This report may not be reproduced except in full and with the pennission of MACS lab, Inc. This report relates only to the items tested.
Samples will be destroyed after six months. Test per 40 Code of Federal Reg. Chap I (1+87) Part 763. Subpart F, Appendix A or current EPA method. Percentages are approximate. MACS lab is an accredited laboratory of the National Voluntary laboramry Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and is labora!Dry number 101948. No product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the U.S. Government may be claimed as a result of this analysis. Calif Dept of Health ELAP #20Z7. This method is not reliable for analysis of tile or other materials when fiber size is less than 10J1.. TEM analysis should be used. Detection limit for asbestos is approx. 1"4 MACS Lab, Inc. Bulk Asbestos Analysis
2070A Walsh Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050-2542
• Report
(408) 727-9727
Lab Sample Client Sample Number Asbestos Fibers present Remarks Number and Description detected? L43141-7 SB4A N.D. 3% Cellulose Black/brown homogeneous soil. Balance Soil 1 % Synthetic of sample is silicate, and unspecified non-fibrous material.
1 % Mineral Wool
L43141-8 SB4B N.D. 3% Cellulose Black/brown homogeneous soiL Balance Soil 1 % Synthetic of sample is silicate, and unspecified non-fibrous material.
1% Mineral Wool
L43141-9 SBSA N.D. 5% Cellulose Black/brown homogeneous soil. Balance Soil 2% Synthetic of sample is silicate, and unspecified non-fibrous material.
1% Talc
L43141-10 SBSB N.D. 3% Cellulose Black/brown homogeneous soil. Balance Soil 1 % Mineral Wool of sample is silicate, and unspecified non-fibrous material.
1 % Synthetic
L43141-11 SB6A N.D. 3% Cellulose Black/brown homogeneous soiL Balance Soil 2% Synthetic of sample is silicate, and unspecified non-fibrous material.
1 % Mineral Wool
L43141-12 SB6B N.D. 4% Cellulose Black/brown homogeneous soil. Balance Soil 1 % Synthetic of sample is silicate, and unspecified non-fibrous material.
1% Mineral Wool
L43141-13 SB7A N.D. 3% Cellulose Black/brown homogeneous soil. Balance Soil 1 % Synthetic of sample is silicate, and unspecified non-fibrous material.
1% Talc
L43141-14 SB78 N.D. 4% Cellulose Black/brown homogeneous soil. Balance Soil 2% Synthetic of sample is silicate, and unspecified non-fibrous material.
1% Mineral Wool
L43141-15 SB8A N.D. 4% Cellulose Black/brown homogeneous soil. Balance Soil 2% Synthetic of sample is silicate, and unspecified non-fibrous material.
2% Mineral Wool
. l43141-16 8888 N.D. 3% Cellulose Black/brown homogeneous soil. Balance Soil 1 % Synthetic of sample is silicate, and unspecified non-fibrous material.
1% Mineral Wool
• Chrysotile, Amosite, Crocidolite, Tremolite, Actinolite, and Anthophyllite are asbestos fibers. N.D.=None Detected Page2
This report may not be reproduced except in full and with the permission of MACS lab, Inc. This report relates only to the items tested.
Samples will be destroyed after six months. Test per 40 Code of Federal Reg. Chap I {1·1·87) Part 763, Subpart F, Appendix A or current EPA method. Percentages are approximate. MACS Lab is an accredited laboratory ol the National Voluntaiy Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and is laboratory number 101948. No product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the U.S. Government may be claimed as a result of this analysis. Calif Dept of Health ELAP #20Z7. This method is not reliable for analysis of tile or other materials when fiber size is less than 10J1.. TEM analysis should be used. Detection limit for asbestos Is approx. 1% * Chrysotile, Amosite, Crocidolite, Tremolite, Actinolite, and Anthophyllite are asbestos fibers. N.D.=None Detected Page3
This report may not be reproduced except in full and with the permission of MACS Lab, Inc. This report relates only to the items tested.
Samples will be destroyed after six months. Test per 40 Code of Federal Reg. Chap I (1-1-87) Part 763, Subpart F, Appendix A or current EPA method. Percentages are approximate. MACS lab is an accredited laboratory of the National Voluntary laboratcry Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and is laboratcry number 101948. No product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the U.S. Government may be claimed as a result of this analysis. Calif Dept of Health ELAP #2027. This method is not reliable for analysis of tile or other materials when fiber size is less than 1011- TEM analysis should be used. Detection limit for asbestcs is approx. 1% MACS Lab, Inc.
2070A Walsh Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050-2542
(408) 727-9727
Bulk Asbestos Analysis
Report
Lab Sample Client Sample Number Asbestos
Number and Description detected? Fibers present Remarks -L43141-27
Soil
L43141-28
-Soil
8815
8816
N.D.
N.D.
4% Cellulose
1 % Synthetic
1 % Mineral Wool
5% Cellulose
1 % Synthetic
1% Talc
Black/brown homogeneous soil. Balance
of sample is silicate, and unspecified
non-fibrous material.
Black/brown homogeneous soil. Balance
of sample is silicate, and unspecified
non-fibrous material.
End of report.
" Chrysotile, Amosite, Crocidolite, Tremolite, Actinolite, and Anthophyllite are asbestos fibers. N.D.=None Detected Page4
This report may not be reproduced except in tull and with the permission of MACS Lab, Inc. This report relates only to the items tested.
Samples will be destroyed after six months. Test per 40 Code of Federal Reg. Chap I 11-1·87) Part 763, Subpart F, Appendix A or current EPA method. Percentages are approximate. MACS Lab is an accredited labora!Dry of the Nalional Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and is laboratory number 101948. No (KOdUct endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the U.S. Government may be claimed as a result of this artalysis. Calif Dept of Health ELAP #20Zl. This method is not reliable for analysis of tile or other materials when fiber size is less than 10p. TEM analysis should be used. Detection limit for asbesms is approx. 1% REPORT To
BOCCARDO MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
FOR
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
LAND OF SAINT CLAIRE PROPERTIES
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
NORTH FIRST STREET AND LIBERTY STREET
SAN jOSE, CALIFORNIA
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
AND PAVEMENT DESIGN
fEBRUARY, 2001
PREPARED BY
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
3476 EDWARD AVENUE
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
File No. 4296-S1 U
February 7, 2001
Boccardo Management Group, LLC
985 University Avenue, Suite 12
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Attention: Mr. James Rees
Subject: Proposed Development
Land of Saint Claire Properties
Southeast Corner of North First Street and Liberty Street San jose, California
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
AND PAVEMENT DESIGN
Dear Mr. Rees:
We are pleased to transmit herein the results of our geotechnical investigation and pavement design for the proposed development. The subject site is located on the southeast corner of North First Street and Liberty Street in San jose, California
Our findings indicate that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations contained in this report are carefully followed.
The suitability of the site was evaluated by field reconnaissance, drilling, sampling, and laboratory testing of the surface and subsurface material. The following report details our investigation, outlines our findings, and presents our conclusions based on those findings.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact our office at your convenience.
J:.e~ f)B.-t 'v .e.-J:: I' t< v.
Sean A. Deivert
Project Manager
4296.ugipd/Copies: 2 to Boccardo Management Group, LLC
3476 Edward Avenue • Santa Clara, California 95054 • (408) 988-2990 • Fax (408) 980-1336 File No. 4296-51 U i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
AND PAVEMENT DESIGN PAGE
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTLON .......................................................... 1 PREVIOUS Fl ELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................... 2 CURRENT FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................... 2 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ....................................................................... 3 SOIL CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 4 GENERAL GEOLOGY ....................................................................................... 4 LIQUEFACTION ................... · ........................................................................... 5 INUNDATION POTENTIAL ............................................................................... 6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 7 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 8 GRADING ...................................................................................................... 8 WATER WELLS ................................................................................................ 1 0 FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA ..................................................................... 1 0 ULTIMATE VERTICAL LOAD CARRYING CAPACITIES ......................................... 11 ULTIMATE UPLIFT CAPACITIES ........................................................................ 12 EARTHQUAKE LATERAL LOAD ........................................................................ 1 2 DEFLECTION AND BENDING MOMENTS ........................................................... 1 2 SOIL PROFILE TYPE AND SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS .............................................. 13 SETTLEMENT OF THE PILE FOUNDATION ........................................................ 13 PILE DRIVING CRITERIA .................................................................................. 1 3 SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION .................................... 14 RETAINING WALLS ......................................................................................... 14 CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION ................................................ 16 EXCAVATION ................................................................................................. 16 DRAINAGE ..................................................................................................... 1 7 ON-SITE UTILITY TRENCHING ........................................................................ 1 8 February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-Sl U iii
PAVEMENT DESIGN ........................................................................................ 1 8 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ........................................... 19 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 2 0 February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-Sl U
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, APPENDICES
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION & PAVEMENT DESIGN
TABLES
TABLE I- SUMMARY OF MOISTURE/DENSITY, DIRECT SHEAR TESTS
TABLE II- PROPOSED ALTERNATE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN
FIGURE 3- FAULT LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 4 - PLASTICITY INDEX CHART
FIGURE 5 - COMPACTION TEST A
FIGURE SA- COMPACTION TEST D
FIGURE 6 - R-VALUE TEST
FIGURE 7- EARTHQUAKE LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE
FIGURE 8 -ULTIMATE VERTICAL LOAD CARRYING & UPLIFT CAPACITIES FIGURE 9- ULTIMATE VERTICAL LOAD CARRYING & UPLIFT CAPACITIES FIGURE 1 0- DEFLECTION & BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS
FIGURE 11 - DEFLECTION & BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS
FIGURE 12 - DEFLECTION & BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS
FIGURE 13 - DEFLECTION & BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS
APPENDICES
MODIFIED MERCALLI SCALE
METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
EXPLANATION OF BORING LOG SYMBOLS
PREVIOUS EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS (B-1 through B-11)
EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS (B-1 through B-7)
GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
iv
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-Sl U
INTRODUCTION
Per your authorization, United Soil Engineering, Inc. (USE) conducted an updated geotechnical investigation and pavement design. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the nature of the surface and subsurface soil conditions at the project site through previous and current field investigations and laboratory testing. This report presents an explanation of investigative procedures, results of the testing program, our conclusions, and our recommendations for earth work and foundation design to adapt the proposed development to the existing soil conditions.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at the southeast corner of N. First Street and Liberty Street in San Jose, California. The subject site is bounded by N. First Street to the north, a vacant parcel of land and Guadalupe River to the east and southwest, and Moffat and Liberty Streets to the northwest. At the time of our field investigation, the site was an irregular-shaped, relatively flat parcel of land with scattered drainage channels located around the boundary of the site. An existing golf course and low-lying area occupied the eastern portion of the site. The central portion of the site was occupied by a R.V. storage yard. The western portion of the site was occupied by a wrecking storage yard. The northern section of the property was a vacant parcel of land. Due to the operation of the golf course, during our previous investigation we could not gain access to the golf course and low-lying area adjacent to it. However, during this updated investigation access to the above-mentioned area was available. The approximate location of our previous and current borings can be found on the Site Plan- Figure 2.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 2
PREVIOUS FIELD INVESTIGATION
In 1996, our firm performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject site. A total eleven exploratory test borings were drilled to the depths ranging from 20 to 30 feet below the existing ground surface elevation. The results of the investigation were presented in a report (File No. 4296-S 1 dated October 1 7, 1996). Location of our previous exploratory test borings are shown in Figure 2 - Site Plan. Copies of the previous boring logs are enclosed at the end of this report for your reference. Subsurface soil data obtained from the above-mentioned investigation was reviewed and used for this updated investigation.
CURRENT FIELD INVESTIGATION
After considering the nature of the proposed development, and reviewing available data on the area, a field investigation was conducted at the project site by the project geologist under the direction of our geotechnical engineer. It included a site reconnaissance to detect any unusual surface features, and the drilling of seven exploratory test borings to determine the subsurface soil characteristics. The borings were drilled on January 30 and February 8, 2001.
The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted drill rig using 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers to depths ranging from 7 to 35 feet below the existing ground surface elevation (bgs). The approximate location of these borings are shown on Figure 2.
The soils encountered were logged continuously in the field during the drilling operations. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained by hammering a 2 Y2 inch 1.0. split-tube sampler into the ground at various depths. A 140 pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches was used to drive the sampler 18 inches into the ground. Blow counts were recorded on each 6-inch increment of the sampled interval. The blows required to advance the sampler the last 1 2 inches February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 3
of the 1 8 inch sampled interval were recorded on the boring logs as penetration resistance. These values were also used to evaluate the liquefaction potential of the subsurface soils. After the completion of the drilling operation, the exploratory borings were backfilled from the bottom of the borehole to the surface with neat cement according to the rules and regulations of the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
In addition, a disturbed bulk sample of the near-surface soil was collected for laboratory analyses. The Exploratory Boring Logs contained in the Appendix are a graphic representation of the encountered soil profile; they also show the depths at which the relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained.
LA BORA TORY INVESTIGATION
A laboratory-testing program was performed to determine the physical and engineering properties of the soils underlying the site. Moisture content and dry density tests were performed on the relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to determine soil consistency and the moisture variation throughout the explored soil profile. The strength parameters of the foundation soils were determined from direct shear tests that were performed on a selected relatively undisturbed soil sample. A laboratory compaction test of the native soil material was performed to determine the maximum dry density per the ASTM 01557-91 test procedure. Atterberg Limits tests were also performed on the near-surface soil to assist in the classification of these soils and to obtain an evaluation of their expansion and shrinkage potential. An R-Value test was performed on a nearsurface soil sample for pavement section design recommendations. The results of the laboratory-testing program are presented in the tables and figures at the end of this report.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 4
SOIL CONDITIONS
In Boring B-1 {our deepest boring), the surface soil at the site contains approximately 2 inches of organic material. Below the organic layer to the end of the boring at the depth of 35 feet, a brown, moist, stiff silty clay layer was encountered. Similar soil profiles were encountered in other borings drilled at the subject site with the exception of a 14 feet thick concrete debris and gravel layer in the southeastern portion of the golf course and the low-lying area .
Groundwater was initially encountered in boring B-1 at a depth of 1 5 feet below the ground surface, and rose to a static level of 14 feet by the end of the drilling operation. It should be noted that the groundwater table will fluctuate as a result of seasonal changes and hydrogeologic variations such as groundwater pumping and/or recharging. A detailed description of the soil profiles encountered is presented in Exploratory Boring Logs contained in the Appendix.
GENERAL GEOLOGY
The subject site lies in the Santa Clara Valley, within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province. The regional structure of the area is dominated by the northwest trending Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest and the Diablo Range to the northeast. Folds, thrust faults, steep reverse faults, and strikeslip faults that developed as a consequence of Cenozoic deformations have occurred very often within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province and are continuing today.
The Diablo Range in the vicinity of the subject site is characterized by Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks folded into a series of northwest striking anticlines and synclines. This basement unit is a complex of broken and jumbled sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks called the Franciscan Formation {CDMG; 1966).
The Franciscan Formation is covered predominantly with Upper Cretaceous and Lower to Upper Pliocene marine deposits, with some Oligocene to Pliocene February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 5
volcanic rocks which cut through and overlie the marine deposits (Pampeyan; 1963). The Santa Cruz Mountains consists of two entirely different, incompatible core complexes, lying side by side and separated from each other by large faults. These two core complexes are Early Cretaceous Granitic intrusions and an Upper jurassic to Lower Cretaceous eugosynclinal assemblage called the Franciscan Formation. These core complexes are blanketed by thick layers of Lower Miocene marine and Plio-Pleistocene nonmarine deposits (Rogers; 1972: Jennings and Burnett; 1973: Brabb and Dibblee; 1974).
The Quaternary history of the region is recorded by sedimentary marine strata alternating with non-marine strata. The changes of the depositional environment are related to the fluctuation of sea level corresponding to the glacial and interglacial periods. Late Quaternary deposits fill the center of the Santa Clara Valley and most of the strata are of continental origin characterized as alluvial and fluvial materials {CDMG; 1966). The subject site is located on Quaternary alluvial fan deposits overlying Mesozoic Serpentinite rocks of the Franciscan Formation (Helley and Brabb; 1971: Brabb and Dibblee; 1974).
LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction is the transformation of loose saturated silts and sands with less than 1 5% clay-sized particles from a solid state to semi-liquid state. This occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by a seismic event. To help evaluate liquefaction potential, samples of potentially liquefiable soil were obtained by hammering the split tube sampler into the ground. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches of the 18 inch sampled interval were recorded on the Exploratory Boring Log.
The results from our exploratory boring shows that in boring B-1 {our deepest boring), the subsurface soil material to the depth of 35 feet consists of stiff silty clay. According to the guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-Sl U 6
Hazards in California (Chapter 6, analysis and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publications 117, dated 1997) the potential for liquefaction at this site is low.
INUNDATION POTENTIAL
The subject site is located on the southeast corner of North First Street and Liberty Street in San Jose, California. According to the Limerinos and others, 1973 report, the site is not located in an area that has potential for inundation as the result of a l 00 year flood (Limerinos, 1973).
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 7
CONCLUSIONS
1 . The site covered by this investigation is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations set forth in this report are carefully followed.
2. The native surface soil at the project site has been found to have a low to moderate expansion potential when subjected to fluctuations in moisture.
3. We recommend the building pads be elevated above the adjacent ground surface to promote drainage and diversion of water away from the building foundations.
4. The site is located adjacent to an existing drainage channel, therefore minor cracks and separations of the concrete slab-on-grade, asphalt concrete pavements and/or curb and gutter should be expected.
5. We recommended a reference to our report should be stated in the grading and foundation plans (this includes the geotechnical investigation File No. and dates).
6. On the basis of the engineering reconnaissance and exploratory borings, it is our opinion that trenches excavated to depths less than 5 feet below the existing ground surface will not need shoring. However, for trenches greater than 5 feet in depth, shoring will be required.
7. Specific recommendations are presented in the remainder of this report.
8. All earthwork and grading shall be observed and inspected by a representative from USE. These operations are not limited to testing and inspection during grading.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
GRADING
1. The placement of fill and control of any grading operations at the site should be performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. These recommendations set forth the minimum standards to satisfy other requirements of this report.
2. All existing surface and subsurface structures, if any, that will not be incorporated in the final development shall be removed from the project site prior to any grading operations. These objects should be accurately located on the grading plans to assist the field engineer in establishing proper control over their removal. All utility lines, if any, must be removed prior to any grading at the site.
3. The depressions left by the removal of subsurface structures should be cleaned of all debris, backfilled and compacted with clean, native soil. This backfill must be engineered fill and should be conducted under the supervision of a USE representative.
4. All organic surface material and debris, including grass and weeds shall be stripped prior to any other grading operations, and transported away from all areas that are to receive structures or structural fills. Soil containing organic material may be stockpiled for later use in landscaping areas only.
5. After removing all the subsurface structures, if any, and after stripping the organic material from the soil, the building pad area should be scarified by machine to a depth of 12 inches and thoroughly cleaned of vegetation and other deleterious matter.
6. After stripping, scarifying and cleaning operations, native soil should be re-compacted to not less than 90% relative maximum compaction using February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-S1 U 9
ASTM 01 557-91 procedure over the entire building pad and 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the pad.
7. All engineered fill or imported soil should be placed in uniform horizontal lifts of not more than 6 to 8 inches in un-compacted thickness, and compacted to not less than 90% relative maximum compaction using ASTM 01557-91 procedure. The baserock, however, should be compacted to not less than 95% relative maximum compaction. This should extend at least 1 0 feet beyond the building perimeter in all directions. Before compaction begins, the fill shall be brought to a water content that will permit proper compaction by either; 1) aerating the material if it is too wet, or 2) spraying the material with water if it is too dry. Each lift shall be thoroughly mixed before compaction to assure a uniform distribution of water content.
8. When fill material includes rocks, nesting of rocks will not be allowed and all voids must be carefully filled by proper compaction. Rocks larger than 4 inches in diameter should not be used for the final 2 feet of building pad. The existing asphalt concrete, if any, should not be incorporated into the construction of the building pad.
9. USE should be notified at least two days prior to commencement of any grading operations so that our office may coordinate the work in the field with the contractor. All imported borrow must be approved by USE before being brought to the site. Import soil must have a plasticity index no greater than 12 and an R-Value greater than 25. The fill material in the parking area can include recycled asphalt concrete and/or crushed concrete provided the recycled material contains at least 30% of fine material passing the #4 sieve.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-S1 U 10
1 0. All grading work shall be observed and approved by a representative from USE. The geotechnical engineer shall prepare a final report upon completion of the grading operations.
WATER WELLS
11. Any water wells and/or monitoring wells on the site which are to be abandoned, shall be capped according to the requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The final elevation of the top of the well casing must be a minimum of 3 feet below the adjacent grade prior to any grading operation.
FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA
12. To minimize potential differential settlements as the result of the loose and non-uniform density of the concrete debris and gravel, we recommend the proposed buildings located in the area of the concrete debris and gravel be supported on prestressed-precast concrete pile (for location of this area see Figure 2 -Site Plan). The proposed buildings located in the remaining area can be supported on either a) continuous perimeter foundation and isolated interior spread footings or b) skin friction pier foundations.
Recommendations are presented in the following paragraphs.
13. When continuous perimeter and isolated interior spread footings are used for the proposed buildings located in the remaining area they must be founded at a minimum depth of 36 inches below the finished floor elevation or 24 inches below the rough soil pad grade. For these conditions, the recommended allowable bearing capacity is 2,500 p.s.f. for both continuous perimeter and isolated and interior spread footings. Both the interior and perimeter foundations should be founded at the same elevation below pad grade.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 11
14. Friction piers should be embedded at a minimum depth of 15 feet below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. The allowable friction value for this type of foundation is 500 p.s.f. The top foot of native soil should be neglected in the computation of the skin friction pier.
15. We highly recommend that a representative from our office be present to make any field adjustments during the drilling of the piers. l 6. When pre-stressed, pre-cast concrete pile foundations are used for the proposed buildings located in the loose and non-uniform density concrete debris and gravel area, the concrete piles should be 12 or 14-inches square and be embedded at a minimum depth of 50 feet below the bottom of the pile cap elevation.
17. The above bearing values are for dead plus live loads, and may be increased by one-third for short term seismic and wind loads. The design of the structures and the foundations shall meet local building code requirements.
18. The final design of the foundations and reinforcing required shall be determined by the project structural engineer responsible for the foundation design. It is suggested that the foundation design be reviewed by our office prior to construction.
19. The clear spacing of the pile or pier should be at least 2.5 times the diameter of the pile or the pier.
ULTIMATE VERTICAL LOAD CARRYING CAPACITIES
20. The ultimate vertical load carrying capacities for 12 and 14-inch square pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete pile are presented in Figures 8 and 9.
The ultimate vertical load carrying capacities were calculated based on the shear strengths of the subsurface soil.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-Sl U 12
21. The ultimate vertical loading carrying capacities were plotted as a function of pile embedment in the hard clay layer. These values may be in increased by one-third to account short term seismic and wind loads.
ULTIMATE UPLIFT CAPACITIES
22. Resistance to uplift loads will be developed as friction along the pile shafts. Ultimate uplift capacities for 12 and 14-inch square pile are shown in Figures 8 and 9. These uplift capacities are based on the shear strengths of the soils. The allowable values can be taken as 0.5 times the ultimate value (safety factor of 2).
EARTHQUAKE LATERAL LOAD
23. Earthquake lateral load resistances for 12 and 14-inch square piles are shown in Figure-?.
DEFLECTION AND BENDING MOMENTS
24. Deflection in feet and bending moment in kip-ft for free head and fixed head conditions are computed using Reese and Matlock's Formula for 12-inch and 14-inch square piles, respectively. The results are shown in Figures 10 through 1 3. The bending moments will be used by the Structural Engineer in the design the pile for additional reinforcement to resist bending moment in the top portion of the pile.
25. Maximum horizontal deflection of the file should be limited to 0.5 inch.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-Sl U 13
SOIL PROFILE TYPE AND SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS
26. The soil profile type is So (Table 16-J, UBC 1997) and the seismic coefficients are CA = 0.44 and Cv = 0.70 (Tables 16-1, 16-Q, 16-R, 16- S, 16-T, and 16-U, UBC 1997 and Map F-19, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Sources Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, ICBO February, 1 998).
SETTLEMENT OF THE PILE FOUNDATION
27. Post-construction settlement of the pile foundation is expected to result primarily from elastic compression of the stiff older alluvium. Postconstruction settlement between the center and corner of the building should be approximately !12-inch with post-construction differential settlements being approximately l4-inch between adjacent columns over the 30-year period following construction.
PILE DRIVING CRITERIA
28. The table below presents information on pile sizes, minimum acceptable and practical refusal criteria.
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE AND PRACTICAL REFUSAL FOR
DRIVING RESISTANCE PRE-CAST, PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE PILES Pile Size Minimum Acceptable Practical Refusal
blows/foot blows/foot
12" Square 12 45
14" Square 16 60
29. These criteria are applicable for a minimum hammer energy of 51,000 foot pounds for the 12- and 14- inch square piles. When the hammer size and February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 14
type has been established, revised refusal criteria can be developed, if necessary.
30. All standard pile driving equipment will be acceptable except a sonic hammer which should not be used since driving criteria cannot be properly established. However, in order to minimize damage to the piles from too large a hammer, the hammer chosen by the contractor should be approved by both the structural engineer and the geotechnical engineer prior to construction. In addition, the pile driving contractor's proposed method of handling the piles should be approved by both the structural engineer and the geotechnical engineer- prior to construction.
SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
31. Guide Specifications are enclosed at the end of the report. Our office should review pile specifications and the final foundation plans to ensure that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly incorporated into the designs. To ensure that piles have encountered sufficient resistance to develop the required supporting capacities, a representative from our office should observe the driving of the piles installed at the site.
RETAINING WALLS
32. Any facilities that will retain a soil mass shall be designed for a lateral earth pressure (active) equivalent to 50 pounds equivalent fluid pressure, plus surcharge loads. If the retaining walls are restrained from free movement at both ends, they shall be designed for the earth pressure resulting from 60 pounds equivalent fluid pressure, to which shall be added surcharge loads.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 1 5
33. In designing for allowable resistive lateral earth pressure (passive), a value of 2 50 pounds equivalent fluid pressure may be used with the resultant acting at the third point. The top foot of native soil shall be neglected for computation of passive resistance.
34. A friction coefficient of 0.3 shall be used for retaining wall design. This value may be increased by 1/3 for short term seismic loads.
35. The above values assume a drained condition, and a moisture content compatible with those encountered during our investigation.
36. Drainage should be provided behind the retaining wall. The drainage system should consist of perforated pipe placed at the base of the retaining wall and surrounded by % inch drain rock wrapped in a filter fabric. The drain rock wrapped in fabric should be at least 12 inches wide and extend from the base of the wall to within 1.5 feet of the ground surface. The upper 1.5 feet of backfill should consist of compacted native soil. The retaining wall drainage system should be sloped to outfall to a discharge facility.
37. As an alternative to the drain rock and fabric. Miradrain 2000 or approved equivalent may be used behind the retaining wall. The Miradrain 2000 should extend from the base of the wall to within to feet of the ground surface. A perforated pipe should be placed at the base of the wall in direct contact with the Miradrain 2000. The pipe should be sloped to outfill to an appropriate discharge facility. The Miradrain fabric at the base of the Miradrain 2000 panel should be wrapped around the perforated pipe to prevent soil instruction into the pipe.
38. We recommend a thorough review by our office of all designs pertaining to facilities retaining a soil mass.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 16
CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION
39. The native soil on the site was found to have a low to moderate expansion potential when subjected to fluctuation in moisture.
40. A minimum of 5 inches of Class II baserock (recycled baserock and/or crushed asphalt concrete is not acceptable) and 2 inches of sand shall be used between the finished grade and the concrete slab. The baserock should be compacted to not less than 95% relative maximum compaction according to ASTM 01557-91.
41. Use of a vapor barrier under the concrete slab is required if a floor covering is to be applied. If a plastic membrane is used, it shall be placed between the baserock and the sand layers.
42. Prior to placing the vapor membrane and/or pouring concrete, the slab subgrade shall be moistened with water to reduce the swell potential, if deemed necessary, by the field engineer at the time of construction.
EXCAVATION
43. No difficulties due to soil conditions are anticipated in excavating the onsite material. Conventional earth moving equipment will be adequate for this project.
44. Any vertical cuts deeper than 5 feet must be properly shored. The minimum cut slope for excavation to the desired elevation is one horizontal to one vertical. The cut slope should be increased to 2:1 if the excavation is conducted during the rainy season or when the soil is highly saturated with water.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 1 7
DRAINAGE
45. It is considered essential that positive drainage be provided during construction and be maintained throughout the life of the proposed structure.
46. The final exterior grade adjacent to the proposed building should be such that the surface drainage will flow away from the structures. Rain water discharge at downspouts should be directed onto pavement sections, splash blocks, or other acceptable facilities which will prevent water from collecting in the soil adjacent to the foundations.
47. Utility lines that cross under or through perimeter footings should be completely sealed to prevent moisture intrusion into the areas under the slab and/or footings. The utility trench backfill should be of impervious material and this material should be placed at least 4 feet on either side of the exterior footings.
48. Consideration should be given to collection and diversion of roof runoff and the elimination of planted areas or other surfaces which could retain water in areas adjoining the building. In unpaved areas, it is recommended that protective slopes be stabilized adjoining perimeter building walls. These slopes should be extended to a minimum of 5 feet horizontally from building walls. They must have a minimum outfall of 5 percent.
49. If the subgrade in the landscaping area is moderately to highly expansive, proper drainage should be provided in the landscaping area adjacent to the building foundation. A drip irrigation system is preferable. If the sprinkler system is located adjacent to the building foundation or concrete walkway, a moisture cut-off barrier should be provided.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-Sl U 18
ON-SITE UTILITY TRENCHING
50. All on-site utility trenches must be backfilled with native on-site material or imported fill and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Dl 557-91. Backfill should be placed in 6 to 8 inch lifts and compacted. jetting of trench backfill is not recommended. An engineer from our firm should be notified at least 48 hours before the start of any utility trench backfilling operations.
51. The utility trenches running parallel to the building foundation should be located a minimum distance of 10 feet away from the building foundation.
52. If utility trench excavation is to encounter groundwater, our office should be notified for dewatering recommendations.
PAVEMENT DESIGN
53. Due to the uniformity of the near-surface soil at the site, one R-Value Test was performed on a representative bulk sample. The result of the R-Value test is enclosed in this report. The following alternate sections are based on our laboratory resistance R-Value test of near-surface soil samples and traffic indices (T.I.) of 4.5 for parking stalls and 5.5 for driveway. Alternate pavement section designs which satisfy the State of California Standard Design Criteria, and above traffic indices are presented in Table II.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-51 U 19
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1 . The recommendations presented herein are based on the soil conditions revealed by our test borings and evaluated for the proposed construction planned at the present time. If any unusual soil conditions are encountered during the construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at the present time, United Soil Engineering, Inc. should be notified for supplemental recommendations.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor carries out the recommendations of this report in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid, as of the present time. However, the passing of time will change the conditions of the existing property due to natural processes, works of man, from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, this report is subjected to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
4. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions derived from current standards of geotechnical practice and no warranty is intended, expressed, or implied.
5. This report has been prepared solely for the purpose of geotechnical investigation and no toxic contamination studies have been performed by our firm.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-Sl U 20
REFERENCES
Bishop and Williams; 1974 - Thickness of Alluvium, Santa Clara County, California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 107, Plate 4; San Francisco, California.
Borcherdt R.D., Gibbs j. F., Lajoie K.R.; 1977 - Maps showing maximum earthquake intensity predicted in the southern San Francisco Bay Region, California, for large earthquakes on the San Andreas and Hayward faults; United States Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies MF-709.
Brabb and Dibblee; 1974 ·- Geologic Map, Santa Clara County, California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 107, Plate 1; San· Francisco, California.
CDMG; 1966 - Geology of Northern California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 190; San Francisco, California.
CDMG; 1994 - State of California Special Study Zones, San jose East Quadrangle; Revised Official Map, Effective january 1, 1982; California Division of Mines and Geology; San Francisco, California.
CDMG; 1996 - Probabilistic Seismic Hazan;f Assessment for the State of California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96- 08; San Francisco, California.
Cooper-Clark & Associates; 1974 - San jose Geotechnical Investigation, Plates 3A & 3B; Ground Response.
Helley E.J., Brabb, E.E.; 1971 - Geologic Map of Late Cenozoic Deposits, Santa Clara County, California; United States Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies No. MF-335, Basic Data Contribution No. 27.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 4296-S1 U 21
jennings C.W., Burnett j.L.; 1973 - Geologic Map of California, San Francisco Sheet; California Division of Mines and Geology, Ferry Building; San Francisco, California.
Limerinos j.T., Lee K.W., Lugo P.E.; 1973 - Flood Prone Areas in the San Francisco Bay Region, California; United States Geological Survey Open File Report.
Pampeyan E.H.; 1963 - Geology and Mineral Deposits of Mount Diablo, Contra Costa County, California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 80; San Francisco, California.
Rogers T.H.; 1972 - Geologic Map of California, San Jose Sheet; California Division of Mines and Geology, Ferry Building; San Francisco, California.
Rogers and Williams; 1974 - Potential seismic hazards in Santa Clara County, California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report No. 107.
WCA; 1978- Analysis of the Geotechnical hazards of the Los Altos Hills; William Cotton and Associates, Geologic Consultants; Project Number G114-78; April 1978; Los Gatos, California.
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
TABLES
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF MOISTURE, DENSITY, AND
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS
TABLE II- PROPOSED ALTERNATE PAVEMENT
SECTIONS
,_
-
File No. 4296-Sl U
Sample
No.
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
7-1
7-2
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF MOISTURE, DENSITY,
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION AND DIRECT SHEAR TESTING
Depth
ft.
3 5
10 1 5
20 15
20 25
30 35
15 20
In-Place Conditio
Dry
Density
p.c.f.
106.8
114.1
94.3 116.7
110.4
95.5 109.8
119.2
112.4
104.5
91.5 111.1
Moisture
Content
%
Dry Wt.
11.5 18.3
25.9 19.6
21.6 29.9
21.0 24.6
21.1 22.3
34.1 24.6
Unconfined Angle of
Compressive Internal
Strength Friction
k.s.f. Degrees
20 17
22 30
Unit
Cohesion
k.s.f.
1.2 1.4
1.5 1.7
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
._
-
___ -_.,.;.._:
File No. 4296-Sl U
TABLE II
PROPOSED ALTERNATE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Location: Proposed Development
Land of Saint Claire Properties
Southeast Corner of
North First Street and Liberty Street
San Jose, California
PARKING STALLS
Design "R" Value 10.0
Traffic Index 4.5
Gravel Equivalent 16.0
Recommended Alternate
Pavement Sections: 1A ll _K
Asphalt Concrete 3.0" 3.5" 4.0"
Class II Baserock
R=78 min. compacted
to 95% relative
compaction 8.0" 7.0" 6.0"
Native Soil compacted
to min. 90% relative
compaction 12.0" 12.0" 12.0"
DRIVEWAY
10.0 5.5
19.0 2A 28
3.0" 3.5"
11.0" 10.0"
12.0" 12.0"
2C
4.0"
9.0"
12.0"
February 7, 2001 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN
FIGURE 3 - FAULT LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 4 - PLASTICJTY INDEX
FIGURE 5 - COMPACTION TEST A
FIGURE SA - COMPACTION TEST D
FIGURE 6 - "R"-VALUE TEST
FIGURE 7- EARTHQUAKE LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE
FIGURE 8 - ULTIMATE VERTICAL LOAD CARRYING & UPLIFT CAPACITIES FIGURE 9 - ULTIMATE VERTICAL LOAD CARRYING & UPLIFT CAPACITIES FIGURE 10- DEFLECTION & BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS
FIGURE 1 1- DEFLECTION & BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS
FIGURE 1 2 - DEFLECTION & BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS
FIGURE 1 3 - DEFLECTION & BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS
United Soil Engineering, Inc.
3476 Edward Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(408) 988-2990
VICINITY MAP File No. 4296-Sl U
Proposed Development
Southeast Corner of Drawn by: L.W.
North First Street and
Liberty Street
San Jose, California Scale: NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
1 February
2001
Vi
:::!
z
C"l
z
C"l
)>
""
,---\\ ff• \
ro ....,_,_
\ E; .........
C"l m ' ' . )> -- )> ' /" Cl I
', ro "" '
0 - - _', ,____ .. .....
z
C"l C"l
0 ,...
.,
r)
0 c
c:
,
--- --- '.I
.
----
-
--
\\
?:;
-.j\0 'f'
... ,
·-
"' \"" .\ \ ..... t
· ,/ ..... rn 1 \ ); \i / \ z
' p ,II
I !:: "". I\
.... Vl
ClO
"" z "' . \'\ l \\
\ !I
, I
z
C"l
0 C"l
m
-< )>
"" 0
! \% /
v 7
,, y/
NOTE: • DENOTES APPROXIMATE PREVIOUS EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS e DENOTES APPROXIMATE PREVIOUS EXPLORATORY BAG SAMPLE LOCATIONS -$'DENOTES APPROXIMATE CURRENT EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS 0 DENOTES APPROXIMATE CURRENT EXPLORATORY BAG SAMPLE LOCATIONS United Soil Engineering, Inc. SITE PLAN I File No. 4296-Sl U 3476 Edward Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(408) 988-2990
Proposed Development
Southeast Corner of I Drawn by: L.W.
North First Street and Liberty Street
San jose, California Scale : NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
2 February
2001
l
Loqged By: EXPLANATION OF TEST Boring No.
Date Drilled: BORING SYMBOLS
File No. 4296-Sl U
> ....; a....; .... y STATIC GROUNDWATER
.'!: <IJ~ Ill EV! <IJ ..... ..0 c:n V'l • 'iii~ 0..::.~: Direct <IJ
c.._ ......... 0 - E <IJ - <IJU ::3C <IJ-.... u - u.. ...J o· ..... <IJ 0:::111 .....:-:5 Shear ::3 ., ...... C1 .:;: z c 0. ·- c cc:n c '52_ ~ Oo ""'o QJ_ Test GROUNDWATER FIRST oc <IJ .c ·;:::
Cl ::au cc:a V<IJ ii ..... 0
<IJ c'- 0. CQ NOTED
0. :::Jci1 E <IJ - n:l Cl - V1
u~ - ~ = .,:,;. &~ = Cll DESCRIPTION Cl
~t/; CLAY
' II SILT ... , . ~~~~ ~ .;,:~:_ ::r\o• ' I SAND
~-0:9: -.o•·o
IGRAVEL :>::p·;
/' #"' / ,/'' ~ /,/'~·l/ ldavev
~
I I
J I rI J siltv . . ~. : ·. r- . . . . . . lsandv 0
~ 0 0 ~
laravellv I o o 1-1 ... Samole Taken with samole
number and lab rPsults aiven
~ _ Samole Attemot - Unsuccessful
No Samole Number
** IRefusal noted in Remarks
=u= CLA YSTONE/SITLSTONE ~ 11=11 BEDROCK :u:
r-
:..
Remarks:
Explanation of Test Boring Symbols United Soil Engineering, Inc.
Logged By: V.V. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 9/27/96 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-1
File No. 96-4296-Sl
>- ...; ci.<>-; ,_
QJ ... .... QJ* V'l E"! ..c QJ Cl
V'l • ·v;....: 0-"' Direct E QJ 0
C:'- ,_ ..... <1.1'!::. ....1
aJU ::lC: u - ::s 1.1..
a· .... QJ 0::::111 • ...c: Shear z .s Cl 11'1 ..... -~ ..._ ..... a. ·- c: C:Ol c:
c:- Oo .... 0 Test QJ ...c: •t: <1.1_ oc:
a ::::Eu c:co U<IJ Q. .... 0 0. <1.1 c:'- E <1.1 t:Q
c.. .... ::::lVI ttl a Vl
:: ...; Q}
U111 - 111
=.:i; &0,
= Q} DESCRIPTION 0
~~ Brown, gravely, sandy, CLAY
moist, stiff
119.6 23.0 10 0.5 17° 1-1 5 ;~ :~ Pieces of Concrete and Metal I/~-.
105.2 24.8 16 1-2 10 -~~ ~ / Black, Silty CLAY, moist, stiff ~-~~~/
...
-~ / ~
113.0 22.0 15 1-3 15 Ivy Tan Brown, sandy, silty CLAY
~~ ~
1-V::·.
I . , 112.9 20.3 15 1-4 20 • . :;1._
1- Boring terminated at 20 feet.
1-
1-
1-
-
-
1-
1-
Remarks:
Log of Test Boring 24 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
Logged By: V. V. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 9/27/96 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-2
File No. 96-4296-Sl
> ...: a.-..: ...
(1.1
.!: ~~~~ II\ E"! ..Q ..... Cl Ill II\ • ·-....; 0~ Direct E Ill 0 c~ .... ..... .,.. .... ::sc ~~~-- u ~ u.. ....J <I.IU ::J
o· ..... (1.1 0::11\ • .J::. Shear z c Cl
Q. ., ..... ·3: .... ..... c ·-c COl ~ Oo ..... 0 Test (1.1 .J::. ·;:::
::::Eu Ill_ oc c. ..... 0 0 ceo u<U Q. Ill c:'- E Ill co
0.. ::;:)(il ra 0 Vl
;; ~ Ill
u ... : !!! = .i. CSlOl DESCRIPTION • Cl.l
0 ·rr Brown Silty SAND, moist, dense . ,, :·T·
1-- "' .. ' • . • ~:{ Pieces of Glass
107.7 22.5 20 2-1 5 .... , * "• .. ' .
-~rt~ -. :'.:·· Pieces of Concrete and Metal .... .,; .. \l.:
102.9 28.5 12 2-2 10
·~ Black,, Silty CLAY, moist, stiff
-~ ~!
111.5 20.3 19 2-3 15
·~ Tan Brown, sandy, silty CLAY
-j}3 moist, stiff
:;-.·· · ..: ~ Tan Brown Clayey, SAND, moist, ;r:··· 107.2 24.4 10 2-4 20 I: ;.. dense - Boring terminated at 20 feet.
-
-
1-
Remarks:
Log of Test Boring 26 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
Logged By: V.V. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 9/27/96 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-3
File No. 96-4296-Sl
>- .,_; o.....: ...
Q,l ..... .:::: d.l~ Ill E"! ..c Q,l 0'1 VI • ·;:;;~ 0~ Direct E Q,l 0 S:::'- ......... _, d.IU :IS:: 111-- u - :I LL.
OQ_ .... OJ CX:VI • .s::: Shear z s::: 0'1 Ill ..... ·~ .._ ..... ·- s::: S:::Cl c:
~ Oo ... 0 Test Q,l .s::: ·c ~u 111_ as:: Q. ..... 0 0 S:::a:l UOJ c. 111 s:::'- E c:c Q. .... OJ ::::JV\ tU 0 V\
= ~ ell
U111 • ell . .:.;:. . ~til • 111 DESCRIPTION 0
:~ 2 inches of organic material
Black, Silty, CI.A Y, moist, stiff
89.2 30.3 11 3-1 5
·~ _/ /
_v/V
_vvV
116.2 17.7 25 3-2 10
·~ Tan Brown, Silty, CLAY, moist, stiff
.. ~~ .Y 1/ y
111.1 19.3 18 3-3 15 "/ Tan Brown, Clayey, SILT, moist, stiff - i/ .2:.
- "
)'
)"
I
102.1 27.4 11 3-4 20 I /,;1 /!
~ Boring terminated at 20 feet.
~
-
-
-
~
- Remarks:
Log of Test Boring 25 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
Logged By: V.V. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 9/27/96 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG 8-4
File No. 96-4296-Sl
-~ ...; ci.~ ....
Q.l .... Q.l~ Ill E~ .c Q.l en Ill. ·u;~ O..:oo: Direct E Q.l 0 C"""": ......... ...I
C.IV ::::sc 4)- u - ::I u..
Clci. ... Col 0::11"1 • ..r:: Shear z c en Ill ....
·== .......... ·-c ccn ·- c
~ Oo '"'O Test ..!!! ..r:: ·;::: Col_ oc
Cl ::::Eu em .... 0 VC.I c. c. Q.l c'- E 4) cg
0. ..... :::lVl rei Cl VI
=~ GJ
U~A = f! •..:i. &Cl
= GJ DESCRIPTION 0
~t}j f- 2 Inches Organic Material
f- Black, Silty, CLAY, moist, firm ~
. ~
9 I i- Piece of Plastic
95.1 30.4 0.5 17° 4-1 5 ,....
f-
~
~
~
109.8 19.7 22 4-2 10 I Color changed to Dark Brown
~ '-
f- - f- I ..
---
107.1 23.8 20 4-3 15
-vvf- Tan Brown, Clayey SILT, moist, stiff
I f-¥
~ ll / fI
~ Dark Brown, Silty ClAY, wet, firm
97.8 29.4 8 4-4 20
~ f-
~
I
~ f110.0 21.0 15 4-5 25 _ Stiffer Drilling
~ -
- . ~~. f- Greenish Gray, Silty SAND . ~· . . No Recovery 30 4-6 30 ~ ··~--~ ~ # ... ~ ' wet dense
Remarks: Boring Terminated at 30 Feet
Log of Test Boring 27 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
Logged By: V. V. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 9/27/96 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-5
File No. 96-4296-Sl
-~ ...: o.-..: ....
E"! <U ..... 11'1 • <U* .!!! ...; .0 <U Cl
C:'--; ,_- Ill.._ 0..:.: Direct E <U 0
::::sc: QJ-- u - u.. ...J
QJu ::s
OQ. ..... <U IX: VI . .s:: Shear z .s: Cl Ill .... ·3: .._ ..... ·- c: C:Cl c:
~ Oo '"'o Test <U .s:: ·;:: QJ_ oc:
0 :::Eu l::t:.Q uQJ Q. ..... 0
QJ c:'- E
Q. £:.Q
Q. :::Jti <U
n:l 0
Vl
=~ Ql
U<n = ~ = .:,;. ~0'1 • Ql DESCRIPTION c
_/, _ 2 Inches Asphalt Concrete
- _ 4 inches Baserock, Black Silty CLAY,
~ moist, stiff
81.4 32.1 14 5-1 s
~~ iii111 .9 19.3 14 S-2 10 ;~ 1- Color changed to Brown ~~ -
.~ 1-
100.4 24.9 21 S-3 15 ¥
~~~ ~ iy. ... Tan Brown Clayey SAND, wet, dense ~~·;:: 107.3 22.2 12 5-4 20 ... if· ~ 1- Boring Terminated at 20 Feet
~
- -
- - - I
1-
~
Remarks:
Log of Test Boring 28 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
Logged Bv: V.V. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 9/27/96 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-6
File No. 96-4296-Sl
> ...; ci.<+-; ....
-~ 41~ E"!: 41 .... lA ..0 41 Cl
Ill • ·;;; .; 0 •
S::'- ...... 0~ Direct E 41
::::tS:: tV~ u ~ u.. -l
fVU :::3
Oci. .... Q.I 0::111 • .s:: Shear z s:: Cl Ill .....
·~ ........ ·- c ·- s:: S::Cl ~ Oo .... 0 Test 41 .s:: ·c tV_ os::
0 :::tu C::IXI .... 0 UG.I 0. 0. tV c!:; E lXI
c.. tV
::JVl f1:l 0
Vl
:.....; Ql
Ql' u"' . .... . .;;. S01 DESCRIPTION • Ql
c
~~ ~ 2 Inches Asphalt Concrete
~ 4 inches Baserock, Black Silty CLAY,
moist, stiff . 92.4 25.8 11 6-1 5
•,~ !-
~~ 1-
1-1/
103.4 20.1 25 6-2 10
~~ Color changed to Brown
.!.
99.6 24.5 19 6-3 15 1-¥-
1-
~ 9.:· Tan Brown Clayey SAND, wet . 'i 20 t . .. ~~ ~ ·dense 1- Boring terminated at 20 feet.
I
1-
1- 1-
1-
1- 1-
1-
1-
rRemarks:
Log of Test Boring 29 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
Logged By: V.V. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 9/27/96 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-7
File No. 96-4296-Sl
> ....; ci.~ ....
.!: 111~ E"'! 111 .... 0\ .!!! . ..0 111 Ill • U'l~ 0~ Direct E 111 0 C""; ,__
:::JC 111--- u - 1.1.. ....1
l11U 4Jl11 O::.n . ..c Shear :::l m Oci. Ill ..... -~ ......... z c ·- c em c
2:' Oo ""'o Test 111 ..c ·.::: Ill_ oc
0 ::::Eu C:al Ulll a. ..... 0
111 C'- a. CCI
c.. ::::J~ E 111
tU 0
VI
: .....; cu
u"' • cu
= """ ~::n DESCRIPTION • cu
0 ~~ f- 2 Inches Asphalt Concrete
f- 4 inches Base rock, Black Silty CLAY,
. f- moist, stiff
82.3 26.8 12 7-1 5
f-
·~
Color changed to Brown
124.8 22.7 23 7-2 10
1-
-~ 1-
- / ~
107.1 24.9 19 7-3 15 I v ~
-~ y. Tan Brown Clayey SAND, wet
:' : : ~ 20 ... ·/, dense
1- Boring terminated at 20 feet.
1-
f- 1-
f- 1-
f- 1-
I
f- 1-
1- 1-
f1-
Remarks:
Log of Test Boring 30 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
Logged By: V.V. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 9/27/96 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-8
File No. 96-4296-51
. ~ ..... a....; ...
Q,l .... Q,l~ .., Ell! ..0 Q,l 01 ..n. ·v;~ 0..!11:: Direct E Q,l 0 C'- ........ .....t
Q.IU ::lC cu- u - :::s u..
CIQ. ... Q,I a::..n ....:-5 Shear z c 01 .., ... ·-c ·~ COl ·- c ~ Oo .... Q,l_ 0 Test ~ ..c: 1: oc
Cl :au ceo ucu a. .... 0 a. Q,l c ... E Q,l co
Q.. ::::::1~ tiS 0 V\
= ~ Q,l
Q,l U111 . .... = x &C!
= DESCRIPTION Q,l
c
-V;; t- .
~~ t- P1eces of glass
;C% Reddish Brown Sandy CLAY
moist. stiff
90.9 31.3 9 0.5 25° 8-1 5
=~ t- Black Silty CLAY, moist, firm
~
~
c112.4 20.3 27 8-2 10 -¥J Color changed to Brown
~/ tt- "-
- -
101.4 25.4 14 8-3 15
-~ Tan Brown Sandy CLAY 0 t- moist, stiff
0 i20 -~ - 110.2 23.2 12 8-4
r- Boring terminated at 20 feet
t- t-
~ ~
... ~
~ ~
~ ~
""" - .... if.-1 - Remarks:
Log of Test Boring 31 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
Logged By: V.V. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 9/27/96 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-9
File No. 96-4296-Sl
>- .... ci~ lo..
