Code: California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, based on the 2012 International Building Code.

California Department of Transportation, 2012, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 2.0, dated November.

California Geological Survey, State of California, 1997, (Revised 2001), Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the La Habra 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California: Seismic Hazard Zone Report 009.

California Geological Survey, State of California, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones Official Map, La Habra Quadrangle, 7.5-Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000, Open-File Report 97-17, dated April 15.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.

California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Hazards and Mapping Program, 2015, Significant California Earthquakes (M > 6.5 or That Caused Loss of Life or More than $200,000* in Damage), *Damage Estimates Have Not Been Adjusted for Inflation, Website http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/quakes/Pages/eq_chron.aspx.

City of Fullerton, 2010, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, dated August.

CivilTech Software, 2008, Liquefy Pro (Version 5.5j), A computer program for liquefaction and settlement analysis.

County of Orange, 2014, General Plan, dated July.

Dibblee, T.W. and Ehrenspeck, H.E., 2001, Geologic Map of the Whittier and La Habra quadrangles (western Puente Hills), Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Map DF-74, Scale 1:24,000.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Orange County, California and Incorporated Areas, Panel 0039J, Map Number 06059C0039J, dated December 3.

GeoTracker, 2016, www.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map.

Ghataode Bannon Architects, Sunny Hills High School – Auditorium Modernization, Overall Site Plan, Job 1615, Sheet A001, undated.

GoogleEarth, 2016, Website for Viewing Aerial Photographs, http://maps.google.com/.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 24

Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps: California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, with Supplements 1 and 2 Added in 1999.

Ishihara, K. (1985). “Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes,” Proceedings of the 11th Int. Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA, Vol. 1, 321-376.

Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M. (1992). “Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes,” Soils and Foundations, 32 (1), 173-188

Ishihara, K., 1995, “Effects of At-Depth Liquefaction on Embedded Foundations during Earthquakes”, Proceedings of the Tenth Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Beijing, China, Volume 2, 16-26.

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

Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter of the American Public Works Association and Southern California Districts of the Associated General Contractors of California, 2012, “Greenbook,” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI Building News, Los Angeles, California.

Morton, D.M., 2004, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 2.0: United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report 99 172, Scale 1:100,000.

Ninyo & Moore, Unpublished and Proprietary In-house Data.

Ninyo & Moore, 2016, Proposal for Geotechnical Consulting Services, Sunny Hills High School Auditorium Modernization, 1801 Warburton Way, Fullerton, California, Proposal No. 04-00823B, dated May 26.

Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons.

Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Volume 5 of Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion Records: Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

Sprotte, E.C., Fuller, D.R., Greenwood, R.B., and Mumm, H.A., 1980, Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits For Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin, Orange County, California: California Geology Survey Open File Report 80-19, Scale 1:48,000.

State of California, 1991, Special Studies Zones, La Habra Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000, dated November 1.

Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 113(8), 861-878.


2097340001 R Geo Eval 25

United States Geological Survey, 1964 (Photorevised 1981), La Habra, California Quadrangle Map, 7.5 Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000.

United States Geological Survey, 2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/hf_search_main.cfm.

United States Geological Survey, 2015, La Habra Quadrangle, California, 7.5 Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000.

United States Geological Survey, 2016, US Seismic Design Maps, US Seismic Design Maps Ground Motion Calculator – Version 3.1.0; http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/ us/application.php.

Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., II., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering: American Society of Civil Engineering 124(10), pp. 817-833.

Youd, T.L., Hanse, C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 2002, Revised MLR Equations for Predicting Lateral Spread Displacement, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 128, Number 12, pp. 1007-1017, dated December.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Source Date Flight Numbers Scale

USDA 5-30-53 AXK-6K 38 and 39 1:20,000

SITE

FIGURE

1

PROJECT NO.

209734001

SUNNY HILLS HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM MODERNIZATION

1801 WARBURTON WAY

FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA

DATE

7/16

0 2,400 4,800

SCALE IN FEET

NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

N

SITE LOCATION

209734001_S

L.d

wg

16:18:20 07/05/2016 G

K

B-2

B-1TD=31.5

TD=5.0


1801 WARBURTON WAY


FIGURE

2

PROJECT NO.