G.l
:::: G.l~ Ill E"! .0 .... en Ill • ·;;;~ G.l 0
C'- lo.. .... 0~ Direct E G.l
:::sc: v- u - I.&. _,
vu :::s c· ... Q) C.::: Ill . .r: Shear z c en Ill ..... Q. .?; .... ..... ·- c: cOl c:
~ Oo .... 0 Test v_ G.l .r: ·c: at:
0 :::Eu ceo ucu 0. .... 0
Q) c"- c.. co
Q. ::::len E G.l
t!l 0 11'1
=~ G.l
Uvo • Ill
= .::.i. sO,
= DESCRIPTION Ill
0 t0 ""'Brown Sandy CLAY, moist, stiff
. ~~ 1-
1- ;·~;
89.8 32.3 11 9-1 5
I ~ .
,.. Black Silty CLAY, moist, stiff
"" ~ v 1-
~ 'j/ 1-
~ Tan Brown Sandy CLAY, moist, stiff
108.6 21.2 11 9-2 10 •0 ~o-.J:. -% 1-
-~ 1-
;~ ¥-
108.9 22.3 9 9-3 15
-~ 1-
I
-~ ...... ' 1- "X 91.8 31.5 16 9-4 20 ... . :
~ Boring terminated at 20 feet.
~
~ ""
-
- -
1- ~
"""
Remarks:
Log of Test Boring 32 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
·- -
Logged Bv: V.V.
Date Drilled: 9/27/96
> ...; ci.~
- Cl.l~ Ill Ell! Ill • ·a;;~ c~ ....... 0...!11:
<Uu ::sc cu- u - o· ... G.J 0::.111 .....::-5 0. Ill ... ·-c ·~ cc:n 2:' oo ""'o cu_ oc
0 ~u Cal ucu Cl.l c!:; a. ::lVl
No Recovery 16
107.8 18.7 26
110.2 18.9 21
95.8 28.2 13
Remarks:
Log of Test Boring
Boring No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-10
File No. 96-4296-Sl
,_
Cl.l
..Q .... c:n Cl.l
Direct E Cl.l 0
u.. ...J
::s Shear z c c:n
c
Test Cl.l ..c: ·;:
a. .... 0 0.
E Cl.l al
11'1 0
Vl
= .....; Cl.l
U111 • ell
= .;,;. ISli:n
= ell DESCRIPTION 0
~~ Gray Gravely, Sandy, CLAY
_ moist, stiff .
~~ - 10-1 5 ~
~
·I f..
10-2 10 - ~ . lu
~~ Tan Brown Sandy CLAY
·~ moist, stiff
10-3 15
_% :..
-% ¥
10-4 20 .~ t- Boring terminated at 20 feet.
~
.... ii-
...
- ~
~
~ ~
33 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
Logged Bv: V.V. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 9/27/96 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-11
File No. 96-4296-Sl
>- ..; ci....:; .... .... QI(;R E"'! (1,1 .... .~ . .0 (1,1 al "'· Ill.!: 0~ Direct E (1,1 0 C""; ..... J.J
:::sc: (1,1- u - u.. ....1
CIU :::s
Clci. <-JQI 0::11'1 . .c Shear z c al VI ..... .;: ._ .... ·-c Cal ·- c ~ Oo ""'o Test ..!! .c ·;:: OJ_ oc
Cl ::Eu Cal UOJ c. ... 0
(1,1 C'- E
0. co
0.. .... (1,1
:::::l!.l'l ttl Cl V'l
=~ (1,1
U"' • (II
·~ &ti DESCRIPTION • (II
a
if/L Brown Gravely, Sandy, CLAY
:~ moist, stiff (fill)
1-
5 1- ~~ ·"
~ ~ Brown Sandy CLAY -u -t% ,.. moist, firm
10 :~
~ 1-
1- % .!-Stiff Drilling
15 ~% £.
Color changed to Tan Brown "0. .. ( ... -7.; -x ~/ - 20 - Boring terminated at 20 feet.
- - -
-
-
~
-
- -
Remarks:
Log ofTest Boring 34 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
Logged By: M.H. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 1/30/01 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-1
!File No. 429Hl U
>- ...; o.-..: ... -~ '*- E"! <1.1 ..... -~~ .0 <1.1 Cl 11'1 • <LI 0~ Direct E <1.1 0 s::: .... ........ ..J <Liv :ss::: <1.1-- u ~ u. ... <LI ~11'1 • .s:: Shear :s o· ., ..... Cl ·==
......... z s::: 0.. ·- s::: S:::Cl s:::
~ Oo ..... 0 Test <1.1 .s:: ·;:: <1.1_ os::: Cl ::Eu S:::CXl U<LI Q.. ..... 0 a. <LI s:::'- E <LI CXl a.. ::>til rd Cl Vl =~ II)
UVI = ~ = ~ tS!Ol
DESCRIPTION = II)
Cl
~ 3" Organic Material
~-~ ~
..... 106.8 11.5 35 1.2 20 1-1 3 Dark Brown Gravelly Sandy Silty CLAY , .. y ~ r- moist, hard
r- 114.1 18.3 29 1-2 5
r-
~~ rr-
~ r1-3 r94.3 25.9 34 10
v~ rBlack Silty CLAY
r- v moist, hard
~vtt r- ~v r1-4 15 ~ r- 116.7 19.6 12
r- [...' y
~~~·~ r- Gray Olive Clayey Silty SAND
~I~-."'·!~ wet, medium dense
20 ~l~l rr110.4 21.6 26 1-5
Boring Terminated at 20 Feet
r- - r- ~
r- .....
1- .....
1- - r- rr- - r- r1- ~
Remarks:
Logged By: M.H.
Date Drilled: 2/8/01
>- ....: ci.~ .'!:
Q)i:R Ill E"! \II
c:~ .......... ·;;;~ 0~
<Vu :::IC: w- u ~
o· +""aJ 0:::\11
Cl. \II+"" ....:-:5 .a: ·- c: C:OI ~ Oo ... QJ_ 0
oc:
0 ::Eu c:co u<V
Q) c:'-
0.. ::::~t:;
Remarks:
Boring No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-2
Direct
Shear
Test
= ....:: U111
= .:i.
Q)
= ~ lSIOl
= Q)
0 ....
Q)
.0
E
:::1
z
Q)
c.
E
I'd
Vl
......
Q)
Q)
1.1. c:
..c:
......
0. Q)
0 3
5 -
r01
0 ...J
01 c:
·c
0 co
-
- -
- -
- - - - - - - '-
- r-
- :-
- :-
File No. 42 96-S 1 U
DESCRIPTION
3" Organic Material
Concrete Debris and Gravel
Refusal
Boring Terminated at 7 Feet
Logged By: M.H. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 2/8/01 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-3
File No. 4296-SlU
>- ..; a......: ....
<1.1 .:: <1.1~ .!!? • EU: .Q ..... 0'1 VI <1.1
c:.....: .... ~ ..,~ 0.!11!: Direct E <1.1 0 <Liu ::sc: <1.1-... u ~ u.. -' ~QJ ex::.., ,.J:: Shear ::s a· 11'1~ .:: 4- .... z c: 0'1 0. ·- c: C:O'I c: ~ Oo ..... 0 Test <1.1 .J:: <1.1_ ·;:: oc:
a :Eu C:CQ ljQ) c.. ..... 0 QJ c:'- E c. CQ
0.. ::::>ti Q)
ns a
V'l
:....; <U
<U U111 . ...
= .;;. ISle~
DESCRIPTION . QJ
c
r-:-:"' 3" Organic Material
1- ~..,~ 1-
. 1- ... c:. 1-
3 .Q,4 Concrete Debris and Gravel
1- ~s;. 1-
·a 1
5 1- ~-.~.~ 1-
4'4. 1-
·g . f.:&
1-
1- ~-a:-s o ~
Refusal ,(Jo.'llli
1- 1- Boring Terminated at 7 Feet
1- 1-
~ ~
1- 1-
1- 1-
1- 1-
1- 1-
1- 1-
1- 1-
1- 1-
1- ~
~ ~
-- - - -
--..... .....
-- -- 1-
1- 1-
-- 1-
- 1-
1- 1-
Remarks:
Logged By: M.H. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 2/8/01 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-4
File No. 4296-SlU
-~ ....; ci.~ ,_
<1.1
<1.1* "' Eo.!! ..0 .... 0"1 Ill. ·;n~ <1.1
c:- ,_ .... 0~ Direct E <1.1 0
::JC: <1.1- u ~ u.. -I <l.lu ::I o· ,jJOJ 0:::111 ,..c:: Shear z c 0"1 c.. V),jJ .:= ..._ .... ·- c: c c:O"I ~ oo .... 0 <1.1_ oc: Test <1.1 ..c:: "i:
0 :lEu CCQ U<IJ 0. .... 0
<1.1 C:'- E c.. CQ
Q.. ::ll~ <1.1
ns 0
Vl
; ...; OJ
u., . OJ
,_ =.:.(. ~CI
DESCRIPTION . OJ
Q
~ 3" Organic Material
1- '4a' ·a' ~
. ~ ·~A~ ~
3 ·r.· Concrete Debris and Gravel ~
4.~ ~
~ ~
5 4°S~ ~ 1- . e , 1- O.s •
1- o t1(o •• ;a 1- Refusal
~ 1- Boring Terminated at 7 Feet
~ 1-
r- rr- 1-
r- ~
r- 1-
1- 1-
1- 1-
1- 1-
r- 1-
1- ~
:- -
r- - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ ......
~ ......
:- ~
r- ~
1- ~
Remarks:
Logged By: M.H.
Date Drilled: 2/8/01
>- ...; a.-.-;
.!:::: cv* !l'l E"! !l'l
c-.-; ....... ·v;~ 0-lil!
cvv ::sc cv- u - a· ... CIJ 0:::1/'l • ..s::
a. tl'l4J ·3: ......... ·- c COl ~ Oo ... 0 cv_ oc
a :::Eu ceo VCIJ
CIJ c'- 0. :::::>ti
Remarks:
Boring No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-5
Direct
Shear
Test
....
CIJ
..a
E
::s
z
CIJ
a.
E
ttl
Vl
...
CIJ
CIJ
u..
.~
..s::
...
a.
CIJ
a
3 5
rOl
s
Cl
c
·;::
0 co
r- !-
1- ~
1- -
r- - !- .._
!- -
1- .._
- 1-
- 1-
- 1-
- 1-
- 1-
- 1-
- 1-
- 1-
- 1-
- 1-
- -
- - - -
File No. 4296-Sl U
DESCRIPTION
3" Organic Material
Concrete Debris and Gravel
Refusal
Boring Terminated at 7 Feet
?R QJ
..........
::::JC
..... QJ Ill .....
·- c Oo
::::Eu
......
.~ . Ill¢:
QJ1::1::111
.:;:
""'o QJ_
ceo
QJ
c...
95.5 29.9 21
1 09.8 21.0 32
119.2 24.6 8
11 2.4 21.1 11
Remarks:
c....:
Ev!
0~
u - • ...t: ............
COl
oc
VOJ
C'- :;>t)
Direct
Shear
Test
1.4 17
1.5 22
.....
QJ
..0
E
::::J
z
QJ
c.
E
IU
Vl
6-1
......
QJ
QJ
u..
c
...t:
.....
c.
QJ
Cl
15 6-2 20
6-3 25
6-4 30
01 0
-J
01 c
·;::
0 co
Boring No.
B-6
DESCRIPTION
2" Organic Material
Concrete Debris and Gravel
Olive gray Sandy Silty ClAY
wet, very stiff
Color changed to Olive Brown
Logged By: M.H. Boring No.
Date Drtlled 2/8/01 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-6 (cant')
File No. 4296-SlU
. ~ ~ ci.«-; ... <IJ~ E"! <IJ ..... VI • ·~~ .c <IJ Ol
c .... ....... 0..:.:: Direct E <IJ 0
::IS: <IJ-... u ~ u.. ...J <IJU .... <IJ 0::VI • ..c: Shear ::::1 c· VI._. ·?: ........ z s:: Ol c. ·- s:: s:;Ol s:: > Oo .... 0 Test <IJ ..c: ·;:: ... <IJ_ os::
Cl ::Eu S::CQ U<IJ c. ..... 0
<IJ s::'- E c. CQ
0.. ..... <IJ :JV\ 11:1 Cl
V)
- ...,;: (J) uui = ~ •.::;. ISic:n
DESCRIPTION = <II
0 -~ - Olive Brown Sandy Silty CLAY
-~ - wet, stiff
-~ - t:rt - 104.5 22.3 15 1.7 30 35
Boring terminated at 3 5 Feet - -
- -
- -
- -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Remarks:
Logged By: M.H. Boring No.
Date Drilled: 2/8/01 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-7
File No. 4296 -Sl U
>- ....: a.....: .....
-~ (}< Ev! <1.1 .... .!!! • ..0 <1.1 0'1 U') • <1.1 U')~ 0._¥ Direct E <1.1 0 C:'<-: ........... :;,C: <1.1- u ~ u. ...J <I.IU ..... <1.1 tXU'I ....:-5 Shear ::;, a· U') ..... . ;: z c: en a. ·- c: CCI c: >- Oo ...... 0 Test <1.1 .c: ·;: .... <1.1_ oc:
a ~u C:c:Q U<l.l a. ...... 0
<1.1 c:'- E a. c:Q
Q.. ::::>t1 <1.1
ttl a
Vl
:-.: Q)
UU'I : ~ •.;:;,;. \SlOl DESCRIPTION • Q)
0 - 2" Organic Material
1-- Q '!~· 1-
. 1--
t,~l 1-
1-- 1-
Concrete Debris and Gravel
1-- \ -A 1-
1-- .S.~•a. 1-
1-• 0~:, 1-
1- j. ~··· 1-
1- fi:.r{• 1-
1- • .0:(: J• 1- 4,(14
1- ( ~j· 1-
~t 1-
r- at 1-
1- ;~~4~ 1-
91.5 34.1 10 7-1 1 5
~ Olive Gray Silty Sandy CLAY
.v - wet, stiff
~--~v -
~~~ - 1-- '. - u{ - 111.1 24.6 19 7-2 20 Color changed to Olive Brown Boring terminated at 20 Feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :- - :-
Remarks:
REPORT
to
LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY
C/O WDCC
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
on
PRELIMINARY SOIL AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
AND PIEZOMETER INSTbLLATION
for
TAYLOR STREET
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
by
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
3476 EDWARD AVENUE
SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
JULY J985
(~ UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING. INC. W Soil, Foundation and Geolof.!,'ical Enf.!,'inet>rs ~~:~~ 3476 EDWARD AVENUE, SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95050 (408) 988-2990 File No. 85-3484-S1
July 2, 1985
Lincoln Property Company
c/o WDCC
1798 Technology Drive
San Jose, CA 95110
Attention: Mr. Bill Downs
Subject: Taylor Street
San Jose, California
PRELIMINARY SOIL AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
AND PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION
Gentlemen:
We are pleased to transmit herewith the results of our preliminary soil and foundation investigation and the aspects of the groundwater testing procedures performed for the subject site located on Taylor Street in San Jose, California.
Our findings indicate that the subject property is suitable for development provided the recommendations in this report are carefully followed.
The accompanying report shows our findings in the subsurface investigation and laboratory analysis. It also gives an explanation of how the groundwater investigation was conducted, and describes the piezometer installation procedures.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact our office at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
Project
~£!-Geologist
Vien Vo Minh, P.E.
Kendall w. Price, C.E.G.
GL:VVM:KWP/lm
Copies: 4 to Lincoln Property Company c/o WDCC
2 to Lincoln·Property Company /Attention: Mr. Ed Thrift 1 to Safety Specialists, Inc.
File No. 85-3484-S1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY SOIL AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
Introduction
Location and Description of Site
Field Investigation
Laboratory Investigation
Soil Conditions
Liquefaction
Piezometer Installation
Well Development, Groundwater Sampling and
Soil Contamination Tests
CONCLUSIONS
PAGE NO.
1 1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
6 7
General 8
Water Wells 9
Foundation Design, Floor Support and Settlement 9
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 10
APPENDIX "A"
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Site Plan
11 12
Figures 3 through 15 - Logs of Test Borings 13-26
Figures 16 and 17 - Logs of Test Borings
for P-1 and P-2 27-28
TABLE I - Summary of Moisture, Density, Unconfined
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Compression and Direct Shear Testing 29-30
18 - Plasticity Index 31
19 - Compaction curve "A" 32
20 - Schematic Piezometer for P-1 and P-2 33
21 - Liquefaction Potential Graph 34
United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 85-3484-Sl
PRELIMINARY SOIL AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
Introduction
The purpose of our investigation was to determine the nature of the surface and subsurface soil conditions at the site and to install two piezometers for the purpose of groundwater sampling.
This was accomplished by field and laboratory testing of the soil materials found there and the installation of two piezometers for the purpose of recovering groundwater samples for laboratory analysis.
This report presents an explanation of how we conducted our investigation, a description of the piezometer installation, and the results of the soil engineering test programs. Upon receipt of a specific building location and t)~e of construction, we will proceed with the appropriate investigation that will generate site specific construction recommendations to best suit the proposed development to the existing natural conditions.
Location and Description of Site
The subject site is located north of Highway 237 on the southwest side of Taylor street in San Jose, Califo~nia. The property is irregular in shape (consisting of parcels 6, 16, 18 and 20) and is bound by the Guadalupe River Channel to the southwest, an equipment yard and vacant lots to the west, Taylor Street to the north and northeast, and a water filled slough to the southeast. At the time of our investigation, some portions of the site were covered with fill material. The approximate locations of the fill e.re shown on Figure 2.
Other areas of the site are at a natural ground level. Figure 1 shows the site location and Figure 2 is a ~ite Plan showing the approximate location of our exploratory borings.
Field Investigation
After careful consideration of the nature of the proposed development, review of available data on the area, and discussion with 1 United Soil Engineering. Inc.
File No. 85-3484-Sl
the client, a field investigation and piezometer installation program was instituted at the site by the Project Geologist under the direction of the Soil Engineer. It included a surface site reconnaissance to detect any unusual surface features, the drilling of 13 exploratory test borings to determine the subsurface characteristics, the collection of soil samples for pollutant analysis; and the installation of 2 piezometers for groundwater testing procedures.
The borings, which were drilled on June 24 and 25, 1985, at the approximate locations shown in Figure 2, ranged in depth from 17~ feet to 40 feet (5.3 m. to 12.2 m.) below the existing ground surface. The borings were advanced by a truck-mounted drill rig using power-driven, 6-inch (15 em.) diameter continuous flight augers. The soils encountered were logged continuously in the field during the drilling operations. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained above the water table by hydraulically pressing a 2t-inch (6.4 em.) I.D. split-tube sampler into the ground at various d~pths. To help evaluate the liquefaction potential at the site, some samples within the water bearing strata were obtained by hammering a Terzaghi Sampler into
the ground, using a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches.
Penetration resistance (N), as shown on the boring logs, represents the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches of the 18-inch sampled interval. Figure 21 presents the liquefaction potential of the m~terial with respect to blow counts and the depth of the samples. Figures 3 through ~7 are the Logs of the Test Borings, which are a graphic representation of the soil profile found, and show the depths at which the relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained.
Laboratory Investigation
A laboratory testing program was performed to determine the physical and engineering properties of the soils underlying the site.
Moisture content and dry density tests were performed on all the relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to determine their consistencies, and the moisture variation throughout the explored 2 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 85-3484-Sl
soil profile. The strength parameters of the foundation soils were determined from a direct shear test which was performed on a selected relatively undisturbed soil sample. The sample subjected to the direct shear test was allowed access to water for at least 24 hours prior to testing, and then sheared in an undrained state at loads of 1, 2, 3 and 4 kips ( .5, .9, 1.4 and 1.8 metric tons).
In addition, one laboratory compaction test was performed on the near-surface materials utilizing the ASTM test procedure Dl557-78.
Atterberg Limits tests were also performed on the near-surface soils to assist in the classification of these soils and to obtain an evaluation of their expansion and shrinkage potential. The results of the laboratory testing program are presented in Table I, and in Figures 18 and 19 of Appendix "A".
Soil Conditions
As mentioned above, varying amounts of fill and refuse currently exist on the site. The thickness of this fill material varies throughout the site. On the western side of parcel 16 there is a fill material which consists primarily of concrete, asphalt, various other construction debris, and some refuse. Borings 8, 9 and 10 were drilled in this area. These borings indicate that the fill material is generally thicker towards the south. Boring 8 was advanced to a depth of 7 feet and could not be advanced further due to the blocky nature of the fill material. In the area of boring 9, the fill was approximately 9 feet thick while ·the area of boring 10 was covered with approximately 5 feet of fill. The same .. type of fill also lies on the southwestern portion of parcel 16 overlapping into parcel 20. Borings 6 and 7 encountered approximately 12i and 10 feet of fill respectively while boring 11 met refusal at a depth of 2! feet due to the blocky nature of the fill material. At the time of our investigation, various organic debris, concrete blocks, and other refuse were being added to extend the fill area still further. On parcel 6, there currently exists fill material which we found in boring 12 to be about 5 feet thick. This fill material consists of a 3 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 85-3484-Sl
light weight pumice layer at the surface, which is underlain by sandy and gravelly material. Some asphalt pieces were also found in boring 12. Boring 5 encountered the same type of fill material that was present on parcel 6 indicating that this material overlaps into parcels 16 and 20 forming a roadway connecting to the previously mentioned thicker fill material in parcels 16 and 20.
We could not access parcel 18, however, a review of a previous investigation by Nordrno Associates indicates that similar fill conditions exist on parcel 18 as on parcel 6. Nordmo Associates borings indicate that fill material varies in depth from 2 to 4 feet on parcels 6 and 18.
In the areas where fill has not been placed and under the existing fill areas, the native soils are relatively uniform having been naturally deposited in nearly horizontal layers. The uppermost natural soil layer is a stiff dark brown silty clay with various scattered amounts of sand and gravel also present. This upper layer is approximately 3 to 5 feet thick and is underlain by a slightly siltier and sometimes sandy strata. This siltier and sandier strata is approximately 3t to 5 feet thick with parts of·clay and local traces of gravel also present and 1n some cases is underlain by silty clay. In our deepest boring, number 13, we encountered primarily sandy material throughout the deeper portions of the borehole. Groundwater depth varied depending on the amount of fill present.
For a more detailed description of the soils encountered and the groundwater levels at each borehole, please see Figures 2 through 17, the Logs of the Test Borings.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the transformation of loose saturated silts and sands with less than 15% clay size ~articles from a solid state to semi-liquid state. This occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by a seismic event. To help evaluate liquefaction potential, samples of potentially liquefiable materials were obtained using a Terzaghi split-tube sampler and the Standard Penetration Resistance was recorded in the field. Figure 21 shows United Soil Engineering, Inc.
4 File No. 85-3484-Sl
the depth of the potentially liquefiable soil sample versus the Standard Penetration Resistance.
Other factors that need to be considered in this evaluation are the magnitude of the seismic event, distance from the epicenter, the maximum ground acceleration, and the number of significant cycles. However, all of these factors cannot be evaluated until after a seismic event occurs. We did however, consider the clay content of the soils. Our exploratory borings found a sandy horizon in Borings l, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, P-1 and P-2 which occurs at different depths according to the variable amounts of fill material on the site. On Figure 21, samples 1-3, 4-3, 6-4 and Pl-3 all plot in the moderate liquefaction potential zone while samples P1-4, P2-3, and P2-4 all plot in the high liquefaction zone indicating that there is a moderate to high potential for liquefaction to occur in this sandy strata. In our deepest boring, B-13, a deeper sandy strata was encountered. Samples 13-5 and 13-6 plot in the low liquefaction potential area on Figure 21 indicating a low liquefaction potential for this deeper sand strata. The other samples recovered with the Terzaghi sampler are not considered to be liquefiable due to the high proportion (>15%) of clay sized particles within these samples. It is therefore, our opinion that there are two potentially liquefiable layers on the site: 1) An upper sandy strata of variable depth depending on t.he variable amount of fill material on the site which has a moderate to high potential for liquefaction and 2) A lower sandy strata encountered in the deeper portions of Boring 13 which has a low potential for liquefaction to occur. It should also be noted that there currently exists approximately 8 to 10 feet of stiff, native, non-liquefiable soils above the liquefiable units. In addition, some engineered fill material will have to be added to the site for flood control considerations. This native and fill material will tend to bridge over and confine the liquefiable units thus lowering the liquefaction potential. Upon completion of finalized plans for placement of fill, types of construction, and building locations; we recommend that additional liquefaction studies be performed. At this time, we will be able to evaluate the type of building and its location with respect to the site specific liquefaction potential for the soils.
5 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 85-3484-51
Piezometer Installation
Two piezometers were installed on June 26, 1985. Prior to drilling, all precautions were taken to minimize possible contamination of the soils and groundwater from the drilling and sampling operations. This included a thorough cleaning of all the drilling equipment using a high pressure tri-sodium phosphate solution followed Ly a rinse in clean water. It also included a thorough washing of all sampling tools and liners in a tri-sodium phosphate solution followed by a rinse in deionized water prior to each time the sampling tools and liners were to be used for the recovery of soil samples within the borehole. Both borings were drilled to a depth of 23 feet below the existing ground surface. The piezometers were placed at this depth. Both borings were advanced by a truck-mounted drill rig using 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. The soils were logged continuously in the field during the drilling operations. Figures 16 and 17 are the Logs of the Test Borings which are a graphic representation of the soil profile found.
After the completion of the boring, slotted 2-inch I.D. schedule 40 P.V.C. casing was installed into the open hole. This casing will be used to keep the boring open for the purpose of groundwater sampling. Prior to installation, all casing was washed in a tri-sodium phosphate solution and rinsed witH clean water to minimize the chance of contamination to the boring. All connections were made with threaded fittings, with the exception of a slip cap at the surface. Fifteen feet of factory slotted casing was attached to 10 feet of solid walled casing and then placed into the open hole. The borehole annulus was then backfilled with washed and kiln dried sand to a point 2 feet above the casing slots. A 2-foot layer of bentonite pellets was then placed on top of the sand. From this depth to the ground surface, a cement grout was poured into the hole. The excess P.V.C. casing was cut-off, leaving a 6-inch stick-up. A slip cap was then placed over the casing. At this point, the surface hole was enlarged to allow the placement of a lockable steel cover. This cover was then placed over the P.V.C. casing and into the cement grout to protect the piezometer. Figure 9 is a piezometer schematic. 6 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 85-3484-Sl
.. Well Development, Groundwater Sampling and Soil Contamination Tests All well development and groundwater sampling will be carried out by safety Specialists, Inc. and will be in accordance with California Regional Water Quality Control Board and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards. Safety Specialists, Inc. will also perform pollutant testing on the recovered soil samples.
The results of these laboratory tests will be forwarded under separate cover.
7 United Soil Engineering. Inc.
File No. 85-3484-S1
CONCLUSIONS
General
1. The site is suitable for construction provided the recommendations set forth by the Soil Engineer are followed.
2. The near-surface native~ soil within this property was found to possess low to moderate expansive characteristics when subjected to fluctuations in moisture content.
3. On the basis of the engineering reconnaissance and exploratory borings, it is our opinion that trenches to 5 feet (1.5 m.) deep below the existing ground surface ~ay need shoring. Below 5 feet (1.5 m.) deep, shoring will be required. Cuts to approximately 15 feet (4.6 m.) deep should be possible with conventional heavy duty equipment and will need to be dewatered.
4. It is our understanding that fill material will
have to be placed under the building pads in order to reach a minimum elevation for flood control considerations. An analysis of the settlement caused by this fill will be performed upon receipt of specific building location and type of construction.
5. The fill material which currently exists on the site may be used as engineered fill, provided it is cleaned of all debris and all asphalt and cement pieces which are greater than 4 inches in diameter. The currently existing fill must be removed to a natural ground level. The natural ground should then be stripped of any organic surface material and properly recompacted . Engineered fill (whether imported or the cleaned on-site material) may then be placed in uniform horizontal lifts of not mer~ than 6 to 8 inches in uncompacted thickness and compacted to not less than 90% relative compaction using the ASTM D1557-78 procedure. Before compaction begins, the fill shall be brought to a water content which will permit compaction by either: 1) aerating the material if it is too wet, or 2) spraying the material with water if it is too dry.
Each lift shall be thoroughly mixed before compaction to assure a uniform distribution of water content.
8 United Soil Engineering. Jnc.
File No. 85-3484-Sl
Water Wells
6. All water wells on the site which are to be abandoned shall be capped according to the requirements of the Santa Clara County Health Department. The final elevation of the top of the well casing must be a minimum of 3 feet (.9 m.) below the adjacent grade prior to any grading operations. In no case shall a building foundation be placed over a capped well.
Foundation Design, Floor Support and Settlement
7. The type, location, size and use of the proposed structure is unknown at the present time. All of these factors contribute to the determination of what kind of foundation and floor support is most suitable for the building design. Settlement, caused by dead plus live loads, also needs to be calculated by a Soil Engineer.
This will be based on laboratory soils data after the building design is known. We should be contacted for specific foundation recommendations, floor support and settlement considerations as soon as the type, location, size and use of the proposed structure is determined.
9 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 85-3484-Sl
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations presented herein are based on the soil conditions revealed by our test borings and evaluated for the proposed construction planned at the present time. If any unusual soil conditions are encountered during the construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at the present time, United Soil Engineering, Inc. should be notified for supplemental recommendations.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the Contractor carries out the recommendations of this report in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present time.
However, the passing of time will change the conditions of the existing property due to natural processes, works of man, from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
10 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
APPENDIX "A"
File No. 85-3484-Sl
Thomas Bros. 1984
Santa Clara County
Approximate Scale: 1"=2200'
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
SITE
11 United Soil Engineer.in&. Inc.
File No. 85-3484-Sl
Parcel 16
Parcel 6 (Fill)
N
Approximate Fill Area
Parcel Boundary
Approximate Boring Locations
Approximate Piezometer Locations
Scale :1"=300'
Figure 2 - Site Plan 12 United Soil Engineering. btc.
Logged By: G.L.
Date Dr i 1 1 e d :
.
.....
IJl . >- ·- ..... ..... d<i' 1114-
·- . 0),
Ill 4- 0) a:: 111
c 1...+-J 3:
0) u ;:::, c . 0 Q . +-JO) ..... ~
c. 111+-' o.>c.c
>- ·- c c 1... 0 0 0)
Q ::E:U 0....
102. 16.5
113."16.7
DIS- 29.2 t-i=19
TURBID
TERZAGHI
96.026.7
Remarks:
6-24-85
4-
Direct C. VI
E . Shear
0..::£
u - Test ..c . ..... 4- Ol
c c 4-
0 0) - - u 1... !::-' Vl ~ c ..... - . - ~ (/) .::(.
Q.)
0)
1...
Ol
OJ
Q
Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-1
1... ..... 0) 0)
..0 0)
E LL.
:::s
z c
·- 0)
~ ..c c. ..... E c. ro 0)
V) Q
1-1
5 1-2
10 1-3
15 1-4
20 Ol
0 _J
Ol
c
·-1...
0 c.c
Job No • 85-3484-S1
y_- Static Groundwater Leve
~- Groundwater First
Encountered
DESCRIPTION
Brown sandy silty CLAY with
trace of gravel, dry, stiff
Slightly moist
~:-A"/ Light yellow-brown to
V.11 mottled orange and brown
/ . .Ysilty CLAY with trace of
·v. ~and. moist, stiff ~~~(" Yellow-brown clayey s1lty •t:: ·· SAND, very moist to wet, ~ :,:,~;.: medium dense, very fine to ~~; fine grained £.~}··:~; Oca:::sional orange and black ~·'~· .. : sta1ns .......
V Mottled blue and orange
silty CLAY, moist to very
/ moist, firm
BORING TERMINATED @ 20'
Figure 3 - Logs of Test Borings 13
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
1 Logged By: G.L. Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
Date Drilled: 6-24-85 B-2
. '*- Direct Job No . 85-3484-S1 +-1 . . 1... +-1
>- ·-
If)
.....
. O.V'l
E . Shear ..0
Q)
Q)
Q) ~
..... 'Y- '* If) I.!- 0.:::£. E LL. 0} static Groundwater Leve ·- . Q)' u ~ Test ::1 0 V'l'+- Q) cr:: V'l .c :z t: .....J Groundwater First t: . I... +-I 52- 3 ...... ·- Q) u ::1 t: • 0 1.!-t:n . Q) Q) 0'1 Encountered Cl . ..... Q) ....., ~ t: t: '*- Q) ~ .c c 0. V'l+-1 Q)CQ 0 Q) - 1... 0. ....., ·- >- ·- t: c u 1... !:' V'l ~ 0} E 0. 1...
1... 0 0 Q) t: .j.J - - Q) ttl Q) 0 Cl DESCRIPTION ::e::u 0... ::> VI .X. Cl VI 0 co 102. 17.1 2-1 10~ Brown sandy silty CLAY with
some small gravel pieces, 11 11 slightly moist, stiff ' 105. l.4.9 .7 18.4 2-2 5 lllo}
1; Yellow-brown silty CLAY,
:J!:~oist, stiff
I
101.'; 28.0 N=26 2-3 10 II/ :sz
TERZ ~GHI
~ Trace of fine to medium
II grained sand
15 j
I
'>10 RE COVER ~ 2-4 ~ I
20 I~~
BORING TERMINATED @ 20'
Remarks: * Cement Block
Figure 4 - Logs of Test Borings 14
UN I TED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
Logged By: G.L.
Date Drilled: 6-24-85
>-
,j..J eN'
·- . Vl4- Q)
c . l....j..J
Q) u :JC 0 . .j..JQ)
n. Ill+"
>- ·- c 1... 0 0 0 ::EU
DIS-17.9
TURBm
112.117.8
.
.j.J
Ill . ·- .j.J
Vl4-
11),
a:: Ill
3 . 0 .... _
Q)[I)
r::
aJ
0...
90. c 31. 8 :i1=36
TERZ.FlGHI
104.127.5
Remarks:
.
4-
. . Direct
0..1/l
E . Shear
O..::t:.
u ~ Test
.-5
4- rn r:: c 4-
0 aJ - . u
c -1-J
1... u Ill ~ - . - :::> V'l .:,t.
aJ
Q)
1...
Ol
aJ
0 Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
B-3
1...
Q)
..a
E
:I
:z:
Q)
~
c.
E
ro
V'l
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
....,
Q)
aJ
lJ...
c
·-
..t:::.
....,
c.
Q)
0 5
10 rn
c
1...
0 CD
.I
/·
I
1/
Job No. 85-3484-Sl
Kev
Static Groundwater Level
Groundwater First
Encountered
DESCRIPTION
Brown s11ty CLAY w1th trace
of sand, dry, stiff
1 Mottled gray and orange
1 / silty CLAY to clayey SILT,
I/ moist, stiff
1/ ~
v . 1/ I
! j Yellow-nrown s1lty CLAY, ver~ 1/ v ;;z moist, stiff wi: Local sand lens
15 lA' In;
1/
Mottled grayish-blue and
orange silty CLAY, very
moist, stiff
1/ Siltier
20 /~
BORING TERMINATED @ 20'
Figure 5 - Logs of Test Borings 15 UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
Hole No. Logged By: G.L.
B-4 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
Date Dr i 11 ed: 6-24-85
·- . Ul'+-
c . qj u 0
0. qj
1.. .j..J
:::l c .j...l qj
U).I-J
·- c 0 0
:E:u
102. 15.1
111. 17.3
.
.j...l
Ul
·- .j...l
Ull+-
q)'
C:::Ul
::s: • 0 +-JVt:O
c
qj
0...
DIS- 24.2 N=12
TURBlD
l"ERZJ!\GHI
~0 RE .;aVERY
Remarks:
O.Ul
E • O.::L.
u ~
..c
Direct
Shear
Test
. .... 1----r---t '+- Ol c c 0 Q) u 1..
C....,
:::l U')
-
u Ill
.:;L.
1..
qj
..0
E
:::l
:z
0. E
10 U')
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
Figure 6 - Logs of Test Borings
c
..c
.....
0. qj
0 5
10 15.
20 Job No . 85-3484-Sl
~
g ~ - Static Groundwater Leve
_) :SZ ... Groundwater First
~ Encountered 1..
0 t:O
l.ll
j•
>I . :
-:/
/.."
·I
x~y
16 DESCRIPTION
Brown sandy silty CLAY, dry,
stiff, trace of medium sizec
to large sized gravels
Slightly moist
ruott~ea gray ana orange
)[silty CLAY with trace of
sand, very moist, stiff
Yellow-brown clayey sandy
I\?SILT, very moist, stiff
Gray to brown clayey silty
SAND, very fine to fine
grained, wet, medium dense
Mottled gray to orange
silty sandy CLAY, very
moist, firm
BORING TERMINATED @ 20'
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
Logged By: G.L. Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BOR I tJG LOG B-5
Date Dr i 11 ed: 6-24-85
4- Job No. 85-3484-Sl +J . Direct 1.. -4...1
Ill . 0.111 <I) Q.)
>- ·- +J E . Shear .c <I)
+J <N' 1114- 0.::::£. E LL. CTl
·- . v--.... u ~ Test ;:::, 0 1114- Q) 0::: Ill ..r:: z c _J c . l...-4-J 3 . ...... ·- <I) u :J c 0 4-r;:n Q) <I) CTl c . ...... <I) -4...1- c c 4- <I) - ..r:: c a. 111-4-' Q)CQ 0 <I) - . - !... a. -4...1 ·- >- ·- c c u !... 111 ~ CTl E a. !...
1.. 0 0 Q) c+J - . - <I) ro Q) 0 c ':t:U a.. ::::> V'l .::::£. c V'l c cc DESCRIPTION Oo White pumice, CONCRETE * oOa
~qg Gray sandy GRAVEL, moist,
B% medium dense (Fill)
o •. 5 d£
93. 27.4 5-1 .I Mottled orange and brown
j .silty CLAY, moist, firm
1/
10 v Mottled blue and orange .
. silty sandy CLAY, moist, . . firm to stiff
110. ( 19.3 5-2 ~ ):
15 ·.;
.. :;\f Grades to mottled blue and
.:il orange clayey silty SAND,
96. 30.1 5-3 very fine grained, very ...... : moist, medium dense ·: ~· ... ·:: ....... 20 : .... ::~~ ., . ·: .· . BORING TERMINATED @ 20'
1-
Remarks: * and GRAVEL, dry and dense (Fill)
Figure 7 - Logs of Test Borings 17
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
Logged By: G.L.
Date Drilled: 6-24-85
·- . VI 4-- C: • Q) u Cl
>-
1....
Cl
0..
Q)
1...4-'
::1 c: 4-'Q)
t/l4-'
·- c:
.
.....
til •
·- ..... tll4-
Q)'
ex: til
3 • 0 ..... ~
Q)tD
c:
Q)
0...
.
4--
Direct
O.tll
E • Shear
ox.
u ~ Test . -5 1----.----1 4-- O'l
c: c: 0 Q)
U L
c: ..... ::> V")
.
4--
. u"'
.X
Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-6
!...
Q)
..0
E
~
:z
Q)
0..
E
fO
V")
..c:
.....
0..
Q)
Cl
L
Job No . 85-3484-S1
~ Static Groundwater Level
Groundwater First
Encountered
g DESCRIPTION 0 0
:!:U
~--~----+----+--~--~~--~~~---r~ Brown gravelly sandy CLAY, dry, dense (Fill)
106. 4.9 6-1 ~.);
109. 14.3
107.( 15.6
112.€21.7 N=22
TERZJlGHI
Remarks: * pieces
6-2
6-3
6-4
5 1/.~
·~ Lighter brown, some wood
fragments
Hoist
~ 111
'% Sheet metal pieces, wood *
10 ~ o.f. Dark brown and light brown
15 (.1 silty CLAY with trace of l;i sm~ll gravel and sand, moist p Y. £tlff .r:rt Yellow-brown clayey silty**
20 ~~~: Grades to yellow-brown***
BORING TERMINATED @ 20'
-
** SAND, wet, medium dense
*** silty sandy CLAY, very moist, stiff
Figure 8 - Logs of Test Borlngs . 18
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
Logged By: G.L. Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
Date Drilled: 6-24-85 B-7
4- Job No. 85-3484-51 ..... . . Direct I... ..... til . O..tll Q) Q) >- ·- ..... E Shear ..0 Q)
..... eN' tll4- 0..::£ E ....... O'l
·- . Q)' u ~ Test ::l 0 1114- Q) a:: Ill ..c: :z c _..J c . l...oi..J 3 . ..... ·- (J) u ::J c • 0 4- O'l Q) Q) O'l 0 . +-1(1) ...... ~ c c 4- Q) ~ c 0.. Vloi..J Q)cc 0 (J) - - I... 0.. ·- >- ·- c c u I... u til ~ O'l E 0.. I...
I... 0 0 Q) c ..... - . - Q) tO (J) 0 0 :::E:U a.. ::J Vl ..::£ 0 Vl 0 m DESCRIPTION I Brown sandy clayey GRAVEL,
106. n1.1 7-1 moist, dense, (Fill)
I Old cloth pieces
93. 12.0 . 7-2 5 . Wood pieces, asphalt pieces
b9.~ 0:8
10 ~· o ..
I Dark brown SJ.lty CLAY WJ.th
82 .. 28.2 7-3 wood fragments, moist, stif
1/
I/
15 1;6 Trace of sand and gravel
!'
112. 17.0 7-4 1:/'9 Cloth piece
::
. t:·:. . .. Yellow-brown clayey silty
20 -··} SAND, moist, dense, very * .....
·:.:::
BORING TERMINATED @ 20 1
Remarks: * fine to fine grained
Figure 9 - Logs of Test Borings 19
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
Logged By: G.I... Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG B-8
Date Dr i 1 I ed: 6-24-85 . . 1.1- 85-3484-Sl ...., Direct Job No. L ...., til . Cl.tll il) il) >- ·- ...., E Shear .0 il) ...., &!2 till.!- 0~ E t.L. O'l ·- . Ill-...... u ~ Test ::J 0 till.!- il) a: til ..c :z c _J c . L.j.J 3: ..... ·- il) u ::J c 0 1.1- r:::n . il) il) r:::n 0 ...., il) "'-'~ c c 1.1- il) ..c c Cl. tll.j.J lllt:O 0 il) - . L Cl. ...., ·- >- ·- c c u L u til ~ r:::n E Cl. 1...
L 0 0 il) C-1-' - . - il) 1'0 Q) 0 0 LU 0... :::l V) ..:.! 0 V) 0 Ill DESCRIPTION f.CI::i:'· Gray gravelly SAND, slightl, ~ .... t
JJt moist) dense, locally rocky • J>:.
102. :>13. 7 '::-'{)1 (Fill 8-1 'r: .· brick. fragments, beer can ~A pieces X(l..'
.:: ~ ... ""
5 o·.o.
91. Dl9 .1 8-2 o.-.::·: Metal pieces, very rocky :;§: in nature ... :o~ BORING TR"RM.l\JATED ~ I
Remarks: Boring stopped at seven feet due to refusal in blocky material
Figure 10 - Logs of Test Borings 20
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
Logged By: G.L. Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
Date Dri I Jed: 6-24-85
B-9
1+- Job No. 85-3484-Sl ...... . . Direct 1.. ...... Ill . Cl..lll Q) Q) Key >- ·- ...... E . Shear _(l Q) ...... cw !ll4- O.::L. E LL. C'l Y. Static Groundwater Leve ·- . Ill' u ~ Test :::1 0 - lfll+- (1) 0::: lfl .I::. z c _J Groundwater First c . ~... ...... 3 . ...... ·- .sz - Ill u ::I c • 0 1+-C') (1) Ill C'l Encountered C\ . ...... Ill ...... ~ c c 4- Ill - .I::. c Cl.. Ill ...... (I) CO 0 Ill - . - 1.. Cl.. ...... ·- >- ·- c c u 1... ~ til !il C'l E Cl.. 1..
I.. 0 0 Q) c ...... - . - Ill co (1) 0 C\ ::E:u c.. ::::> U) .::L. C\ U) C\ co DESCRIPTION -~ DarK. gray to black gravel.l.y
107.~ 10.1 9-1 sandy CLAY, slightly moist,
dense
~ Locally brown color
D Wood pieces (Fill) NO RI COVE y 9-2 5
~~ .
.
I Mottled brown CLAY, moist,
10 J stiff
I/ J
105. ( 20.7 9-3 1:17.-. MottJ.ea gray and orange
r/ . ~silty sandy CLAY, moist,
1/( tiff . 15
:. /
1/ .. .sz.
NO RE COVE YN=24 9-4 xy· Increasing sand content
TERZJ GHI
20 ~}!::· BORING TERMINATED @ 20'
Remarks:
Figure 11 - Logs of Test Borings 21
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
logged By: G.L. Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
Date Dr i I 1 ed: 6-24-85 B-10
. ..._ Job No . 85-3484-Sl .f-1 . Direct ,_ +J
:;... ·-
!11
+J
. E
0..!11 . Shear ..0
Q.) Q.)
Q.) ~
.f-1 '*' !111.+- o..:.: E LL OJ y_ - Static Groundwater Leve ·- . Q) ........ u - Test :I 0 VII.+- Q) a:: !11 .-;jJ z c ....J y_- Groundwater First c . 1-.f-1 3 ·- (!) u ::;! c • 0 ..._ Ol . Q) Q} OJ Encountered c . +JQ.) .f-1~ c c 4- Q) ~ c 0.. U'l-1-> Q.llD 0 (!) - . - ,_ c.. ·- :;... ·- c c u ,_ u !11 ~ OJ E 0.. ,_ ,_ 0 0 Q) c .f-1 - . - Q) 11) Q) 0 c DESCRIPTION :::EU tl.. ::> V'> ..:.: 0 (./) 0 ca ~ Gray sandy GRAVEL, medium
sized pieces, rounded, dry
~ to slightly moist, medium
dense (Fill)
0.·.
5 1/ Mottled brown and orange
silty CLAY, moist, stiff
1/
I Y.
10 lj
·V.
Sl Yellow-brown sandy silty I ·:
·.; CLAY, moist, stiff
I~. Very moist
15 ·/ Browner, siltier
I~ : j
'/!r Yellow-brown clayey SAND, . . .. ~.
~{:~ wet, medium dense
~ ......
20 ~~l~~ ~ .....
BORING TERMINATED @ 20'
Remarks:
Figure 12 - Logs of Test Borings 22
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG Logged By: G.L.
B-11
Hole No.
Date Drilled: 6-24-85
Job No . 85-3484-Sl . . ...... ..... . Direct L. ..... Vl . C. Ill Cl) Cl) >- ·- ..... E . Shear ..0 Cl)
..... iN! Ill ..... 0~ E LJ.._ 0)
·- . (!) ........ u ~ Test :I 0 Ill ..... Q) 0::: Ill .c z c ....J c . L.+J :s: ..... ' ·- Q) u :I c . 0 ...... 0) . Q) Cl) 0) 0 ..... Q) ..... ~ c c ...... Cl) - .c c c. Ill ..... Q.lal 0 Q) - . - L. c. ..... ·- >- ·- c c u L u Ill ~ 0) E c. L L. 0 0 Cl) C+-' - . - Cl) rtl Cl) 0
0 :ru a.. ::::> Vl ~ Cl Vl Cl Ill DESCRIPTION
Remarks: *
Boring
{~ Gray c.J..ayey sanay GRAVt:L,
dry to slightly moist, dense
small to large sized qravel~
BORING TERMINATED@ 2i'
pieces, some wood pieces, plastic pieces Locally very large gravel, difficult drilling, (Fill) stopped at 2~ feet due to refusal in blocky material
F~gure 13 - Logs of Test Bor~ngs 23
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
Logged By: G.L. Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
Date Drilled: 6-25-85 B-12
.
....,
Ill . >- ·- ...., .w eN' 11'14-
·- Q)' 11'14- nJ a:: IJ')
c . L +J 3 Q) u ::l c • 0 0 . ...., nJ ...., ~
0.. IJ')oi-J rucc >- ·- c c 1... 0 0 nJ 0 :.t:u a..
PIS-
~URBE p
96. ~10.8
112. 17.1
NO R E:COVE fRY
Remarks: *
**
'K * 1:
.
4- Job No. 85-3484-Sl . . Direct L ...., 0..11'1 Q) nJ Key E . Shear ..D nJ 0~ E I.J.... 0) y:_ Static Groundwater Leve~ u ~ Test ::::7 0 - ..c. z c _J . Sl - Groundwater First ...., ·- 4-0'l Q) Q) O'l Encountered c c .... nJ - ..c. c 0 Q) - - L 0.. ;..; ·- U L !:? Vl ~ O'l E 0.. L c...., - . - Q) ttl nJ 0 ::::> Vl ~ 0 Vl 0 cc DESCRIPTION 0,3
i) • Gray to white silty sandy If'~. GRAVEL, slightly moist, 2-1 ~~r~ dense, rock fragments, ~~~ asphalt pieces (Fill)·
5 Q116 Brown gravelly sandy silty
2-2 ~~I(. CLAY, slightly moist, stiff,
&· sand particles coarse, grave
D .. pieces are medium angular**
~~ brnark brown gravelly silty
10 VI! CLAY, moist, stiff, gravel
2-3
-
~0 pieces small and subrounded
~0 ·-- S[Mottled blue-gray and *** ..
!/· Yellow-brown sandy silty
15 ··/ CLAY, very moist, stiff, , .
~I/ sand is very fine to fine
grained
10·~:~ Gray gravelly SAND, fine
2-4 ~ g~· to medium grained, wet,
medium dense 20 io.~ii
K( n< -l'~'G 'l'l:!;.I:<.!Yll.NA'l'.t~aJ @ 1.. u
White dry gravelly SAND, pumice material
rock fragments
orange silty CLAY, moist, stiff, trace of very
fine to medium grained sand
Figure 14 - Logs of Test Borings 24
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
1 Logged By: G.L.
Date Drilled: 6-29-85
.
...,
Ill . >- ·- ..., ..., ~ Vl4-
·- . d) .......
<1!4- 11.) c:: Ill
c: . 1...-I..J :::
Q) u :I c: •0 0 . .!..JQ) ...,_ c.. Vl-I..J dlc:l
>- ·- c: c: 1... 0 0 Q)
0 :LU a..
104...:19.0
DIS- 21. 8 N=24
TURB D
TERZp.GHI
DIS- 25.0 N=17
TURBlD
· TERZ GHI
DIS- 21.4 N=34
.
4-
. Direct
O..Vl
E Shear
O.::t.
u .. Test
..c. • .j.J
4- en . c: c: 4-
0 11.) - - u
c: ...,
I- !;Jill ~ - . - :::> V') .:::{.
11.)
Q)
1...
C'l
Q)
0 Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BORitJG LOG
B-13
I- ..., 11.) 11.)
.0 11.)
E I.L. :J
:z c:
·- Q)
- ..c. 0.. ..., E 0..