209734001

DATE

7/15NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

200 400

SCALE IN FEET

0

BORING;TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET

B-2TD=5.0

LEGEND

N

BORING LOCATIONS

209734001_B

L.d

wg

10:23:22 07/22/2016 G

K

REFERENCE: GHATAODE BANNON ARCHITECTS, SUNNY HILLS HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM MODERNIZATION, OVERALL SITE PLAN, JOB 1615, SHEET A001, UNDATED.

SITE

FIGURE

3

PROJECT NO.

209734001

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

DATE

7/16

0 3,000 6,000

SCALE IN FEET


NLEGEND

Qyf YOUNG ALLUVIUM

GEOLOGIC CONTACT

209734001_R

G.d

wg

09:11:23 07/05/2016 G

K

Qvof VERY OLD ALLUVIUM

Qss

Qsh

COARSE GRAINEDFORMATIONS (SAN PEDRO)

FINE GRAINEDFORMATIONS (LA HABRA)


1801 WARBURTON WAY


NEWPORT - INGLEWOOD FAULT ZONE

PALOS VERDES FAULT ZONE

SANTA MONICA

FAULT

HOLLYWOOD

FAULT RAYMOND FAULT

WHITTIER FAULT

SIERRA MADRE FAULT ZONECLAMSHELL SAWPIT

CANYON FAULTSAN ANDREAS FAULT ZONE

SAN FERNANDOFAULT

VERDUGO FAULT

SAN GABRIEL FAULT ZONE

SIERRA MADREFAULT ZONE

60710

5

10

5

405

405

110

710

10

105

CHARNOCK FAULT

CHINO - CENTRAL

AVE. FAULTSAN JOSE FAULT

CUCAMONGA FAULT

ELSINORE FAULT ZONE

SAN JACINTO FAULT ZONE

405

5

5

91 91

91

15

15

215

ROSE CANYON FAULT ZONE

OFFSHORE ZONE

OF DEFORMATION

SITE

Irvine

Orange

Pomona Ontario

Van Nuys

Alhambra

PasadenaGlendale

Torrance

El Monte

Fallbrook

Riverside

Fullerton

Santa Ana

Inglewood

Dana Point

West CovinaLos Angeles

San Clemente

Laguna Beach

Santa Monica

Lake Elsinore

Newport Beach

San Bernardino

GIS DATA SOURCE: CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (CGS); ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ESRI)

10 0 10

Miles

FAULT LOCATIONS FIGURE

PROJECT NO. DATE209734001 7/16

SUNNY HILLS HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM MODERNIZATION1801 WARBURTON WAY

FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA4

2097

3400

1_FL

.gis..

..GK

REFERENCE: JENNINGS, C.W. AND BRYANT, W.A., 2010, FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA.

NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

LEGENDFAULT ACTIVITY:

QUATERNARY (POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)HISTORICALLY ACTIVEHOLOCENE ACTIVE

LATE QUATERNARY (POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)

COUNTY BOUNDARIES

SITE

FIGURE

5

PROJECT NO.

209734001

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES

DATE

7/16

0 2,000 4,000

SCALE IN FEET


REFERENCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1998, SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP OFFICIAL REVISED MAP LA HABRA AND ANAHEIM QUADRANGLES, 7.5-MINUTE SERIES: SCALE 1:24,000.

NLEGEND

LIQUEFACTION:

Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or localgeological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate apotential for permanent ground displacements such thatmitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section2693(c) would be required.

EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDES

Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, orlocal topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurfacewater conditions indicate a potential for permanent grounddisplacements such that mitigation as defined in PublicResources Code Section 2693(c) would be required.

209734001_S

HZ

.d

wg

08:43:06 07/06/2016 G

K


1801 WARBURTON WAY



2097340001 R Geo Eval

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS

Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods.

Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Spoon Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetration Test spoon sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 13/8 inches. The spoon was driven into the ground 12 to 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586-99. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the spoon, bagged, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.