10 Q)
V') 0
3-1
3-2 5
3-3 10
Job No . 85-3484-Sl
~
en I- Static Groundwater Level
0 _J sz_- Groundwater First en Encountered c:
·-I..
0 CD DESCRIPTION
~ Brown silty CLAY, stiff,
' slightly moist, trace of
111·i. san.d, large dessication 1/· cracks at surface
·I· Molst
i~z -: I,Y.Mottled bluish-gray and *
~-.z Yellowish-brown sandy silty ·1.· CLAY, very fine to fine . r) :;z graine~, moist ~: Very molst to wet, local · 11 sandier lenses .li ... :- i ·.
'~I/ 15 li.:~
25 3-5 30
Gray SAND, fine to coarse
grained, wet, medium dense
Mottled blue to orange
silty CLAY, moist, stiff
Y:eJ.l.ow-brown SAND, fine to
medium grained, wet, medium
dense
Ti~~r~~f * orange sandy silty CLAY, moist, stiff
** Thin gray silty SAND LENS, wet, medium dense
**"'' Yellow-brown SAND, wet, medium dense, mostly fine grained with some scattered medium to coarse grains alsc T"> ..... ~~- '+- Figure 15 - Logs. of Test ·Borings .. 25.
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
Logged By: G.L. Hole No.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
Date Dri 1 Jed: 6-25-85 B-13 (Cont.
. . 4- Job No. 85-3484-S1 ..... Direct I- ..... Vl O..Vl Q) Q) >- ·- ..... E . Shear .0 Q)
..... '* V14- o..:::t. E I.L O'l
·- Q)' u ~ Test :l 0
V14- Q) cr: lll ..c. :z c -' c . 1...+-l ~ . ..... ·- Q) u ::J c. . 0 4- O'l . Q) Q) O'l 0 ..... Q) ....,_ c: c 4- Q) ~ ..c. c 0.. Vl+-' ,Q) OJ 0 Q) - - I- 0.. ..... ·- >- ·- c: c: u 1... Ill ~ rn E 0.. I1... 0 0 Q) C:+J - . - Q) m Q) 0 0 JE:W a.. :::> Vl ..:::t. 0 VJ 0 OJ DESCRIPTION :)~~ sana
~g~~~ ~.:·:·· ........
35 :+: ·::·~~
"l :-~~-:~ ; Some silt present :..·: .... : .. ~.. .
- '::t~ .......
... . . ~
DISrruRB:E D
12.9 N=40 3-6 40~ ****
tr'ERZl\ GHI
BORING TERri!INATED @ 4 U
Remarks: **** Gray gravelly SAND, wet, medium dense, medium to coarse grained
Figure 15 ~Logs of Test Borings (Cont.) 26
UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC.
File No. 85-3484-S1
Sample
No.
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
5-1
5-2
5-3
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
TABlE I
SUMMARY OF MOISTURE, DENSITY,
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION AND DIRECT SHEAR TESTING
Depth In-Place Conditions Unconfined Direct Shear Testing Ft. Moisture Dry Compressive Angle of Unit Content Density Strength Internal Cohesion
% p.c.f. k.s.f. Friction p.s.f. Dry Wt. Degrees
3 16.5 102.4
6 16.7 113.1
11 29.2 DISTURBED (TERZAGHI)
19 26.7 96.0
2 17.1 102.1
5 14.9 105.7 18.4 680
10 28.0 101. 7 { TERZAGHI}
18 NO RECOVERY
2 17.9 DISTURBED
5 17.8 112.0
11 31.8 90.9(TERZAGHI}
16 27.5 104.1
3 15.1 102.3
6 17.3 111.5
12 24.2 DISTURBED{TERZAGHI)
19 NO RECOVERY
6 27.4 93.2
13 19.3 110.0
18 30.1 96.1
3 4.9 106.2
6 14.3 109.7
13 15.6 107.0
19 21.7 112.6(TERZAGHI)
2 11.1 106.8
5 12.0 93.4
12 28.2 82.7
18 17.0 112.1
29 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 85-3484-S1
Sample
No.
8-1
8-2
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
12-1
12-2
12-3
13-1
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF MOISTURE, DENSITY,
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION AND DIRECT SHEAR TESTING
Depth In-Place Conditions Unconfined Direct Shear Testing Ft. Moisture Dry Compressive Angle of Unit Content Density Strength Internal Cohesion
% p.c.f. k.s.f. Friction p.s.f. Dry Wt. Degrees
3 13.7 102.6
6 19.1 91.0
2 10.1 107.2
5 NO RECOVERY
12 20.7 105.0
18 NO RECOVERY (TERZAGHI)
3 DISTURBED
6 10.8 96.2
11 17.1 112.5
2 11.3 95.3
5 19.0 104.2
10 21.8 DISTURBED (TERZAGHI)
20 25.0 DISTURBED (TERZAGHI)
30 21.4 DISTURBED (TERZAGHI)
40 12.9 DISTURBED {TERZAGHI)
30 United Soil Engineering, Inc.
File No. 85-3484-81
60 50
.w
)( 40
1\)
-c
c:
·-u
...,
:; 20
0..
N ---
CL
v 10
7 4
0 r\. '' '\,., ~ ~'\Y' --- VHL
0 10 20 30
Key Hole
Symbol No.
• BAG "A"
PLASTICITY CHART
cv
~ CH L
v HE
/
v
HV
Cl
L
v
v. HH
v
HI
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit %
PLASTICITY DATA
Plasti- Unified
Depth Liquid city Soil Clas
Ft. Limit % Index % siftcatlo
ISvmbol*
0-1 49.0 16.0 MI
*Soil type classification based on British suggested revisions to Unified Soils Classification System
• ~gure
United Soil Enqineerinq
File No. 85-34&4-51 United Soil Engineering, Incorporated 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Moisture Content - (%of Dry \Vetght)
SAMPLE: A
DESCRIPTION: Brown Silty CLAY
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURE: ASTM D1557-78
MAXIMUM DRY DENSI1Y: 105.5 p.c.f.
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 15.2%
Figure 19 - Compaction curve "A" 32
File No. 85-3484-Sl
N
Not to Scale
10" Lockable Steel Casing and li
Pad J ot:k
PVC Slip Cap
~+-+--------2" I.D. Sch. 40 PVC Pipe
r ... ~------- Concrete Grout Sea 1
~---------Bentonite Pellet Seal
5:j- Groundwater Depth (See Boring Log)
-::::to~I-:4---------Casing Slots ( .020 inches wide)
•. jL., . . ~
.. \:"
-~-: ~
.-+-------Washed Kiln -Dried Sand (No. 4)
Threaded PVC Shoe
This piezometer installation
was supervised by ~-~~-~- Certified Engineering Geologist No.
f'" :-:tre: 20 - Schematic Piezometer for p..:.1 and P-2 3 United Sail~. iDe.
File No. 85-3484-Sl
. .
~ w
w
\!;..
r.n
w
a:
I3
(10)
6 (20)
9 :E (30)
~
-:i
Ill.
w
0 12
(40)
15 (50)
.... ... P2-4P -q 6-4
liquefaction 13-S
potential
High Moderate Low
9 . I
Gl
U'l
"0
n>
<>
..
~
18 (W)o~--------~20-----------40~--------~ro
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE.
IN BLOWS PER 0.3 METRE (1.0 FOOT)
.4 = Data points from borings. Numbers indicate boring
and sample location .
Liquefaction potential of potentially liquefiable
granular sedimentary material in boreholes at the
project site~ based on standard penetration resistance in blows per foot (.3m.). {Adapted from Youd~ T.L., Nichols, D.R., Helley, E.J., and Lajoie, K.R., 1975, Liquefaction potential, in Borcherdt, R.D., ed., Studies for seismic zonation of the San Francisco
Bay Region: U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 941-A, p. All, Fig. 49.)
Diagram based on depth to the water table= 10 ft. (3m.).
Figure 21 - Liquefaction Potential Graph
United Soil Engineerin::. Inc..
'. . ...
',
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION
on
PROPOSED MOBILE HOME PARK
St. Claire Corporation Property
APN 15-39-16 and 20
Taylor Street
Alviso, ~alifornia
for
BRANDENBURG, STAEDLER AND MOORE
By
TERRASEARCH, INC.
Project No. 5663-E
25 March 1987
~!!~ SOIL, FOUNDATION AND GEOLOGICAL EN.GINEERS
,._, TI~IU~A SI~AIU~H INt:.
1580 NORTH FOURTH STREET, SAN JOSE, CALJFORNIA 95112-4676, (408) 287-9460 Brandenburg, Staedler & Moore
333 W. Santa Clara Street, #1212
San Jose, CA 95113
Attention: Mr. Charles Butters
Project No. 5663-E
25 March 1987
Subject: Proposed Mobile Home Park
APN 15-39-16 and 20
Taylor Street
Alviso, California ·
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION
Gentlemen:
At your request, TERRASEARCH, INC., has conducted a geot.echnical feasibility evaluation for the subject development in Alviso, California.
A description of our investigation methods and a discussion of the findings and recommendations is contained in the attached report. Based on our preliminary study, it is our opinion that the site is feasible for the proposed development. However, prior to development, an in-depth geotechnical study should be performed to more rigorously define problem areas and provide specific recommendations for mitigation.
Should you have any questions or requir·e additional information, please contact our office at your convenience.
Reviewed by:
Ji~~ Principal Engineer
Copies: 4 to Brandenburg, Staedler & Moore
2 to Vaughn Shahinian Associates
11822 DUBLIN BOULEVARD, DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568, (415) 833-9297 '') ' '/-'" •i • / .. ':.o"
•
;
c · .. .
Project No. 5663-E
25 March 198 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION
Purpose and Scope
Site Location and Description
DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Grading
Slab-on-Grade Construction
APPBNDIX A
Field Investigation
Site Plan (Figure 1)
Logs of Test Borings (Figures 2 and 8)
Logs of Test Pits (Figures 9 and 19)
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Investigation
Summary of Laboratory Test Results (TABLE I)
Compaction Curves (Figures 20 and 21)
(ii)
Page No.
1 1-2
3 4-5
5-6
8 9
10-16
17-27
29-30
31-32
33-34
Project No. 5663- E
25 March 1987
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION
Purpose and Scope
'rhe purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed development. The proposed development will consist of a mobile home park placed on 34.5 acres of low-lying land whose elevation will be raised for flood control purposes by placing approximately 7 to 9 feet of engineered fill. The investigation included the following:
a. Surface geotechnical
site;
reconnaissance of the
b. Drilling of 7 exploratory borings with a continuous flight auger drilling rig; c. Excavation of 11 test pits with a backhoe;
d. Sampling of the subsurface soils;
e. Laboratory testing of the soil samples;
f. Data analysis, formulation of conclusions and
recommendations and preparation of this written
report.
Site Location and Description
The irregular shaped site is located on the southern side of the San Jose/Alviso Road in the community of Alviso near its intersection with Grand Avenue. It is bounded on the east 1 .
i
i
i
Project No. 5663-E
25 March 1987
and southeast by a slough and the Guadalupe River, respectively. On the northeast, it is bounded by the undeveloped Lands of Albanese, to the west and northwest by developed and undeveloped Lands of Alviso.
Presently, the topography of the site ranges from sea level to nearly 10 feet above sea level. Previously, this site was at or below sea level, and the present topography is the result of a continuing program of land fill. As an approximation of the depth of fill, the difference between sea level and the present elevations can be utilized for the majority of the site. However, the now infilled dry slough of the Guadalupe River (see Figure 1), which transects the subject property from northeast to southwest will contain an additional depth of fill dependent on the depth of the former slough. The fill placement has been primarily concentrated in the central to south/central region of the site; however, some fill has been placed over the entire site.
A variety of existing structures are located on the southwestern corners of the property. The structures are situated on a number of lots located at the intersection of Moffat and Victoria Streets which appear to be within the site boundaries. Some of these structures are mobile. Additionally, at present, the area adjacent and to the east of these lots is being used as storage facilit 1es for mobile trailers and dry storage for a variety of boat types. Vegetation consists of low perennial grasses. Two observation wells are present on the site and have been located on the plans.
2 )"
Project No. 5663-E
25 March 1987
DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
1. The results of this preliminary
that the site is generally sui table
investigation indicate
for mobile home park
development. This suitability applies to general planning only. More detailed explorations will be necessary to adequately provide final design reco~nendations.
2. Based on the results of our preliminary subsurface
investigation, the entire site
fill and rubble ranging from 1
Approximately 90% of the rubble
is covered with uncompacted
to 10 feet in thickness.
consists of non-degradable
broken concrete slabs. Beneath the fill, the native soils consist of basically medium stiff sandy silty clays with some local soft pockets. Based on our preliminary evaluation of the generally stiff native soils bene ath the site, the loads imposed by the planned 7 to 9 feet of fill should not cause differential settlements. However, the settlement problem should be addressed during the final geotechnical investigation of the subject project.
3. It is our opinion that most of the existing uncompacted fill contains materials, except as noted below, that may be incorporated into the planned grading for the site.
3 I
I
• r !J
'
,_
Grading
Project No. 5663-E
25 March 1987
4. Due to the moderately expansive in-situ soils at the site, it is pointed out that grading activities during the rainy season will be hampered by excessive moisture. It is recommended that grading be performed during the summer months to minimize potential compaction problems which would require chemical stabilization.
5. Our laboratory test results indicate that the existing fill is not adequately compacted and should be removed in its entirety during site development.
6. Following removal of the existing fill, moderately expansive subgrade soils should be scarified and compacted to a minimum degree of relative compaction of 90% at 2 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM 01557-78 Laboratory Test Procedure. After stripping and recompacting the native subgrade, the site may be brought to the desired finished g·rades by placing engineered fill in 1 ifts of 8 inches in uncompacted thickness and compacted to the relative compaction requireme nts in accordance with the aforementioned test procedure. Some of the fill soils
encountered during our investigation, except for those contaminated materials as de termined by the Soil Engineer, would be suitable for use as engineered fill when placed and compacted at the recommended moisture content. 4 , ..
Project No. 5663-E
25 March 1987
7. The select import material to be used to establish the proper grading for the proposed development should be
approved by the Soil Engineer before it is brought to the site and should meet the following requirements:
a. Have an R-Value of not less than 25;
b. Have a Plasticity Index not higher tha~ 12;
c. Not more than 15% passing the No. 200 sieve;
d. No rocks larger than 6 inches in maximum size;
Import material meeting the requirements stated above should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of at least 90% as determined by ASTM 01557-78 Laboratory Test Procedure.
All engineered fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness.
8. The exploration backhoe pits that were excavated for our geologic investigation were loosely backfilled. Therefore 1 all pits affecting proposed foundations 1 streets 1 curbs, or other grade features should be re- excavated and backfilled with engineered fill in accordance with the grading requirements of this report.
Slab-on-Grade Construction
9. Foundation design for any proposed permanent structures will depend on the location of the structures 1 strength of the proposed fill soils 1 and should be based on laboratory tests when the fill soil types are determined. Howe ver, the following general recommendations may be used for slab- ongrade pavement design. 5 ,.
--
Project No. 5663-E
25 March 1987
a. All areas to receive slabs should be wetted
until a moisture equilibrium condition is
reached;
b. A minimum of 4 inches of gravel or clean
crushed rock material may be placed between the
finished subgrade and all the slabs to serve as
a capillary break between the subsoil and the
slab. See the "Guide Specifications For Hock
Under Concrete Slabs", Appendix C.
c. All slabs should be properly reinforced to meet
structural design criteria. The reinforcement
shall be placed in the center of the slab
unless othe rwise designated by the design engineer.
d. Slabs should be provided with tool joints to
control expansion. The
along the middle of the
tions.
6 joints should
slab in both
extend
direc-
' .
APPENDIX A
Field Investigation
Site Plan
Logs of Test Borings
Logs of Test Pits
•· .
Project No. 5663-E
25 March 1987
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on 25 February and 11 March 1987 and included a reconnaissance of the site and the drilling of 7 exploratory borings and 11 test pits at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1, "Site Plan."
The borings were drilled to a maximllin depth of 38 feet below the existing ground surface. The test pits were excavated with a rubber- tired backhoe to a maximwn depth of 14 feet.
The drilling was done with a truck-mounted rig using powerdriven, four-inch diameter, continuous flight augers. Visual classifications were made from the auger cuttings and the samples in the field. As the drilling proceeded, undisturbed core samples were obtained by means of a 2-l/2 inch 0. D. split-tube sampler. The samples were driven into the in-situ soils under the impact of a 140-pound hammer having a free fall of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches into the soil were adjusted to the standard penetration resistance (N-Value).
The samples were sealed and returned to our laboratory for testing. Classifications made in the field were verified in the laboratory after further examination and testing.
The stratification of the soils, descriptions, location of undisturbed soil samples and standard penetration resistance are shown on respective "Logs of Test Borings."
8 1
~
5€63-E 25 ~:arch 1987
P-11
T
' 7 .
S BORING LOCATION
TP-9 , TEST PIT LOCATION
A EXISTING WELL
FIGURE NO. 1 - SI'IE PIJ\N
ProJect No. 5663-E 25 !·~ch 1987
-t.OJGED BY I.!ED DATE DRILLED 2/26/87 -BORING DIAMETER _ 11-=- - '_' _ _ BORING NO. --=1!o.___ -
-
-
-
-
-
SOIL DESCRIPTION
i·~dium bro.-.n Silty OJ\Y 'v/Grave1, soft,
(FilL?)
--------
Dark brown Silty CI..Nf, less Gravel,
w/organics, ·,;ery stiff
--------
Light brown rrottled Sandy · Si1 ty a...J.:l,
hare
--------
Dark brown Silty a.AY, no Gravel, Ver'z'
stiff, rroist -----------
Light brown Silty O.J.::l, no Gravel, ha.rd
----------
f'-a.rk bro.vn Silty a.AY w/Gravel, hard
Boring ter::>inated at 18 feet.
;·::at.er at 12 feet, rose to 6 feet.
GI/
CL
a-v
CL
Qf
17 32
25 100
104 12
23 MISC.
LAB
RESULTS
--;:;T;:::I~~ l_j~l__I_~A-S-1~ i\-----:1~--:-:=-:~ u=-=--.-NC.--- .-,F-1G_URE___JN_0.-2J.___...J-LCGL._;,., -cr...L. · ~-ZS_J_T_OO_m::t..L.T .J-G -----J l •· -'"'
I
r
Project :-Jo. 5663-E 25 !-1arch 1987
.--
~ED BY f'1ED DATE DRILLED 2/26/87 BORmG DIAMETER 4" BORING NO. 2 r
- r sf
r
~ 10
-
-
1- 20-
-
-
-
-
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Light grey-white Gravelly SAND FILL
Grey-brown Silty CLAY, grades darker,
~ist, very stiff
-- -- -- -- -- --
Lig..~t brown Silty ClAY, stiff, rr6ist
Grade s rrore Silty, :reC.iun s·tiff
Boring tenlinated at 23 feet.
viater at 5 feet.
SP
CL/ 25
Q{
13 10
107 18
101 26
98 26
MISC.
LAB
RESULTS
Qu=3,147 psf
1 FIGURE NO. 3 - lCG OF TEST BORING
11 Project No. 5663-E 25 ~ch 1987
-------------------------------------------~~------------------------------------, ,,XJED BY MED DATE DRILLED 2/25/87 BORING D 1A METER ___ 4.:-'-' __ BORING NO. __...3'---_ - SOIL DESCRIPTION
- :
Medium brown Gravelly Sandy SILT FILL
.. !·nre Gravelly· and darker -
5 - · 1----,- 3-1 ~ Dark brcM111 Silty CL."f\Y, rroist, rreditc ~ stiff to stiff
~ Grades lighter
~------- ffi
?1~ Light brawn Sandy CLAY/Silty CL.Z\Y,
10 - l1. very stiff
3-2 lK - ~
~
-
-
15 -
-
'20 -
-
-
-
-
-
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ Eoring terr.inated at 23 f eet.
·:~ater at 7 f eet, rose to 5 feet.
SM
rn 10
CL 41
100 22
MISC.
LAB
RESULTS
111 19 Qu=l,516 psf
~--~~~~~=-~==~==~~~---------,r-----~--~--_J __ _J __ _L __ _L __________ ~ Tl~l~l~!\ Sl~i\I~I~H INC. ' FJGURE NO. 4 - r.o::; OF 'ITST BO.llit-JG ~----~----------------------------~----------------------------------~ 1 2 -.L(XiGED BY I
-
- -
-
-
-
~ -
·10 -
-
15 -
-
-
-
25 -
- ~ -
-
- 1-30 -
-
-
-
- 1- - f- -
ISJ~( ·1- 1· :r.~r
ji:~1,r
~i·H ~rl: ·}'fl f:l.,::t
<1<·:1: f-'.1:1
~.\f_f
j:"!~~
1.!l
~~i1
~th1
!iH
!{1:}~
~t~t. ·I·
'~'lt. ~t.,~J
~i.t\ ·N}*.i -~l-h
~
Project No. 5663-E 25 }illch 1987
.MED DATE DRILLED 3/11/37 BORING DIAMETER
SOIL DESCRIPTION
!>1edium brown Silty Gravell SAND,
dry , loose (FILL)
i:~diuw grey Silty fine SllliD, medium
sw
CL
stiff s:·~
.!Vediurn brcwn Silty CIRi, stiff CL/
Boring terminated at 33 feet.
ifJater at 12 feet.
rn.
26 45
4" BORING NO. _4=----
MISC.
LAB
RESULTS
lOS 18 LL=46
PI=26
Qu=4 ' 712 ps f
103 24 Qu=4,890 psf
1---T~E:--::1-:-'-:~ 1=~--=a=--s=~=~~:-::A:-::1:-:::-tt-==~=-=-u=---.N-r ... --""T',-FIO_URE_N.L.-0-. 5...J..---r..cx;'--~ -OF..L...TE-i j__.l.SI'_EO_Rll.L_~-G __ ---J 13 Project No. 5663-E 25 [1arch 1987
~D BY t1ED DATE DRILLED 3/ll/27 BORING DIAMETER_&.:....._'_' __ BORING N0._.,5~-- -
-
1-- 5 -
SOIL DESCRIPTION
~
W'~ D3.rk brown/black Silty crAY w/debris
~ (FILL)
IZ -- ~ Dark brown/black Gravell y CLAY (FILL)
~
~
5 _
1 ~ Dark brown Gravelly Silty 01~. w/
~ ~ asphalt (FILL), stiff
•10- J - r,w
1(1; Elack Silty CIAY (NAT:PJE), stiff
~ VI
5-2 lK' f--
~ Li~ht. brov.n Sancy silty GAY, stiff
~ Y (water at 16')
~ - - -- 111.1 Grey- bro.-m. Silty aM, stif!: ·
!5 -
~~--- - s-_ ~ n~=>ng-e-:-brown Silty Sandy ci...iY, ti~f Li. . _Q~nge~IDY:n Sandy Silty o;N::!, stiff
-
-
-
-
Boring terminated at 19.5 feet.
\~ater at 16 feet.
Eole caved.
CL
18 +-- -l 21
CL
CE
U..f 28
rn
MISC.
LAB
RESULTS
114 13 Qu=l7ll FSf
No recovery
l04 24
t-----;;T=-:1==:~:-=1~-:!-:1~~-=!\:--:S:-:-:-:~ ~=~-=!\-=1~~ -=~=-=u=--.-~-C.--.--,F-JG-URE--'-NO._.l..- 6 -_ -'-LCG____.JOFL,__,......,- .:.. ..:;..L_~C'T-B-'-OR..:;:-..,_\!-G _ ___:__J 14 Project No. 5663-E 25 !..,.:arch 1987
-
~EDBY t-£1) DATE DRILLED __ 3..:.../_l__;l/:._8_7 ___ BORmG DIAMETER_4_" ___ BORING NO. --=6 __ -
-
-
-
5 -
-
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Medium bro.vn Silty OM w/C.rave1 {FILL)
rur l'l;t Grey-bro.vn Sandy Silty GAY (FIIL)
~ REP.JSAL/ffi·D.-=>E?Z? ~<11---- ili: Dark brtflm Silty Clayey GPN.1£L (FilL) , .-v rock , concrete , asphalt .., 6-1 f B;A~-
.0
a ~
- b ~* ~
Grey-b.r:ov-n \·1/orange rrottling Si1 ty c::LKY,
old roots, ve~f stiff
Grades harder
LS -
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
it
~
6-2 ~ ~ ,illt
~ I
W1
!-Edium brawn Sandy Silty ClAY, stiff,
ilOist,
GratJ less Sandy
Boring terminated at 18 feet.
TtJater at 12 feet.
CL
GC
CL/
CE
32 21
98 100
13 18
MISC.
LAB
RESULTS
Qu=3959 _?Sf
No recovery
---T~Il-,J-~1-~-A-s-~ ~-~A-~~-~-~ u-.~-~c.--....-1 F_JG_UR.E___.N_0 __ 7.L---W3..L...:>-O__,_ F -TES_...JTL..__BO_iRING..L..-------.1 15 Project No. 5663-E 25 March 1987
OOGED BY MED DATE DRILLED 3/ll/87 BORING DIAMETER_4:....." ___ BORING NO. 7
SOIL DESCRIPTION
w;~lle Ceo_rl_s __
~ Jll.ediu'il brown Sandy Silty a.AY. (FILL)
~ jlli~,1 v~/Gravel 5 7 -
- -~ w.li Dark brown Silty Clay (NATIVE)
~.~~~ ~ Grades lighter
0 _ ~ Light brown/t_an_S_i-lty CIAY/Clayey SIL':'
~ . -
-
5 -
-
-
-
0 -
-
-
-
- !5 -
-
-
-
- ~0 -
-
-
-
- 35
-
-
-
-
r~Y. ~ l'Ediun brovm Silty Cl..K:l
~ \7 (water at 16')
~~11 Grades more Silty & lighter, soft
.(f..Y,'I drilling
x~ Grades darker
'/I)
Boring terminated at 38 feet.
/
CL
13 (41 16
Q!
CL/
rn
CL/
rn
107
MISC.
LAB
RESULTS
17 Qu=950 psf
Water at 16 feet.
----:;T;;::-:~~~~:l-::I--::-~-=A~S=-=:11=~-=4:-=I:=-~-=~=u=--.-N.-::.--y-IF_JO_URE___..N_O _ __...L..a -_ --~.r.o::;_OFJ....__?ES.....L...T-ro-~L-m-~s--. --1 lG
MATERIALS DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES COMMENTS \
TYPE, COLOR , MOISTURE. CONSOLIDATION, ETC. BEDDING JOINTS FAULT or SHEAR .. .
-
...
- - ---
__ .: --i- - ·
, asphalt blocks to 2 ' (FILL)
- 1 -----·-
_4.9-7.q' i Dark brawn Silty ClAY
(B)
f- -·- .....
--·-
t-'
.
-
.. 1-- - - · 1-- ·f- -l- --_ . - - - f- - I- . - . f- - t- f-f- ·- - - . - 1- ;m] . . ... - + _·- .... _ - -=:_ _ _ H-·_t+_ .t: __ - _ - SCALE "0 m u . -t·t-· - f- - 1- '- .. ,_ - f- - f-f- - . f- : 1-f-:_ -m±· _j-i·"·+: . -:.t - .. ·t -- ·-.: ·_ _-·: . :: .. - t- - ·t- - - := :1-:: -j-J· 1· HORIZ. 1 "= 5' - t ·H -H- -,- -t- - . + ··t· - -- - .. ·1- -- - - - - ·: :.. - --r-:: . -· - z ......, ...__._... I 1-- + -1-t- .. H ·+- - -·· · .. ... - - · - - - - 0 ,.,
-
. . I - I I I Ti I I -
!5'%11 .UtL;··f\-1-11--t'ffi ' - -LLt--- -.... - - - .. tl,-: .,_,_-1-· · - - · - - 1-- - f-f- T -- --r-•1· 1- vERT. 1"=5' ' In' I I ' I -l I .. -- +-- - - +t- -··t· - I-· - f- LT1 .. _t·: __ ·;-:t-- - . -·. ·- l1_:tl··t1·- PIT ORIENTATION ,....,. . ... (,_.J- - - . .L - · l- 1 -- ·+t-- - - .. -.. . -f- - 1- I . I I q-_. TPl I 1- . · - --· ... . ... l t11 j r .. !· -. Hr-:1- L0.}e 1- ... 1--·_ .= ;. NSOW I j l j t I I TT . . , __ + ·- j -I . . - . - ... .. -- .. - I- r- LT1 == H r-+ --r· ·--+: r J. .. .. j_-· -, · j_:\, - •-Ci -- . . . ..... -· ..- . :f- . . .. - ·- . . - + - -- - ·- . . . . - . . - ·- - l - d .. -r .; .. 1. 1.rrrr-:ll·- -\ - - · -+'""' t- -1 --- -- ·- --- . ·. ·. ___ 1_r- ... ' I ' fC . - - . 1-· - - . . - . f- .. _ - - - - t--1- . ,. ,::;:+ ·' :q .. ·· . · · - · I>·! . .. . . . . . . . . . -: .. --. . ,_ .. + + t NATURAL SLOPE ;r + .. -· ·•- - -- .. - - - - -- . 1·-- .. .. .. f- .. +- . - 1- f- - . . t - 1- l:l::;!lll I , _ • .. .... . .. . .. • - . - . - j- 1-- f- · · _:: - .. . _ _ . t- _ . - f- 1- H- f- · - . - 1-
-
-A
•
.. l - -·f--H-1-+--· H- + .:_ ::_t-.:i..:: t- . - -· - - t- -- -t- f_:i-l= ANGLE H--l-+-1--l--
- 1-+-+-H - H - H --1-+ H-+++-1 I I I I I I I I H -H-H -H 111 EatttH±I+t+lmnutrmtr-11111111 ntttlllllllll tttmT.D. flat
7.0'
!-A
1.0 co
-..J
-- ---
··----------------------------·;:;;;;:;;;::;:=:::::::=
-
"""
( DEPTH I MATERIALS DESCR IPTION ATTITUDES ' '\ COMMENTS TYPE, COLOR , MOISTURE, CONSOLI DATION, ETC. BEDD ING JOINTS FAULT or SHEAR I 0-1.5' Medium brown Gravelly Sandy SI LT w/Clay and debr1s .
(A)
l. 5-7,0 I Dark brown Silty CLAY (NATIVE)
(B)
1-'
m
-t - . ... 1-- - r- -·
m 1- -I- SCALE '"0 1- .. ·- ·- . 1-- 8 ..... en .... - ' ·- 1-1-·· . .... , , 1- 1- - - ... ·- -t u. .. -I- --1- - - .. -- . - - .. . ·I- ..... . . -- - 1---. t-· -
..
- 1-- - . -- 1- .. ·- -·
"'0 -·. -·- -1- -- - HORIZ. 1 "= 5' rt l.'llllll =i • -I- 1-i- & r-- . - 1- .. - . ... r- .. H . - - - r- 1-- - - 1- - - - -· • 1- 1\ - . r- - . - -t- VERT. 1"-5' =--
0 - -r . . - 1-· - 1-1- lJ1
Ci) - l · -· 1- - 0"1
- I- 1.-
OR IENTATI ON
0"1
.
-
- w
lmD z - I+ lrl:£ lr M - -I- -+- - r- .. --- ·- . 1- 0 1- ·- 1- 1- - .... · t- ·- - - - ....
- . IJ. 1- N60W :s.. N - 1---- - N " lJ1 1:11:11 -I- .. 1- . 1- - t-1'-- -I- ·t- .. .. . [ ,... .. . -· - -1- 1-· ... . ·- - .., .. - - - cE' - ... . - . .. - r- . ··- = c: .. - ·- - NATURAL SLOPE <D -· .. r- . - 1-' - 1.0 - z - 00 0 Flat -...! ANGLE - ... 1-' • 0
T.D. 7.0 1
----·
"••··-- ··- -··--------------------
( MATERIALS DESCRIPT ION ATTITUDES ' '• COMMEN1"S · ·" DEPTH TYPE, COLOR , MOISTURE 1 CONSOLI DAT ION 1 ETC. BEDD ING JOI NTS FAULT or SHEAR 0-1. 0 I Light grey Gravelly SAND (FILL)
(A) ' :
1.0-6.0 '· Dark brONI1 Silty CI:AY w/caliche nodules (NATIVE) (B)
5.0-6.5' Grey , light brown Silty CLAY (NATIVE)
(C)
-t . -
r-1
... -
m f-· SCALE ti
en
-
1- -· -t - .. ' ·- .. - -· 1- - -· ro
- -- - 1- 1-· - .. .. -- :+ "'C 1-- . - . - -.• 1- --- HORI Z. 1H=6' -
..
- . -- -
.,... -t 1- . - - - - - - " -
1113
-a
.
""" 5 . - . ... -f-- - - - . - ... - r-r- -- VERT. 1H-5t Ln :a. ·I- 0'1 (j) .. - 0'1 _j_ - - 1- w z :t 1-- I= · -- - :·-r-- PIT OR IENTAT ION ell 1-· - - .. . - - -I- - ··· --1-· - - h . ·-· - I- .. 1-· 1-1- ...... ..J 0 f- - . -· r-..._ - . ·I'- - r/ - -- 1-'- .. . w
- N50E N Vl
... . - - - - .. -- - - ' ..,.. ,.... - - \: .. I- 1-1- [ ... til--. - 1-· :n - - - .. -- - - - -- .. .. .. 3:h . - - IQ - ---- - 1-· 1--· . . - . - -· .. = c: -- ·I- -I- , __ .., - 1- NATURAL SLOPE .. --- " CD -- - . ··- -- - . .. -- -. . .. - -- - f--. ... - - ·- - 1--' \.D - z 1- co p -..,J
- ANGLE Fl at
J 1--' ... -. • 1--'
- T.D.
I
- 6.5'
·
- -------------
----
.... .. •ce.,•• .. ..
'._.. ... -· FWIIJ ' : r tal t Cd&&l:b *aT¥ f)W I a a; ;::e. ,; ; ; W I MATERIALS DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES COMMENTS . \ DEPTH TYP£, COLOR, MOISTURE, CONSOLIDATION, ETC. BEDDING JOINTS FAULT or SHEAR 0-10.0' Black/dark brown Silty CIAY w/Gravel & Garbage (FILL) (A) 4x4 asphalt chunks, WU<Jd, rretal
10.0-13.0' Black Si1tv CIAY (NATIVE)
N / 0
-i --t-- - t-1- ·· - SCALE I'd
m := -1- . r' -
"""" rt'\ lL r.-,_ -- ·· 1- - Q \II f-- - • f- -- • . fl .. -- · - - LJ, £ ----,__ L[ - -- - - - HORIZ. 1"=5' a ;;: =i - t: - v iilf .. - .
;w: 5 ... ----- .... _:·--·· .. _ - ·· b-e-;:_ -- - - t=_ VERT. 1"-6' G) _ __t . . - -· PIT ORIENTATION Z : 1-- - .. - -.1... . \..0 -. r\ -.. -· -1- - - . . H- - 1- . --1- - . .. -=- o -- - - ttr::ill-,- · · -- -- ., -t- - · ' t- - _ 1- N60W
- I- . - . - - t-. - '-
t:D - 1- - -- ·I- - . t- _[ -- . . -- Ll .. .. . . - -
,.. ,., .
-
. 1'1 - - - - - ? - -- t- - : - t- 1-rt _ - t- _- -.. t- :· - NATURAL SLOPE g. = ; -1-1- - I- ·- I-' - z
p 1- ANGLE flat --.J
......
·
1-1-+-+-++- T.O. 13.0'
....
7 MATERIALS DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES TYPE, COLOR, MOISTURE, CONSOLIDATION, ETC. COMMENTS DEPTH BEDDING JOINTS FAULT or SHEAR 0-3.0' Dark brown Clayey SILT w/asphalt
(A)
3. 0-10 . 0 I I Medium b.rc7WI1 fine to rredium Sandy ' SILT w/Gravel (B) I occasional blocks of concrete
10. 0-14.0 'I Dark broNn/black Si1 ty cr..;Ni. (NATIVE
(C)
Bun-•- -
fil':!
-
- - -
., --
'
,.. t::l -
tmll
,... r L-A-"__..._._,_
0 ..
' - • 1 •• h 1--P- 1 1-1-l-+· J 1 1 "'- fS - - t- -- _ l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T 1 1 -t jV -. - I I I I I I I I 1 -rTTI -
,, ' - - - ' -v-·1= - '"-'"" I- t; - - - -1--- ,, " 12 .. - -- . "( 1---1--t+l I I I I I 1-l \! • '1 --- - .. - . 1/ TrTT TT ffJTTT'"T TT1 TTTT 1--J..-j - I'TIT""TIITTl l
SCALE jg
- HORIZ. 1H=5'
-·-
0 VERT.
.
, .. _5' ln
_ ...... 0"1
0'1
rl
II I I I I I I H-t-H·Uf-1-, 1 1 1 1 111---++-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-W-W-W TJ
2 • . ,_.._ r::l2o
lk""'>o>j • H-+
r:.::D H-H++-H+H+
yV
.., A ce·
c:
...
CD
- z
p
...
-
f-'
.. lttt§ PIT ORIENTATION w
----- NSE I i
Ems NATURAL SLOPE 1
i f-'
' 1.0
I (X)
flat I -....I ANGLE
n :I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1- +-H-1--1-+-++--1-4-
'];:
. w
T.O. 14.0' I I I I I I 1-H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +--1---+- e r.e r. -
I MATERIALS DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES COMMENTS -_ \ OE:PTH TYPE: I COLOR I MOISTURE I CONSOLIDATION I ETC. BEDDING JOINTS FAULT or SHEAR -..., 0-7.0' Light brown Clayey CLAY
(A)
7.0-11.0 I Grey-black Silty fine to coarse SAND w/debris, {B) concrete, etc.
I
.1.0-15 ,0 I Black/dark brawn Silty CLAY nodules
(C) NATIVE I
I
I
-
IV "' r- r --4 - - --
m
-
• SCALE 'U C/) "' ,, - .. 8 II . --- -- w.
-
IT
......
ro
-
-a -- . -- 1-- - - HORIZ. , .. _5'
-
,...
-
-t - 1- r - z
... 0 5 . ,... - - - - . - -- VERT. 1"-5' . . i- Ln
G) r- 1- 1- 1- . ·-.. 0'1
... ,_ 0'1
- 1-- -- PIT ORIENTATION w z r-- f- · f- .. L ]. 1-- I &::1:111 - --- :.;- · - - - .. .. . .. M .... 9 - 1- "'\ .,... .. - -f- - - ··r
=- l. -r- ''(_ ) ' - N70W 0'1 - : L. . -- IV Ln
- -I- -·
,... .. - ·- "
"TT - - - .. ·- ·-. cE' - -- -· - - ... . - .. -· -- g. = c: .... - - - ·-- NATURAL SLOPE CD - ,_ 1- lj· f--.' - z 2 degrees \.0 p 00 f- - -...) - f--.' t- 1'-- ANGLE
..... .::0. r- •
r ;o. 15.0 1
-
-
·--· I.OV'IIIE"U-.,.--- PWSLI' ··- , . ,.........---- ------- ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;-... - -, MATERIALS DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES ·_ \ t COMMENTS DEPTH TYPE, COLOR, MOISTURE, CONSOLIDATION, ETC. BEDDING JOINTS FAULT or SHEAR 0- 3.0' r.Edium bro.vn Sanc1y ClAY w/Gravels and small (to 4") (A) debris (wood, brick, cxmcrete)
3.0-6.5' Black/dark brcMTl Silty ClAY (NATIVE)
-
..&
++N tttt 111111 111111 ti I t 111111 II I I I I I 1--H--H+H-+++++ I I I I I I I I I I I I w I -t -l I -1---1--+1-- ·I I I I I I I I I I I I ·1-- CJ) mat -t 0
l:m:ll "0 o::.__._ ..........
t:::::l -
,-u I -t 1- 1-1---H . -1-1-
c::::rl
,-
1-+-H I I I I I I I I I I I I I + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-·· -!-+-1-+-1-1·-1 I I I I I 1-
---"-I I I I j.......j.....;
I I I I I I I r-t tttttHittttt II I Ill I I I I Ill I I I I I I I II ittittti I I I I I I w 1+1+t+n1rT1tltmii 1 1 111111 11 1 1 1 11 111 111 111111111111 1--1 HORIZ. , .. =s· T f' IT
I lA
·- -
_, ___ __, VERT 1"-6'
SCALE t-el
8 u.
(1)
.
0 Ffft G') . .. L ...... - . ·H· r-- - ;:;; - -- 0'\ -t-i+ ...... _ __ r- .. ··,_____ _ 1_ -- r-- - _ .. ':'"--.: PIT ORIENTATION 'f 1-f.- . - . -- f- - - 1-1--- ttj !-+I I I I I I I I I I I I ts- - H -4-l-1- -.J - - - .. l::%:11 ---1-L__._._. ..
-o- I\. ' -
- ,f- f- . . NlSE
,..-,:p ' -n
10'
= c: ; I It I I I i - z
p _ .....
-
... I-'
. V1 Filii I Ill I II II IIJ I U EEIJlTIIIIIIIJ I 111Tl1TTFFfFFI I I I II II II I IIIII Ill I Till I Ill I I I I I ANGLE Flat OOff- T.D. 6.5'
1-'
1.0 00
-..J
'""""' ..... \11"'\'--..1 I I VI'i ,-, t I I I VL.I L..V COMMENTS · " DEPTH TYPE ,COLOR, MOISTURE, CONSOLIDATION, ETC. BEDDING JOINTS FAULT or SHEAR 0-4.0 ' Dark brown Sandy ClAY w/Gravel and brick, asphalt, (A) ron crete (FILL) . .•
' ' 4.0-6.0' Black Silty ClAY (NATIVE)
(B)
I
"-1
-t - t-· " . . - . " "
m 1- SCALE t-el
en 1- - r-- " - - 1- 8 -t -· . "'I- - LJ,
-" - -
""C " - - HORIZ. , .. ,_6' rt c::l - "
,.,. -t " - . I- ·I- z 0 c:::::m 5 , ,_. r- . - " I- " - ·I- /1-'l - - 1- · , "-5' !!11 " -. - !) ' 1- Vl Ci) . --t- 0'\ .. 0'\
. " r-· - PIT ORIENTATION w 2 -.I - M l'il:3 - . - 1-1- . ·t-· .. I- . .. - . .. ...
0 f- r- 1-· - - - 1-
_'!,._ .
.. I- - NlOE co
--- / Ul
t:=s - " - - '?'
-
..
- 1-1- ·-
A [ .., .... 1- ce· - -· 1- - . . .. " ·-·.- - " c:
.., 1- . 1- " NATURAL SLOPE
m - . -1-·- .......
z \.0 - 00
!:l - - Flat -..J ANGLE -
.. . .....
• "' -·
- T.O. 6.0'
- -
- '-'-
MATERIALS DESCRIPTION AI COMMENTS "
DEPTH TYPE I COLOR I MOl STURE I CONSOLI OAT I ON I ETC. BEDDING JOINTS FAULT or SHEAR 0-l.O I Black-grey Silty CLAY
(A} .·
.
-
- ···- ··
0-5.0 ' Medium bro.vn Gravelly Sandy ClAY (srrall debris, lxl' ·-
(B) rrax.)
5. 0-8.0' Black Silty CLAY (w/caliche blebs)
( (')
-
r-.
lJ1 . · I-- . ..... f1- SCALE toO m - -
CIJ 1- 1-· ·- .. 1- - w.
1---- -·- - .. .. - - ..
lSD - - - f-
.......... If '"C - - - - . . - -f- - -·- H--· - HORIZ . 1"=6' t:t::l2 - - J"'W - I- .;.;; f- -I- .... . 1- -- . - -
alll1lll
5 1--.
.
,..... f- - - -+·- >---- , __ . - .. - 1-r- - VERT. 1"-5' Zit 1-· -- lJ1 G) 1-- .. -- - 0'\ -·
. ).to - 1 I--- 0"\ 7 PIT ORIENTATION w 2 1- . " " . - -- ·-,- - - - 1--' . -- 1- -f- . - ;- .. . .. ..........
-f.- - 1--· - - H- - --- - --
'-
\
- I- NlOE 1.0 - - . f.- 1- - N Ln
t:;;>:D - --- - -- --
f- '
. .. ..., - ·- 1--· 1- -I- - /
.. ·- """' - -1--· ... f- .. IA , - - - ... . . . . " cE' - I- -· -· - -· - . . -. 1--· - - --·-- I- ..... g. = ... c: - !- . - -I-· 1- - NATURAL SLOPE CD - ·- .. - - f- - - - · ....... \.0 - z co ? - - Flat -....J - ANGLE
.. t-'
• -..J -
- T.O. 8.0'
MATERIALS DESCRIPTION Ml ' I I VVL.."" COMMENTS
DEPTH TYPE,COLOR,MOISTURE, CONSOLIDATION, ETC. BEDDING JOINTS FAULT or SHEAR ' 0-10.0 1 Light brcMn Sandy SILT and GRAVEL w/debris
(A)
-· -· ··- .
(B) Paved concrete waste
10. 0-12. 5 ' Black Silty CJ.....l0l 1 loose 1 dry
(C)
!
t\.l
0'1 -f -
m 1, SCALE '"d
-- -3 -- __ f- 1- f- -_ .. - j. 'l .. 8.
- - - - f- ·- -- f-
..__..,. "'C - - ·r -- - HORIZ. 1 "-5' rt 1:::111 - .. · f- - r-r-t-t-+-+-++++-+-+-+-+-t ,.. -1 r- "- "\;;. - f- f- - - - -
-r .
,_
- - - -· · - -- - f- VERT. 1"-5'
0 - -- 'i I V1 C> -- - 0'1
_
.... 11 II''\ it. _ - rr 0'1
t-- · ·· -.. PIT ORIENTATION w
2 f- - .. - -- ..
........... 0 - - t-· - -t-+·-t-+++-1-+-+-1-t
f- - ·- f- .. - 0
- 1- - - 1- .. N4 E 1\J
ICBI o - -- -- .\ .. -· r - - '
= - - - - - . .. - .. .... - f- ; __ f- _ _ - r · NATURAL SLOPE ::r t-' - z - 0 00
. ANGLE Flat "
• 00 .
_
T .D. 12.5 1
EL EV. LOGGED BY 1"""'v LOUUt::. -
MATERIALS DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES . COMMENTS
DEPTH TYPE, COLOR, MOISTURE, CONSOLI OAT ION, ETC. BEDDING JOINTS FAULT or SHEAR - -······· ..
- -· .. --- ' ------ -
' ' .
0-0·.5''
--· ··- ...
-
... . . . .. -·· . . ..... . . . . .. . . ·--
{A) ·
-
···. --- --· ···--------- ... ..... . . . -··
·
- f--------··, . .,. ---- - .. ..
0.5-10.0' Medium bro.vn Sandy SILT w/debris, a:mcrete, asphalt, ---· · . --- ----- ---· ----·--
(B) etc. , dry, loose
10 . 0-14.0' Dark brcMn Silty ClRi
(C)
1\.)
-.J -i · -8- ' - !--- II- SCALE "0 m -- J lt :'\ 8 C/) l .. C f-- - L.J, -i .. - - - -- 1- -· - (!) - --- ... - .. ,.... r} .- ....... ""0 - . ' - ' - - - - • f-- -i( - HORIZ. 1 .. _ 6' all --f ,.... 1-1 - - - . - - [31 I
.
,.... r - - - 1\1... -· ·- - - f - ' - VERT. 1"-5' l11 0 .. .... ,_ 0'1 G) , I 0'1
- ---
\
- w
2--
- PIT ORIENTAT ION
..
-
...
-
-- 1- - -·· f-.. -f-- - f- . 1- . - - . ... -- . - ... Ilia 0 - ir 1- -_l. - r--- f- - - f-- .. . rJ - ... 1- -·-. :.;;.. N35E N 00 1- 1--- .. - -- l11 cr. - - -- f.-- -- 1-!} .. :- ' [ - ea; .. - - - :n . - - 1'\. -- --f- H -· -I- - --1- .L ·- - ,_ . ' r- . -- -f-- 1-'""' 1- f--). - . = .., "'" v 1- - · NATURAL SLOPE (I) - -- .. - - - - 1-' U) - z - 00 ? -...) - - ANGLE Flat - ..
. --
-
-
.
-
- T.D. 14.0'
- -- -
Attachment 1
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment geologica
Previous Environmental Investigations
BRIAN F. AUBRY, P.G., C.E.G, C.Hg.
Senior Hydrogeologist
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
Brian Aubry has over 23 years of professional experience with technical responsibility for hydrogeological, geological, and geotechnical engineering tasks on environmental, litigation, redevelopment, and water resources projects in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Mr. Aubry’s expertise is in hazardous waste management, hydrogeological evaluation, and contaminant fate and transport. He is skilled in technical problem solving, regulatory agency negotiation, litigation support and strategy development, communication, and project management. Mr. Aubry is particularly capable in review and evaluation of complex data sets, project scoping, and environmental and water resources projects involving multiple stakeholders. He is broadly experienced in undertaking major CERCLA and RCRA projects for the public and private sector and the DOD, facility closure, and interaction with agencies and PRP groups, as well as projects in the water resources services market.
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
Certified Hydrogeologist, California
Certified Engineering Geologist, California
Registered Geologist, California
Registered Environmental Assessor, California
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Society of Am. Military Engineers
American Geophysical Union
EDUCATION M.S., Geological Sciences, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1984.
B.S., Geology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1978.
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE
• Project Manager for environmental portion of The Gap corporate headquarters construction in waterfront area of downtown San Francisco. Project required site characterization and disposal management of hazardous soil generated during excavation of approximately 80,000 cubic yards for the building parking garage. Duties included development of approach, agency negotiation, and subcontractor management.
• Principal-in-Charge for BART General Environmental Services contract related to system extensions.
The three-year, $3 MM contract included ISA and PSIs for land acquisition; site characterization and remediation; hazardous waste mitigation prior to demolition; construction monitoring; regulatory and health and safety compliance.
• Project Manager on Preliminary Roadway Design and Soil and Groundwater Contamination investigation for a road-widening along Sebastopol Road in Santa Rosa, California. The objective was to provide a preliminary design and assist Sonoma County Community Development Commission make informed decisions regarding financial and regulatory liabilities related to the road widening. • Project Manager for contract with City and County of San Francisco to perform a subsurface contamination assessment along the 3-mile segment of San Francisco Bay waterfront property currently occupied by the Embarcadero automobile/light rail transportation corridor. Approximately 50 borings were drilled to characterize soil and groundwater conditions. Work was conducted during restricted hours.
PRIOR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Dames & Moore 1984 -- 1998
Corporate Officer and Vice President,
Manager, San Francisco Geosciences and Geotechnical Engineering Services Group Built and maintained successful environmental services group through dedication to superior client service, operational growth and expansion, and commitment to staff development. Maintained a loyal group of diverse, motivated, creative, and client-oriented practitioners.