The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 3 inches, was lined with 1-inch-long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a hammer or the kelly bar of the drill rig in general accordance with ASTM D 3550-01. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer or bar, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART PER ASTM D 2488

PRIMARY DIVISIONSSECONDARY DIVISIONS

GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME

COARSE- GRAINED

SOILS more than

50% retained on No. 200

sieve

GRAVEL more than

50% of coarse fraction

retained on No. 4 sieve

CLEAN GRAVELless than 5% fines

GW well-graded GRAVELGP poorly graded GRAVEL

GRAVEL with DUAL

CLASSIFICATIONS 5% to 12% fines

GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with siltGP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with siltGW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clayGP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with clay

GRAVEL with FINES

more than 12% fines

GM silty GRAVELGC clayey GRAVEL

GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL

SAND 50% or more

of coarse fraction passes

No. 4 sieve

CLEAN SAND less than 5% fines

SW well-graded SANDSP poorly graded SAND

SAND with DUAL

CLASSIFICATIONS 5% to 12% fines

SW-SM well-graded SAND with siltSP-SM poorly graded SAND with siltSW-SC well-graded SAND with claySP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay

SAND with FINES more than 12% fines

SM silty SANDSC clayey SAND

SC-SM silty, clayey SAND

FINE- GRAINED

SOILS 50% or

more passes No. 200 sieve

SILT and CLAY

liquid limit less than 50%

INORGANICCL lean CLAYML SILT

CL-ML silty CLAY

ORGANICOL (PI > 4) organic CLAYOL (PI < 4) organic SILT

SILT and CLAY

liquid limit 50% or more

INORGANICCH fat CLAYMH elastic SILT

ORGANICOH (plots on or above “A”-line) organic CLAY

OH (plots below “A”-line) organic SILT

Highly Organic Soils PT Peat

USCS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATIONExplanation of USCS Method of Soil Classification

PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE

APPARENT DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOIL

APPARENT DENSITY

SPOOLING CABLE OR CATHEAD AUTOMATIC TRIP HAMMER

SPT (blows/foot)

MODIFIED SPLIT BARREL

(blows/foot)SPT

(blows/foot)MODIFIED

SPLIT BARREL (blows/foot)

Very Loose < 4 < 8 < 3 < 5Loose 5 - 10 9 - 21 4 - 7 6 - 14

Medium Dense 11 - 30 22 - 63 8 - 20 15 - 42

Dense 31 - 50 64 - 105 21 - 33 43 - 70Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70

CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL

CONSIS-TENCY

SPOOLING CABLE OR CATHEAD AUTOMATIC TRIP HAMMER

SPT (blows/foot)

MODIFIED SPLIT BARREL

(blows/foot)SPT

(blows/foot)MODIFIED

SPLIT BARREL (blows/foot)

Very Soft < 2 < 3 < 1 < 2Soft 2 - 4 3 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 3Firm 5 - 8 6 - 10 4 - 5 4 - 6Stiff 9 - 15 11 - 20 6 - 10 7 - 13

Very Stiff 16 - 30 21 - 39 11 - 20 14 - 26Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26

LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %

PLA

STI

CIT

Y IN

DE

X (

PI)

, %

0 10

1074

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MH or OH

ML or OLCL - ML

PLASTICITY CHART

GRAIN SIZE

DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE

GRAIN SIZE

APPROXIMATE SIZE

Boulders > 12” > 12” Larger than basketball-sized

Cobbles 3 - 12” 3 - 12” Fist-sized to basketball-sized

GravelCoarse 3/4 - 3” 3/4 - 3” Thumb-sized to

fist-sized

Fine #4 - 3/4” 0.19 - 0.75” Pea-sized to thumb-sized

Sand

Coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19” Rock-salt-sized to pea-sized

Medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079” Sugar-sized to rock-salt-sized

Fine #200 - #40 0.0029 - 0.017”

Flour-sized to sugar-sized

Fines Passing #200 < 0.0029” Flour-sized and smaller

CH or OH

CL or OL

0

5

10

15

20

XX/XX

SM

CL

Bulk sample.

Modified split-barrel drive sampler.

No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler.

Sample retained by others.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT).

No recovery with a SPT.

Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches.

No recovery with Shelby tube sampler.

Continuous Push Sample.

Seepage.Groundwater encountered during drilling.Groundwater measured after drilling.

MAJOR MATERIAL TYPE (SOIL):Solid line denotes unit change.

Dashed line denotes material change.

Attitudes: Strike/Dipb: Beddingc: Contactj: Jointf: FractureF: Faultcs: Clay Seams: Shearbss: Basal Slide Surfacesf: Shear Fracturesz: Shear Zonesbs: Shear Bedding Surface

The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring.

BORING LOGExplanation of Boring Log Symbols

PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE

DEPT

H (m

eters)

Bulk

SAMP

LES

Drive

n

BLOW

S/0.3

m

MOIST

URE (

%)

DRY D

ENSIT

Y (kN

/m )

SYMB

OL

CLAS

SIFIC

ATIO

NU.