EXPERTISE
♦ Site characterizations for
LUSTs and hazardous waste
sites
♦ Preparation and
implementation of Corrective
Action Plans for cleanup of
contaminated soil and
groundwater
♦ Technical writing
♦ Preparation of proposals and
management of project
budgets
♦ RBCA analysis
♦ Environmental Impact Studies
♦ Remedial Feasibility Studies
♦ Preparation and
implementation of sampling
and chemical analytical
programs
♦ Boring and well installation
♦ Soil gas surveys
♦ Phase I and II Environmental
Site Assessments
♦ Regulatory compliance and
permitting assistance
♦ Geohazards assessment
♦ Facility siting studies
CERTIFICATIONS
State of Nevada – Certified
Environmental Manager, EM-1237
California Registered Geologist,
RG-4633
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, Geology,
University of California, Davis
Master of Science, Geology,
University of Nevada, Reno
Mark Hallee, PG
Senior Project Geologist
PROFILE I am a licensed Professional Geologist in California, and a Nevada Certified Environmental Manager. I
have over 20 years experience in Environmental Consulting.
My experience includes Phase I and II environmental site assessments, pollutant investigations, interpretation of laboratory analytical data, corrective actions at contaminated sites, regulatory compliance and permitting, RBCA
evaluations, RCRA facility investigations, hydrogeologic assessments, NEPA assessments, and geologic hazards
assessment. Clients have included the private sector,
government agencies, and the military.
Much of my workload has involved the preparation of technical documents related to the projects that I managed. I have authored a wide variety of written products for environmental regulatory purposes, including Workplans, Feasibility Studies, Corrective Action Plans, Site Characterization Reports, Groundwater Monitoring Reports, and Receptor Surveys.
Additionally, I have experience in facility siting, Spill Containment, Control, and Countermeasure Plans, NPDES
permitting, Section 404, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans. I have also been responsible for developing and
tracking project budgets, and for proposal preparation.
I have served as Project Manager and Field Supervisor for site activities including surface and subsurface soil sampling, underground storage tank removals, design and installation of groundwater monitoring wells, design and implementation of sampling strategies, soil gas surveys, and remedial system installation.
I have designed and implemented corrective action plans, including excavation of contaminated soils, hydrogen peroxide or ORC™/EHC-O™ injections, DPE pilot tests, air sparging, ozone-sparging, and extraction/treatment of impacted
groundwater.
I have personally completed numerous Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and audits for client due diligence
purposes. Facilities included an ammonium perchlorate
blending plant, produce packaging warehouse, food
commissary, animal testing laboratory, maintenance yards, commercial dry cleaning facility, electrical power plants (coal, biofuel, and natural gas-fired), hospital and medical clinics, automotive repair shops, car dealerships, gas stations, apartment complexes, office buildings, and shopping centers. geologica
220 Fourth Street, Suite 201 www.geologicagroup.com
Oakland, California 94607
Phone: (415) 597-7888
Fax: (888) 858-1382
E-mail: [email protected]
Appendix F:
Phase II – Soil & Groundwater Investigation
geologica
Report
Phase II Soil & Groundwater
Investigation
Pin High Golf Center & 3 Adjacent Parcels
4701 North First Street
San Jose, California 95002
Submitted to:
Terra Hospitality, Inc.
March 17, 2016
Prepared by:
Geologica Inc.
220 4th Street, Suite 201
Oakland, California 94607
Phone: (415) 597-7888
Fax: (888) 858-1382
Innovative Strategies for Managing Environmental Liability GEOLOGICA INC.
220 4th Street, Suite 201 ~ Oakland, California 94607
415.597.7888 telephone ~ 888.858.1382 facsimile
[email protected]
March 17, 2016
Terra Hospitality, Inc.
c/o CBRE
225 W. Santa Clara Street, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Attention: Mr. Jag Kapoor
DRAFT Report
Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation
Pin High Golf Center & 3 Adjacent Parcels
4701 North First Street
San Jose, California
Dear Mr. Kapoor:
GEOLOGICA INC. is pleased to present this Report summarizing recent Phase II Soil & Groundwater sampling and testing at the above-referenced property.
We have enjoyed working with you on this project and appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (415) 597- 7888.
Very truly yours,
GEOLOGICA, INC.
Daniel W. Matthews, P.G.
Associate Hydrogeologist
Brian F. Aubry, P.G., C.E.G., C.Hg.
Principal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Report, Phase I ESA i
Pin High Golf Center, 4701 N. 1st Street, San Jose
1 INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE............................................................................................................1 2 SITE DESCRIPTION & HISTORY ........................................................................................................1
2.1 Site Location and Description .......................................................................................... 1
2.2 Property Summary History ............................................................................................... 2 3 SURFACE & SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................2
3.1 Topography ........................................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Soil Conditions .................................................................................................................. 3
3.3 Surface Water .................................................................................................................... 3
3.4 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................... 4 4 PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................................................................4
4.1 Geotechnical Engineering Reports .................................................................................. 4
4.1.1 USE (1985): Preliminary Soil & Foundation Investigation / Piezometer Installation ............................................................................................................4
4.1.2 Terrasearch (1987): Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation ..................................5
4.1.3 USE (2001): Updated Geotechnical Investigation ..............................................5
4.2 Environmental Investigation reports ............................................................................... 5
4.2.1 E2C (1996): Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment ................................. 6
4.2.2 E2C (2004a): Precursor Summary Phase I Environmental Assessment ..........6
4.2.3 E2C (2004b): Phase II Environmental Site Assessment ....................................6 5 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................... 8
5.1 Initial Soil & Groundwater Testing — January 2016 ....................................................... 8
5.1.1 Preliminary Activities ........................................................................................... 9
5.1.2 Soil and Groundwater “Grab” Sampling Locations ..........................................9
5.1.3 Drilling and Soil Sampling procedures ............................................................... 9
5.1.4 Soil analytical Testing Program ........................................................................ 10
5.1.5 Groundwater “Grab” Sampling Procedures..................................................... 10
5.1.6 Groundwater Analytical Testing Program ........................................................ 11
5.2 Supplemental Soil & Groundwater Testing — February 2016 ..................................... 11
5.2.1 Supplemental Soil Sampling & Testing ............................................................ 11
5.2.2 Supplemental Groundwater Sampling .............................................................. 12 6 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ................................................................... 12
6.1 Soil and Groundwater Conditions .................................................................................. 12
6.1.1 Soils Encountered at the Site ............................................................................ 12
6.1.2 Groundwater Occurrence .................................................................................. 12
6.2 Soil Sampling Analytical Results ................................................................................... 13
6.2.1 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) ............................................................... 13
6.2.2 Pesticides ............................................................................................................ 13
6.2.3 Metals .................................................................................................................. 14
6.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) .................................................................... 14
6.2.5 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ............................................................... 14
6.3 Groundwater Sampling Analytical Results ................................................................... 14 Table of Contents, cont’d.
Report, Phase II Soil and Groundwater Sampling ii
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
6.3.1 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) ............................................................... 15
6.3.2 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ............................................................... 16
6.3.3 Dissolved Metals ................................................................................................ 16 7 SUMMARY & DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 16
7.1 Review of Previous and Current Results ....................................................................... 16
7.2 Soil .................................................................................................................................... 16
7.2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 16
7.2.2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ......................................................................... 17
7.2.3 Metals .................................................................................................................. 17
7.2.4 Other Constituents ............................................................................................. 17
7.2.5 Soil Testing Implications for Redevelopment .................................................. 18
7.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 18
7.3.1 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) ............................................................... 18
7.3.2 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ............................................................... 18 8 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 19 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 21
FIGURES
1 Site Vicinity Map
2 Summary of Previous Soil Sampling Results
3 Summary of Previous Groundwater Sampling Results
4 Summary of Soil Sampling Results
5 Summary of Groundwater “Grab” Sampling Result
TABLES
1 Soil Sampling Analytical Results
2 Groundwater Sampling Analytical Results
APPENDICES
A E2C (2004b) Previous Phase II Investigation
B Laboratory Analytical Testing Reports
Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 1
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
1 INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE
This report presents the results of a Phase II soil and groundwater sampling and testing program conducted by GEOLOGICA, INC. (GEOLOGICA) at the 4701 North First Street properties. The 36- acre property is located in the Alviso section San Jose, California (“subject property” or “site”) and the general location of the property is shown on Figure 1. This testing program was developed based on discussions with Mr. Nick Whitstone of CBRE on behalf of Terra Hospitality, Inc. (Terra Hospitality). This Phase II work was conducted at the request of Mr.
Jag Kapoor of Terra Hospitality, in accordance with our initial proposal for Screening-Level Soil & Groundwater Testing dated November 11, 2015 and a follow-up proposal for Supplemental Soil & Groundwater Sampling and Analysis dated February 8, 2016.
The purpose of the work performed was to develop screening-level soil and groundwater chemical testing data in order to assess current site conditions and to preliminarily assess whether excavated soil and produced groundwater may require special handling and / or disposal during grading and excavation for redevelopment of the property. It is our understanding that the property is to be redeveloped for various commercial / industrial uses; residential occupancy is not being contemplated.
2 SITE DESCRIPTION & HISTORY
The following sections summarize background information regarding the property.
2.1 Site Location and Description
The site comprises approximately 36 acres and is located in the northern (Alviso) area of the city of San Jose, CA (Figure 1). The property is identified by Santa Clara County Assessor’s parcel numbers:
015-39-020 (10.3 acres) referred to herein as “Parcel 020”; 015-39-026 (24.1 acres) referred to herein as “Parcel 026”; 015-39-027 (~0.1 acre) referred to herein as “Parcel 027”; 015-03-012 (0.6 acre) referred to herein as “Parcel 012”; and, 015-03-018 (1.4 acres) referred to herein as “Parcel 018”.
The Pin High Golf Center (4701 N. First Street) occupies the western two-thirds of Parcel 020 and the eastern half of Parcel 026; an recreational vehicle (RV) storage yard occupies the western half of Parcel 026; a Verizon cell phone tower facility occupies Parcel 027; and Parcels 012 and 018 are undeveloped lots at the west end of the property. The elongated, irregularlyshaped site is bounded on the north by North First Street, on the west by Liberty Street, on the Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 2
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
south by Moffat Street and the Guadalupe River channel, and on the east by undeveloped land (Figure 1).
2.2 Property Summary History
The subject property has reportedly been under the same ownership since approximately 1940 to the present time. Various tenants have occupied portions of the property during that time. The subject property was mostly farmland from before 1939 until around 1970. A complex of farm buildings (some of which may date back to before 1899) was located near the middle of Parcel 026 until the late 1960s or early 1970s. There were also several buildings of uncertain use on the south side of Parcel 018 from before 1939 until the late 1960s or early 1970s. One or two inferred homes were present in the northwest corner of Parcel 012 from the early 1950s until the late 1970s. Parcels 012 and 018 subsequently remained vacant until the present.
More recently, Turner Equipment & Grading (Turner) and Excel Landscape (Excel) first occupied their portions of Parcel 026 in the 1980s, and then vacated by about 2009. In the late 1980s to early 1990s, the middle portion of Parcel 026 was being used as a storage yard for trailers, boats, and the like, while the rest of the site was vacant. The latter storage yard was replaced by the Pin High Golf Center in 1993/1994. The existing RV storage yard in the western half of Parcel 026 opened between 1993 and 1996.
Based on anecdotal information, it appears that areas in Alviso in the site vicinity were used historically, to varying degrees, as informal or formal dumping grounds for excess soils and demolition debris. For example, the Syntax Court Waste Disposal site is situated to the west of the property, near the intersection of Highway 237 and North First Street. In addition, the South Bay Asbestos Area is located in the acreage to the east of the site. It has been determined that the subject property is not within the bounds of either the Syntax Court Disposal Site or the South Bay Asbestos Area. In a geotechnical report investigating the site, Terrasearch (1987) noted that this site was previously: “at or below sea level, and the present topography is the result of a continuing program of land fill.” The site elevation has apparently been raised at least in part to reduce the flood hazard. Other site investigations, described in Section 4, indicate that significant amounts of fill material with incorporated concrete and asphalt debris have apparently been placed in areas of the site over the years. The sources of the soils and debris are largely unknown. Fill may have started to be placed in Parcel 020 and in the eastern half of Parcel 026 in the 1960s, about the time when the Guadalupe River was channelized.
Additional fill may have been placed starting in the late 1970s and extending to the late 1980s. 3 SURFACE & SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The following sections summarize the physical setting of the site based on previous work performed at the site by Terrasearch (1987) and USE (2001). These studies are summarized in more detail in Section 4.
Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 3
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
3.1 Topography
The property is located at the north end of the Santa Clara Valley. The property is situated on the coastal plain immediately south of tidal flats that fringe the southern San Francisco Bay.
The topography in this part of San Jose has a very gentle slope to the north. However, the Diablo Range is located only about six miles to the east. Based on review of the U.S.
Geological Survey’s Milpitas topographic quadrangle (USGS, 1980), the natural elevation of the subject property appears to range from about sea level to approximately 5 feet above mean sea level. As noted above in Section 2.2, the site elevation has been raised by the placement of imported fill soils during and prior to the mid-1980s, at least in part, to reduce the flood hazard.
Terrasearch (1987) reported 1 to 10 feet of un-compacted and undocumented fill material across the whole property. The fill material in places contains significant accumulations of concrete and asphalt debris as described in Section 3.2.
3.2 Soil Conditions
The subject site is located on a coastal plain near the tidal flats of the southern San Francisco Bay. Surficial sediments at the site have been classified as Holocene-age levee deposits, consisting of loose, moderate- to well-sorted sandy or clayey silt grading to sandy or silty clay (Helley et al, 1994). The former river channel at the southeast end of the site is mapped as a floodplain deposit (Helley et al, 1994).
As noted above, up to 14 feet of fill materials have been placed on top of native soils at the site.
Terrasearch (1987) reports:
“the entire site is covered with uncompacted fill and rubble ranging from 1 to 10 feet in thickness. Approximately 90% of the rubble consists of non-degradable broken concrete slabs. Beneath the fill, the native soils consist of basically medium stiff sandy silty clays with some local soft pockets.”
USE (2001) noted that there was “a 14 feet thick concrete debris and gravel layer in the southeastern portion of the golf course and the low-lying area.” In a previous geotechnical report for the site, USE (1985) noted that “at the time of our investigation, various organic debris, concrete blocks, and other refuse were being added to extend the fill area still further” to the southeast in Parcel 020. USE (2001) describes native site soils as “stiff silty clay” to a depth of at least 35 feet.
3.3 Surface Water
The nearest significant surface water body is the channelized Guadalupe River, located along the southern border of the golf course (Figure 1). A former incised meander loop of the river is located along (and within) the southeast boundary of the subject site. This former channel segment is isolated from the present-day river channel. The channel segment apparently Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 4
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
intersects the water table and therefore is believed to reflect first groundwater conditions.
Several feet of perennial standing water has been observed.
3.4 Groundwater Conditions
Shallow (First) Groundwater – USE (2001) indicated that groundwater was encountered in soil borings at depths of approximately 14 to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). In contrast, boring logs in USE (1985) indicated that groundwater was encountered at depths in the range of about 7 to 18 feet, with most logs reporting groundwater at 7 to 8 feet bgs. Boring logs by Terrasearch (1987) reported that groundwater was encountered at depths in the range of 5 to 16 feet bgs. Shallow groundwater beneath the site is not a source of drinking water.
Deeper Groundwater – Subsurface data from the adjacent Syntax Court site indicated a deeper groundwater-bearing sandy zone is present at >33 feet bgs (GEOLOGICA, 2015). The deeper zone was found to be physically separated from the shallow groundwater-bearing zone by a 5 to 10-foot thick silt and clay horizon. Analyses of groundwater grab samples indicated that the deeper zone has higher salinity than the shallow groundwater (chloride concentrations up to 8,400 mg/L versus 2,000 mg/L, respectively). This suggests that the deeper zone has been impacted by salt water intrusion from San Francisco Bay.
Groundwater Flow Direction – Although the prevailing groundwater gradient is believed to be northwesterly parallel to the Guadalupe River, and towards San Francisco Bay, monitoring well data from the nearby Syntax Court site to the southeast (Figure 1) indicated that the site flow direction in shallow groundwater appears to have reversed in the last few years to be southeasterly, probably reflecting drought conditions (GEOLOGICA, 2015). 4 PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS
The following sections summarize a number of environmental site assessment and geotechnical reports that have been prepared for the subject property and were provided by the seller.
4.1 Geotechnical Engineering Reports
4.1.1 USE (1985): PRELIMINARY SOIL & FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION / PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION This investigation was conducted to determine the nature of the surface and subsurface soil at the site. The investigation included 13 exploratory test borings, the collection of soil samples for geotechnical and pollutant analyses, and the installation of two piezometers for groundwater “pollutant testing.” The pollutant testing was reportedly conducted by Safety Specialists, Inc.; however, the type of analyses and results are not discussed in this USE report. Soil boring depths ranged from 17½ feet to 40 feet bgs. USE found that “varying amounts of fill and refuse currently exist on the site. The thickness of this fill material varies throughout the site.” The fill thickness ranged from 5 to 12½ feet, and was generally thicker towards the south. USE reported Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 5
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
that “at the time of our investigation, various organic debris, concrete blocks, and other refuse were being added to extend the fill area still further.” Groundwater depth varied from 7 to 18 feet bgs among the borings. Piezometer borings, located on Parcel 020 and Parcel 026, were drilled to a depth of 23 feet bgs. USE was requested to close these piezometers in 1989. There is no regulatory file evidence that the piezometers were properly abandoned / closed under permit.
4.1.2 TERRASEARCH (1987): GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION This investigation, performed on former APN 015-39-016 (later re-parceled to 015-39-026 and 027) and Parcel 020, was for a proposed development of a mobile home park. The fieldwork included 7 borings and 11 backhoe test pits to collect soil samples for geotechnical testing. The depth to groundwater reported in the Terrasearch boring logs ranged from 5 to 16 ft bgs.
Terrasearch (1987) noted that this site was previously “at or below sea level, and the present topography is the result of a continuing program of landfill.” The Terrasearch report concluded that “the entire site is covered with uncompacted fill and rubble ranging from 1 to 10 feet in thickness. Approximately 90% of the rubble consists of non-degradable broken concrete slabs.”
4.1.3 USE (2001): UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
At the time of this field investigation, the site was described as “an irregular-shaped, relatively flat parcel of land with scattered drainage channels located around the boundary of the site. An existing golf course and low-lying area occupied the eastern portion of the site. The central portion of the site was occupied by an RV storage yard…The northern section of the property was a vacant parcel of land. Due to the operation of the golf course, during our previous investigation we could not gain access to the golf course and low-lying area adjacent to it.
However, during this updated investigation access to the above-mentioned area was available.” The fieldwork consisted of 7 soil borings completed to depths ranging from 7 to 35 feet bgs.
Groundwater was encountered in three of the borings at a depth of 15-16 feet bgs. USE (2001) noted that there was “a 14 feet thick concrete debris and gravel layer in the southeastern portion of the golf course and the low-lying area.” Figure 2 of the USE report shows that the concrete-laden fill underlies the entire southern half of the golf course and the western half of Parcel 020.
4.2 Environmental Investigation reports
The following sections summarize previous environmental studies. One study (E2C, 2004b) summarized below in Section 4.2.4 included relevant soil and groundwater testing. Soil and groundwater analytical results of the E2C (2004b) Phase II investigation are summarized in Tables A-1 through A-4 in Appendix A. Key portions of the E2C (2004b) report, including report text and figures, are also reproduced in Appendix A. Soil sample locations and results from the vacant parcels are shown on Figure 2a and the Turner Equipment and Pin High Maintenance Area are shown on Figure 2b. Groundwater sampling locations and analytical results are shown in Figure 3.
Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 6
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
4.2.1 E2C (1996): PHASE I & II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT This assessment was performed for the entire subject site. At the time of the study, land use at the site was the same as current usage, except for a small section of Parcel 026 located on the south side of Moffat Street, at the east end of that street [currently vacant]. Two businesses leased that portion of the parcel: Turner Equipment & Grading and Excel Landscape. Excel was reported to have a 55-gallon drum, several partially full 5-gallon containers of used oil and coolant, and vehicle batteries stored on a wooden pallet. The premises of Turner were recorded as being relatively clean, but the ground surface was stained with petroleum products in several areas. E2C (1996) attributed the staining to leakage from vehicles. During their site inspection, E2C observed “numerous mounds of temporarily-stored soils” on Parcels 012 and 018. The maintenance area at Pin High was noted to have an aboveground 500-gallon gasoline tank. E2C reported that all areas at Pin High were very clean and well maintained. Additionally, asbestos testing was conducted at 15 locations to evaluate for asbestos in the onsite fill. Sampling locations were not identified, but did not include the Turner and Excel premises. The laboratory analyses did not detect the presence of asbestos in any of the samples. E2C concluded that was no adverse environmental impact from past and present activity on the subject site.
4.2.2 E2C (2004A): PRECURSOR SUMMARY PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This study included Parcels 026, 027, and an adjacent property located on the south side of Moffat Street at Liberty Street. The environmental assessment was mainly comprised of a site inspection for each lessee along with photographs. E2C (2004a) identified the following concerns: 1) significant oil staining near the automotive lift and the waste oil basin at Turner Excavation, 2) a 55-gallon diesel tank at Pin High Maintenance Area that was in noncompliance due to the absence of secondary containment and inadequate support from its steel frame mount, 3) a 150-gallon aboveground diesel tank and battery acid associated with an emergency generator at the Verizon Wireless cell tower facility, and 4) unlabeled waste drums at Excel Landscape. E2C (2004a) recommended Phase II soil sampling at Turner and Pin High to assess possible environmental impacts.
4.2.3 E2C (2004B): PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT This Phase II investigation was conducted as a follow-up to the Precursor Phase I Assessment (E2C, 2004a) to evaluate for potential contamination at three target areas: the Pin High Maintenance Area, Turner Equipment & Grading, and the vacant Parcels 012 and 018. E2C’s investigation included a second phase of “step out” soil sampling after chemicals of concern (COCs) were identified during the first phase. Over 80 soil samples were analyzed by E2C (2004b). Soil and groundwater analytical results of the E2C (2004b) Phase II investigation are summarized in Tables A-1 through A-4 in Appendix A. Key portions of the E2C (2004b) report, including report text and figures, are also reproduced in Appendix A. Depending on the location, soil samples were analyzed for:
Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 7
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel & motor oil Total Oil & Grease (TOG)
Metals
Pesticides
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
Grab groundwater samples were collected for testing from each of the three target areas.
Results - The soil analytical data indicated the presence of TPH as diesel, TPH as motor oil (TPH-d, TPH-mo) or TOG at locations in all three target areas. Heavy metals such as arsenic, selenium, thallium, and mercury were noted at Turner Equipment and the vacant parcels. Traces of some pesticides and PCBs were noted within the vacant parcels. No VOCs were detected in any of the samples. Chemicals of concern were not detected in the three grab groundwater samples. Laboratory reports showing the results of PCB and pesticide analysis were not included in the report and were only summarized in their data tables as being non-detect.
Based on our review of the laboratory reports in E2C’s Appendix A, the E2C (2004b) summary data tables omitted many of the test results. Soil and groundwater analytical results of E2C’s Phase II investigation are summarized in Table A-1 through A-4 in Appendix A. Soil sample locations and results from the vacant parcels are shown on Figure 2a and the Turner and Pin High Maintenance Area are shown on Figure 2b. Groundwater sampling locations and analytical results are shown in Figure 3.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - TPH-d was detected in 18 soil samples from the Pin High Maintenance Area at concentrations ranging from 1.7 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 716 mg/kg. TPH-mo was detected at concentrations of up to 1,250 mg/kg.
TPH-d was detected in seven soil samples from Turner Equipment at concentrations in the range of 10-115 mg/kg. TOG was also detected in two samples from Turner Equipment at concentrations of 110 mg/kg and 4,700 mg/kg. Numerous samples from the vacant parcels contained TPH-d (0.6-985 mg/kg) and TPH-mo (1-1,748 mg/kg). Metals - Arsenic was detected in numerous samples from Turner Equipment at concentrations in the range of 6.7-33 mg/kg. Arsenic was detected in numerous samples from the vacant parcels in the range of 6.8-155 mg/kg, with most samples reporting less than 20 mg/kg. Background concentrations of arsenic in the Bay Area usually range up to about 15 mg/kg. Selenium was detected in three samples from Turner Equipment at concentrations in the range of 7.9-11 mg/kg. Selenium was detected in five samples from the vacant parcels at concentrations in the range of 8.5-13 mg/kg. Thallium was Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 8
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
detected in one sample from Turner Equipment at a concentration of 11.3 mg/kg.
Thallium was detected in six samples from the vacant parcels in the range of 5.2-17 mg/kg. Mercury was detected in eight samples from Turner Equipment at concentrations of 0.074 - 4 mg/kg. Mercury was detected in numerous samples from the vacant parcels at concentrations in the range of 0.055-18 mg/kg, with all but two samples less than 10 mg/kg.
E2C (2004b) Summary & Recommendations - Based on environmental sampling and analysis conducted in June and August, 2004 by E2C (2004b), concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, pesticides, and PCBs appeared to be present at concentrations greater than Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) established at that time by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
E2C (2004b) outlined three areas where soils should be excavated and removed for proper disposal. Areas outlined for removal are shown in the E2C (2004b) report figures reproduced in Appendix A of this report. However, based on GEOLOGICA’S recent discussion with James Rees, a representative of the property owner, this remedial work was never conducted. Mr.