S.C.S. BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET

0

10

20

30

40

39

27

79/10"

82/11"

83

41

11.8

12.8

17.8

122.7

119.8

108.3

CL

CL

SC

ML

CL

SM

MLCLSM

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 4 inches thick.FILL:Reddish brown, moist, stiff, sandy CLAY.

OLDER ALLUVIUM:Dark reddish brown, moist, hard, sandy CLAY; trace coarse sand; trace black oxidizedminerals.

Interbeds of coarse, clayey sand.

Light yellowish brown, moist, very dense, clayey SAND.

Olive gray, dry to moist, very dense, sandy SILT; thin laminations; trace oxidationstaining; abundant caliche stringers.

Olive gray, dry to moist, hard, sandy CLAY; abundant caliche stringers.

Reddish yellow, dry to moist, very dense, silty SAND; oxidation staining.

Olive gray, dry to moist, very dense, sandy SILT; trace caliche stringers.Olive gray, dry to moist, hard, sandy CLAY; abundant caliche stringers.Reddish yellow and gray, moist, very dense, silty SAND; mottled oxidation staining.Total Depth = 31.5 feet.Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with on-site soils on 6/15/16.Note:Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher leveldue to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in thereport.The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretationsof published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It isnot sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.

BORING LOGSunny Hills High School Auditorium Modernization

1801 Warburton Way, Fullerton, California

PROJECT NO.

209734001

DATE

7/16

FIGURE

A-1

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS

/FO

OT

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION

DATE DRILLED 6/20/16 BORING NO. B-1

GROUND ELEVATION 210' ± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Hollow-Stem Auger (Geoboden, Inc.)

DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY RDH

1

0

10

20

30

40

SMSP-SC

SM

CL

FILL:Brown, moist, loose, silty SAND; landscaping on surface; trace roots.Dark yellow, moist, loose, poorly graded SAND with clay.Yellow, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; trace clasts of well cemented sand.

OLDER ALLUVIUM:Reddish brown, moist, stiff, sandy CLAY.Total Depth = 5 feet.Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with on-site soils on 6/15/16.Note:Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher leveldue to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in thereport.The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretationsof published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It isnot sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.

BORING LOGSunny Hills High School Auditorium Modernization

1801 Warburton Way, Fullerton, California

PROJECT NO.

209734001

DATE

7/16

FIGURE

A-2

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS

/FO

OT

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION

DATE DRILLED 6/20/16 BORING NO. B-2

GROUND ELEVATION 205' ± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Hollow-Stem Auger (Geoboden, Inc.)

DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY RDH

1


2097340001 R Geo Eval

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

In-Place Moisture and Density Tests The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory boring were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the log of the exploratory boring in Appendix A.

Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the log of the exploratory boring in Appendix A.

Gradation Analysis Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curves are shown on Figure B-1. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

200 Wash An evaluation of the percentage of particles finer than the No. 200 sieve in a selected soil sample was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1140. The results of the test are presented on Figure B-2.

Atterberg Limits Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test re-sults were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The test results and classifications are shown on Figure B-3.

Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D 2435. The samples were inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions. The percent of consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample. The results of the tests are summarized on Figure B-4.

Direct Shear Tests Direct shear tests were performed on a remolded sample in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected material. The sample was inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown on Figure B-5.


2097340001 R Geo Eval

Expansion Index Tests The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard No. 18-2 (ASTM D 4829). Specimens were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus or minus 1 percent). The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The results of these tests are presented on Figure B-6.

Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH, and resistivity tests were performed on a representative sample in general accordance with California Test (CT) 643. The soluble sulfate and chloride content of the selected sample were evaluated in general accordance with CT 417 and CT 422, respectively. The test results are presented on Figure B-7.

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY

3" 2" ¾" ½" ⅜" 4 8 30 50

PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422

200

209734001 7/16B-1

SUNNY HILLS HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM MODERNIZATION1801 WARBURTON WAY


GRAVEL SAND FINES

Symbol PlasticityIndex

PlasticLimit

Liquid Limit

1½" 1"

Depth(ft)

D30 Cu

Fine

Sample Location

100

D10

16

B-2 0.5-4.0 -- -- -- --

USCS

--

D60

SM-- -- -- 22

PassingNo. 200

(%)Cc

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T FI

NE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

GRADATION TEST RESULTS

PROJECT NO. DATE

FIGURE

209734001 Fig B-1 SIEVE w No 8 B-2 0.5-4.0

209734001 Fig B-2 200-WASH B-1 1.0-5.0


209734001SUNNY HILLS HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM MODERNIZATION

1801 WARBURTON WAYFULLERTON, CALIFORNIA B-27/16

USCSSAMPLE

LOCATION

SAMPLE DEPTH

(FT)

PERCENT PASSING NO. 200

PERCENT PASSING

NO. 4DESCRIPTION (TOTAL

SAMPLE)

SANDY CLAY 100 5815.0-16.0

20.0-21.5

B-1

B-1

B-1 100 64

CL

SANDY SILT

SANDY SILT30.0-31.5 100 ML59

ML

NO. 200 SIEVE ANALYSIS

PROJECT NO. DATE

FIGURE

209734001 Fig B-3 ATTERBERG B-1 1.0-5.0

LOCATION

NP - INDICATES NON-PLASTIC


209734001 7/16 B-3

USCSUSCS

(Entire Sample)(Fraction Finer ThanLIMIT, PL

INDEX, PILIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY

LIMIT, LL

CLASSIFICATION

SYMBOL

1.0-5.0 1327

(FT)DEPTH

14B-1

No. 40 Sieve)

CL

CL

SUNNY HILLS HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM MODERNIZATION1801 WARBURTON WAY , FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA

CH or OH

CL or OL MH or OH

ML or OL CL - ML 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PLA

STIC

ITY

IND

EX, P

I

LIQUID LIMIT, LL

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. DATE

FIGURE

209734001 Fig B-4 CONSOLIDATION B-1 5.0-6.5

Seating Cycle Sample Location B-1Loading Prior to Inundation Depth (ft.) 5.0-6.5Loading After Inundation Soil Type CLRebound Cycle


SUNNY HILLS HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM MODERNIZATION

2097340011801 WARBURTON WAY

FULLERTON, CALIFORNIAB-47/16

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0CO

NSOL

IDAT

ION I

N PE

RCEN

T OF S

AMPL

E THI

CKNE

SS (%

)

EXP

ANSIO

N (%

)

STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. DATE

FIGURE

209734001 Fig B-5 DIRECT SHEAR B-1 5.0-6.5

X

7/161801 WARBURTON WAY,

SUNNY HILLS HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM MODERNIZATION


Ultimate5.0-6.5B-1

B-5


SANDY CLAY

209734001

Cohesion, c(psf)

Friction Angle, φ(degrees) Soil Type

CL32

32

84

CL

Description Symbol Sample Location

360

Depth(ft)

Shear Strength

5.0-6.5SANDY CLAY B-1 Peak

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

SHEA

R ST

RESS

(PSF

)

NORMAL STRESS (PSF)

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. DATE

FIGURE

209734001 Fig B-6 EXPANSION B-1 1.0-5.0

PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH

POTENTIAL

(%) (IN)INDEX EXPANSION

209734001 7/16

Very Low23.3 0.013 139.8 109.6

EXPANSIONLOCATION

B-1

DEPTH(FT)

INITIAL COMPACTEDMOISTURE DRY DENSITY

(PCF)

1.0-5.0(%)

FINAL VOLUMETRICMOISTURE SWELL

SAMPLE SAMPLE

B-6SUNNY HILLS HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM MODERNIZATION

FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA1801 WARBURTON WAY

EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS

PROJECT NO. DATE

FIGURE

UBC STANDARD 18-2 ASTM D 4829

209734001 Fig B-7 CORROSIVITY B-1 1.0-5.0

1 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 6432 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 4173 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 422

7.3 60972B-1 1.0-5.0 330 0.033

CHLORIDE CONTENT 3

(ppm)pH 1

SAMPLE DEPTH (FT)

SAMPLE LOCATION (Ohm-cm)

RESISTIVITY 1 SULFATE CONTENT 2

(%)(ppm)

209734001 7/16 B-7SUNNY HILLS HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM MODERNIZATION

1801 WARBURTON WAYFULLERTON, CALIFORNIA

CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. DATE

FIGURE

geotechnical evaluat sunny hills high school …...subsurface evaluation and to provide geotechnical...

Documents