Rees indicated that it was expected that remediation, if necessary, would be conducted at the time of site redevelopment.
4.2.4 OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Recent environmental sampling and analysis has independently identified a groundwater VOC plume on the adjacent property, the 237 @ North First Street Development Project, located to the southeast of the subject property (GEOLOGICA, 2015). Investigation work conducted on the 237 @ North First Street Development Site indicates that northwesterly groundwater gradients towards the subject property may have occurred in the past. Low levels of several VOCs have been detected in groundwater near the southeastern property boundary of the Pin High facility, suggesting that low levels of VOCs may have migrated onto the subject property. 5 SCOPE OF WORK
GEOLOGICA conducted field work in two phases, with an initial phase of work conducted in January 2016. Results of the initial field work motivated a follow-on, supplemental scope of work in February 2016. The scope of work conducted and sampling and analysis procedures are described in sections below. Sampling results are presented in Section 6.
5.1 Initial Soil & Groundwater Testing — January 2016
GEOLOGICA performed the initial field investigation as described in the Screening-Level Soil and Groundwater Testing Proposal, dated November 11, 2015. The sampling program was designed to confirm results from the E2C (2004b) Phase II assessment and evaluate current soil and groundwater conditions on the property, as well as to assess whether excavated soil and Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 9
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
produced groundwater may require special handling and / or disposal during grading and excavation for redevelopment of the property.
5.1.1 PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES
Prior to performing any field activities, GEOLOGICA coordinated with on-site personnel, obtained necessary permits / access, marked soil boring locations and notified Underground Services Alert (USA) to identify utilities approaching the site. Drilling at the site did not require a drilling permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. A private utility locating service, under subcontract to GEOLOGICA, cleared the individual borehole locations of onsite utilities.
5.1.2 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER “GRAB” SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Eleven soil and groundwater sample borings (GP-1 to GP-11) were completed and sampled across the subject property, as follows:
GP-1 through GP-4 were on the Pin High Golf Center property. GP-5 and GP-6 were in Pin High Maintenance Area.
GP-7 and GP-8 were within the former Turner and Excel property. GP-9 was within the RV Lot.
GP-10 and GP-11 were located on the vacant Parcels 12 and 18.
The soil and groundwater borings were installed and sampled on January 21 and 22, 2016. Soil and groundwater boring locations are shown on Figures 4 and 5.
5.1.3 DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The soil borings were completed using a Geoprobe® track rig operated by Cascade Drilling (Cascade) of Richmond, California. Cascade utilized the Geoprobe® brand, Dual Tube Sampling System to collect continuous soil cores and to install temporary groundwater monitoring wells to facilitate collection of “grab” groundwater samples. The Dual Tube Sampling System uses two concentric sets of probe rods. Each boring was advanced by hydraulically hammering the outer 2½-inch diameter (OD) probe rod into the ground as an outer casing. The second, smaller set of probe rods was sized to fit inside the outer casing and was advanced with the outer casing. The smaller diameter probe rods hold acetate soil sample collection liners in place as the outer casing is driven in 4-foot increments from the ground surface to bottom depths that ranged between 16 and 24 feet bgs. After advancing the Dual Tube casing 4 feet, the inner probe rod is retracted to retrieve the soil filled liner. The outer casing remains in place as the boring is advanced to reduce cross contamination between different soil intervals. All of the borings were continuously cored to observe and document Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 10
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
soil conditions and assess for the presence of groundwater. Borings were backfilled and abandoned on the day they were completed.
Observations regarding soil characteristics at the boring locations were recorded in a field notebook. Soil samples were screened in the field using a hand held photoionization detector (PID) to screen for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons.
To collect soil samples, the acetate liner was cut to the selected interval and capped with Teflon tape. Soil samples were collected from sample intervals exhibiting visual or olfactory indications of contamination and/or at approximately every 4 feet bgs where possible. Soil sampled were stored on ice and transferred to the analytical laboratory following EPA chain-ofcustody (COC) procedures.
5.1.4 SOIL ANALYTICAL TESTING PROGRAM
The soil samples were analyzed by Test America, a California-certified analytical laboratory. Samples were tested for:
TPH-gasoline & VOCs by EPA Method 8260B,
TPH-d and TPH-mo by EPA Method 8015M; and,
CAM 17 metals by EPA Methods 6010/7470.
Selected samples were also tested for:
Organochlorine pesticides by EPA Method 8081A; and,
PCBs by 8082.
Samples for TPH-d/mo analysis were processed with silica gel cleanup. The silica gel cleanup step is intended to remove natural organic carbon that could result in a false positive detection of petroleum when decaying vegetation or other non-petroleum materials are present.
All sample results were reported on a dry weight basis.
5.1.5 GROUNDWATER “GRAB” SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Groundwater “grab” samples were collected from borings GP-1, GP-2, GP-3, GP-6, GP7, and GP-10. Samples were collected after completing soil sampling and removing the inner probe rod from the Dual Tube casing string. Temporary wells were constructed with clean, 3/4- inch diameter (OD) PVC casing and 10 feet of slotted PVC screen set inside the outer probe casing to the bottom of the boring. After setting the PVC well casing, the outer probe rod was carefully retracted to a height of 1 to 2 feet above the temporary well screen to allow groundwater to enter the boring. Groundwater samples were collected using a peristaltic pump Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 11
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
with dedicated tubing to fill laboratory-supplied sample containers. Samples were stored on ice and transferred to the analytical laboratory following EPA COC procedures.
5.1.6 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL TESTING PROGRAM
The six groundwater “grab” samples were analyzed for:
TPH-gas and VOCs by EPA Method 8260B.
TPH-d and TPH-mo by EPA Method 8015M;
Dissolved CAM 17 metals by EPA Methods 6010/7470;
Samples for TPH analysis were processed with silica gel cleanup to remove natural organic carbon. Samples collected for metals analysis were filtered and preserved by the analytical laboratory.
5.2 Supplemental Soil & Groundwater Testing — February 2016 Based on results of the initial January 2016 sampling program, GEOLOGICA recommended supplemental soil and groundwater sampling to further assess site conditions.
The proposal included “step-out” sampling in borings in the vicinity of GP-2 due to elevated detections of TPH-d and TPH-mo. Soil boring locations are shown on Figure 4 and 5.
5.2.1 SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL SAMPLING & TESTING
On February 23, 2016, GEOLOGICA oversaw the advancement of five additional soil borings to collect additional soil and groundwater samples in the vicinity of boring GP-2 as follows:
Four “step-out” boring (GP-2-N, GP-2-S GP-2-E, and GP-2-W) were placed 50 ft to the north, south, east, and west of GP-2.
An additional step-out boring (GP-2-E2) was located 150 ft east of GP-2.
The total depths of the soil borings ranged from 20 to 28 ft bgs. Soil borings were advanced using the same procedures and drilling techniques as described in Section 5.1. Soil samples were collected at 4, 8, 12 ft bgs. Soil samples were submitted to Test America and analyzed for:
TPH-d and TPH-mo by EPA Method 8015M with silica gel cleanup.
In addition, several archived soil samples from the January 2016 sampling program were tested by Curtis and Tompkins Laboratory of Berkeley, CA. Soil samples were analyzed as follows:
Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 12
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
Soil samples GP-2-3.5-4', GP-3-3.5-4', GP-4-3.5-4', GP-5-4.5-5', GP-7-3.5-4', GP-9-4.5- 5', and GP-11-3.5-4' were tested for chlorinated pesticides by EPA Method 8081A. Soil samples GP-1-11.5-12’ and GP-2-11.5-12’ were tested for TPH-d and TPH-mo by EPA Method 8015M.
Soil samples GP-2-11.5-12’, GP-5-11.5-12’, and GP-6-11.5-12’ were tested for nickel, zinc, and lead, respectively by EPA Method 6010.
Samples for TPH analysis were processed with silica gel cleanup. All sample results were reported on a dry weight basis.
5.2.2 SUPPLEMENTAL GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
GEOLOGICA collected groundwater samples from each of the 5 supplemental soil borings using the same sampling techniques described above. Groundwater samples were submitted to Test America and analyzed for:
TPH-d and TPH-mo by EPA Method 8015M with silica gel cleanup. 6 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The following sections summarize the results from the January and February 2016 sampling events at the subject property.
6.1 Soil and Groundwater Conditions
6.1.1 SOILS ENCOUNTERED AT THE SITE
Based on borings advanced for the current study to depths varying from 16 to 24 ft below ground surface (bgs), the site is immediately underlain by non-engineered fill material comprising clayey sands and sandy clays. Occasional concrete and asphalt fragements were noted in the fill material, but drilling refusal did not occur.
6.1.2 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE
Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 10 to 14 feet bgs at the Site in January and February 2016. The boring locations were not surveyed so a site specific groundwater flow direction could not be determined. Generally northwesterly flow towards the Guadalupe River and San Francisco bay is expected. However, recent drought conditions may have resulted in temporary variations in flow directions.
Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 13
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
6.2 Soil Sampling Analytical Results
Soil analytical results are summarized in Table 1, presented on Figure 4, and discussed below. To provide a context with which to evaluate the significance of the results, the soil analytical results were compared to the February 2016 RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for commercial/industrial Direct Exposure and Soil to Groundwater Leaching as shown on Table 1.
6.2.1 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (TPH)
No TPH as gasoline was detected. However, TPH-d and TPH-mo were detected in one or more soil samples from every boring, as follows:
Pin High Golf Center (GP-1 to GP-4) - TPH-d was detected at concentrations up to 1,400 mg/kg while TPH-mo was detected up to 4,800 mg/kg. The highest concentration of both TPH-d and TPH-mo were reported in soil boring GP-2. The most elevated detections were in the 7.5-8 ft depth and, to a lesser extent, in the 3.5-4 ft depth. TPH-d was detected in the four step-out borings (GP-2-E, GP-2-E2, GP-2-W, GP-2-N, and GPS) at concentrations ranging from 1.4 to 610 mg/kg; TPH-mo was detected in the stepout boring soil samples at concentrations ranging from 230 to 1,900 mg/kg. Pin High Maintenance Yard (GP-5 and GP-6) - TPH-d was detected at concentrations up to 46 mg/kg while TPH-mo was detected up to 90 mg/kg.
Turner & Excel Yard (GP-7 and GP-8) - TPH-d was detected at concentrations up to 21 mg/kg while TPH-mo was detected up to 110 mg/kg.
RV Yard (GP-9) - TPH-d was detected at concentrations up to 56 mg/kg while TPH-mo was detected up to 240 mg/kg.
Vacant Lots (GP-10 and GP-11) - TPH-d was detected at concentrations up to 400 mg/kg while TPH-mo was detected up to 2,100 mg/kg.
The RWQCB has established ESLs for Direct Exposure of 1,200 mg/kg and 140,000 mg/kg for TPH-d and TPH-mo, respectively. Only one sample, GP-2-7.5-8’, had a TPH-d detection greater than the Direct Exposure ESL of 1,200 mg/kg. TPH-d was not reported at concentrations greater than the Soil to Groundwater Leaching ESL of 3,600 mg/kg. None of the reported TPH-mo concentrations exceeded the Direct Exposure ESL of 140,000 mg/kg.
6.2.2 PESTICIDES
The pesticides 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT, alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, and dieldrin were detected at generally low concentrations in one or more samples from soil borings GP-1, GP-5, GP-6, GP-8. Dieldrin was reported at concentrations above its Soil to Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 14
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
Groundwater Leaching ESL as follows: GP-1-7.5-8’ (6.4 ug/kg); GP-6-3.5-4’ (11 ug/kg), and GP-6-7.5-8’ (4.1 ug/kg), but below its Commercial/Industrial Direct Exposure ESL of 170 ug/kg in all cases. No other pesticides were detected at concentrations greater than their respective ESLs.
6.2.3 METALS
Several metals were detected in soil at concentrations exceeding their respective ESLs:
Arsenic - Arsenic was detected in numerous soil samples at concentrations in the range of 1 to 44 mg/kg, with most samples reporting less than 20 mg/kg. Background concentrations for arsenic usually range up to about 15 mg/kg. Thus, arsenic concentrations likely in excess of background were detected in several samples: GP-8-
3.5-4’ (44 mg/kg); GP-9-4.-5’ (17 mg/kg).
Lead – Lead was detected in several samples including GP-5-4.5-5’ (210 mg/kg), GP-5-
7.5-8’ (290 mg/kg), GP-6-7.5-8’ (710 mg/kg), GP-8-3.5-4’ (130 mg/kg). Only the lead concentration of 710 mg/kg in sample GP-6-7.5-8’ exceeded the Commercial / Industrial Direct Exposure ESL of 320 mg/kg.
Beryllium and Cadmium – Beryllium and cadmium were detected in a number of samples at concentrations above their respective Commercial / Industrial Direct Exposure ESLs of 0.39 and 0.058 mg/kg. The concentrations of beryllium and cadmium found at the site are consistent with natural background concentrations for these metals in Bay Area soils.
6.2.4 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS)
The PCB-1260 was detected in only one soil sample, GP-6-7.5-8’, at a concentration of 130 ug/kg, which is below the ESLs for PCBs. No other PCBs were reported in any soil sample tested.
6.2.5 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS)
Acetone was the only VOC reported in any of the soil samples. It was detected at a concentration of 110 ug/kg for soil sample GP-1-7.5-8’. No other VOCs were reported above laboratory detection limits.
6.3 Groundwater Sampling Analytical Results
Recent groundwater analytical results are summarized in Table 2 and discussed below.
The distribution of analtyes detected in groundwater is schematically illustrated on Figure 5.
To provide a context with which to evaluate the significance of the results, the groundwater analytical results were compared to the February 2016 RWQCB Environmental Screening Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 15
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
Levels (ESLs) for protection of Aquatic Habitat and evaluation of Vapor Intrusion concerns. as shown on Table 2. Table 2 also lists the RWQCB Drinking Water ESLs for analytes for which these criteria have been established. However, due its proximity to San Francisco Bay, shallow groundwater at the site is unlikely to be used for drinking water purposes due to naturally elevated salinity.
6.3.1 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (TPH)
No TPH as gasoline was detected. However, TPH-d and TPH-mo were detected in all but two of the groundwater samples, as follows:
Pin High Golf Center (GP-1, GP-2 series, GP-3) - TPH-mo and/or TPH-d were reported in groundwater samples from borings GP-2 (including step-out borings GP-2-N, GP-2-S, GP-2-E, GP-2-E2) and GP-3. Maximum TPH-d concentrations ranged up to 1,900 ug/l. while TPH-mo ranged up to 10,000 ug/L, both in boring GP-2. Concentrations of both TPH-d and TPH-mo diminished with distance from GP-2. Numerous detected concentrations of TPH-mo exceeded the applicable ESLs1. TPH-mo and TPH-d was not reported above detection limits in the groundwater samples from GP-1 and GP-2-W. Pin High Maintenance Yard (GP-6) - TPH-d was detected at 84 ug/l while TPH-mo was detected at 120 ug/l.
Turner & Excel Yard (GP-7) - TPH-d was detected at 65 ug/l while TPH-mo was detected at 350 ug/l.
Vacant Lot (GP-10) - TPH-d was detected at 150 ug/l while TPH-mo was detected at 390 ug/l.
The RWQCB has established ESLs for TPH-d of 640 ug/l for Aquatic Habitat protection. The RWQCB has not established a groundwater ESL for Vapor Intrusion concerns for TPH-d. The RWQCB declined to establish ESLs for TPH-mo in groundwater in the most recent (February, 2016) update. Only the groundwater “grab” sample from boring GP-2 had a TPH-d detection greater than the Aquatic Habitat ESL. The TPH-mo detection in boring GP-2- N at 1,100 ug/l may raise the effective TPH-d concentration in groundwater at that location above the Aquatic Habitat ESL.
1 As of 2016, the RWQCB has updated the ESL for TPH-mo, noting that “TPH motor oil is not soluble. TPH motor oil detections in water most likely are petroleum degradates or less likely, NAPL. If the detections are degradates, add TPH motor oil and TPH diesel results and compare to TPH diesel criterion." Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 16
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
6.3.2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS)
Several VOCs were reported at generally low concentrations in groundwater “grab” samples collected at the site in January 2016 as discussed below. Chlorinated VOCs - The VOCs 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) and vinyl chloride (VC) were detected in the groundwater sample from GP-2 at 18 ug/l and 0.69, respectively, which exceed the applicable ESLs. Several other VOCs were detected in GP-2 at concentrations below applicable ESLs including 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), cis-1,2- dichloroethene (cis-DCE), 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA), and 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2- trifluoroethane. No VOCs were reported above detection levels in groundwater samples from borings GP-1 and GP-10.
Benzene and Other Compounds - Benzene was detected in groundwater samples from borings GP-3 and GP-6 at concentrations of 6.5 and 0.73 ug/L, respectively, which exceed the drinking water ESL, but are below the Aquatic Habitat and Vapor Intrusion ESLs for that constituent. MTBE was detected in GP-7 at 1.6 ug/l.
6.3.3 DISSOLVED METALS
Groundwater samples from all borings, except GP-7, indicated detections of cobalt and nickel above the groundwater Aquatic Habitat ESL. Given the consistent detections, it is likely that the detections represent background. Mercury was detected in groundwater “grab” samples from borings GP-1, GP-7, and GP-10 at concentrations slightly above its Aquatic Habitat ESL of 0.000051 ug/l. No other metals were detected above their respective ESLs. 7 SUMMARY & DISCUSSION
7.1 Review of Previous and Current Results
The purpose of the current Phase II investigations was to evaluate site soil and groundwater quality to provide data to assess current site conditions and possible remedial actions and / or development issues associated with the property. Current results are discussed below along with those constituents previously detected in the E2C (2004b) environmental study.
7.2 Soil
7.2.1 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS RESULTS
Testing results indicate that low levels of soil contamination by TPH-diesel and TPH-motor oil and various metals are broadly present across the property in shallow soils above the water table. PCBs and pesticides are present sporadically in some areas. Detections seem to be in most cases related to residual contamination present within the fill material placed at the property in the past (see Section 3.2), though impacts from site releases may also have occurred.
Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 17
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
As noted in Section 4.2, E2C (2004b) previously recommended limited remedial soil excavation in several specific areas: the vacant lot property at the western portion of the property, the former Excel Landscape/ Turner Equipment Property, and the Pin High Maintenance Yard.
E2C (2004b) cited elevated TPH concentrations in soil at all three locations as motivation for the recommended remedial excavations along with elevated concentrations of arsenic, selenium, thallium, and mercury on the parcel used by Turner Equipment & Grading and the vacant lot as well as elevated concentrations of pesticides and PCBs in the vacant lot.
7.2.2 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
Soil testing data from the current study (see Figure 3), as well as the previous study by E2C (2004b) shown on Figures 2a and 2b, indicate that low levels of TPH as diesel and TPH as motor oil are broadly present in shallow soils across the property. Most of the detections are below 1,200 mg/kg, the Direct Exposure ESL for TPH as diesel. Only one TPH-d detection, the TPH-d concentration of 1,400 mg/kg in sample GP-2-7.5-8’, exceeds the Direct Exposure ESL of 1,200 mg/kg. Lower TPH-d concentrations were found in step-out borings completed around the GP-2 location indicating that the area with elevated TPH-d concentrations in soil is limited in extent. None of the concentrations of TPH-d or TPH-mo reported in the E2C (2004b) environmental study exceed current Direct Exposure or Soil to Groundwater Leaching ESLs.
7.2.3 METALS
Several metals were detected in the current study and E2C (2004b) at concentrations potentially in excess of background at concentrations that exceed the applicable 2016 RWQCB ESLs. Key metals include: arsenic (up to 155 mg/kg), lead (in one location at 710 mg/kg) and thallium (in one location at 17 mg/kg). The widespread detections of metals in soil suggest that the elevated metals concentrations are associated with fill placed at the site rather than a point source(s). In addition, some of the detected metal concentrations in soil suggest that hazardous waste classification disposal criteria may be exceeded should the soil be excavated. Key metals for this include: chromium, lead, and nickel.
7.2.4 PCBS
E2C (2004b) reported PCB detections in several soil samples collected on the vacant lot at concentrations above the current Direct Exposure ESL of 1 mg/kg. PCBs were not reported in soil samples from boring GP-10 completed in that area in the current study. Only one PCB detection was reported in the current study: boring GP-6 at a concentration of 130 ug/kg, well below the Direct Exposure ESL. The previous E2C (2004b) detections appear highly limited in extent and sporadic. However, PCB contamination is regulated by the US EPA, rather than the state level, and it is possible that soil removal may be required, as suggested by E2C (2004b).
Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 18
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
7.2.5 OTHER CONSTITUENTS
Limited detections of several other constituents including pesticides, particularly dieldrin, were reported in the recent and previous investigations. It is noteworthy that no VOCs except acetone were detected in soils.
7.2.6 SOIL TESTING IMPLICATIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT
Given future use plans, these detections are not expected to represent significant obstacles to redevelop the property for the intended commercial / industrial use. However, spot removals may be appropriate during redevelopment grading in some key areas including those identified by E2C (2004b), as well as the area of TPH-impacted soil around boring GP-2. In addition, any excess soils to be removed from the property will require testing for appropriate disposal at a designated facility under a site-specific Soil Management Plan (SMP). Based on the test results, we expect that most soils will be appropriate for disposal at a Class II facility. However, some soils may classify as hazardous waste, based on lead content or other constituents, and thus require disposal at a Class I facility.
7.3 Groundwater
Groundwater detections appear to divide into those potentially sourced on-site and those related to the potential encroachment of the leading edge of a known groundwater VOC plume sourced off-site on the adjacent property to the southeast (see Section 4.2.4). These are discussed below.
7.3.1 TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (TPH)
As with soil, low levels (less than 640 ug/l, the Aquatic Habitat ESL) of TPH as diesel and motor oil were broadly detected in groundwater samples collected across the property.
Given the consistency of the detections across the property, these are likely sourced within the soil fill materials historically placed at the site. RWQCB 2016 ESLs are occasionally exceeded.
One “hot spot” area, GP-2, with elevated concentrations of TPH-d (1,900 mg/l) and TPH-mo (10,000 mg/l), was noted in the western portion of the golf course area. Follow-up step-out borings suggest this is an isolated “hot spot” and that concentrations decline in all directions away from GP-2. The GP-2 boring was the only location where TPH was found at concentrations greater than the Aquatic Habitat ESL.
7.3.2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS)
Volatile organic compounds were generally not detected in groundwater samples collected at the site. However, low levels of several chlorinated VOCs were detected in GP-2.
These included 1,1-DCE, VC, and several others as described in Section 6.3.2. The up-gradient property immediately to the southeast is the 237 @ First St Development Project, discussed in Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 19
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
Section 4.2.4. The southeastern-most corner of that property comprises the Syntax Ct Disposal Site (SCDS); a source of chlorinated VOCs to groundwater was identified within that disposal site. Groundwater impacts and associated remediation and monitoring are currently occurring on that property under the oversight of the RWQCB. The northwestern extent of the SCDS groundwater VOC plume has been tracked to the northwestern corner of the 237 @ First St Development project property, adjacent to the Pin High Golf Center property. Based on the types of VOCs detected in the groundwater “grab” sample collected from boring GP-2, the SCDS groundwater VOC plume appears to extend onto the subject property as far as the GP-2 boring location, but has not reached the vicinity of borings GP-1 or GP-3 on the subject property. A groundwater monitoring program is in place at the 237 @ First St Property. Given the low VOC concentrations observed on the subject property and the fact that remediation and monitoring are underway on the adjacent property under RWQCB oversight, no further assessment is considered warranted for the VOCs observed in the January 2016 sampling program.
8 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
As noted in the current work and in previous work by E2C (2004b) for the current owner, exceedances of the 2016 RWQCB ESLs have been noted at various locations across the site. In most cases, these exceedances appear related to historic fill placed over the entire property though in some cases these could be related to releases from operations conducted on site (e.g., Pin High Maintenance Yard, Turner Equipment, former agricultural use, etc.). These detections should not preclude commercial / industrial development of the property as intended. However, several future actions are recommended:
Limited Remedial Excavation - As suggested by E2C (2004b), it may be appropriate to conduct limited soil excavation in areas of elevated TPH concentrations such as the GP2 area and apparently isolated areas with elevated lead, thallium, and/or PCB detections such as the Pin High Maintenance Yard, the former Turner Equipment / Excel Landscaping lot, and the western vacant lot. Based on the RWQCB 2016 ESLs, it is possible that not all the areas suggested by E2C (2004b) may require remedial action. It is expected that, if necessary, this work could be done in concert with grading for site development.
Soil Management Plan - Since unknown or uninvestigated areas of the site may contain elevated TPH, metals, or other constituents, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) should be developed to provide guidelines for site grading to address soil stockpile management, soil testing/waste classification for off-site disposal, dust control, storm-water management, worker safety, etc. As noted earlier, any excess soils to be removed from the property will require testing for appropriate disposal at a designated facility under the site-specific Soil Management Plan (SMP). Based on the test results, we expect that most soils will be appropriate for disposal at a Class II facility. However, some soils may Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 20
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
classify as hazardous waste, based on lead content or other constituents, and thus require disposal at a Class I facility.
Possible PCB Presence – The potential presence of PCBs in shallow soil may represent a specific concern. Even if remedial soil excavation is undertaken, the sporadic low-level detection of PCBs in shallow soil in the westernmost vacant lots in excess of the Direct Exposure ESL may be a concern to the RWQCB and US EPA, the latter of which regulates PCB contamination. In particular, the US EPA has expressed increased concern with respect to PCBs in storm-water discharging to San Francisco Bay. Due to the detection of PCBs in soil on the property by E2C (2004b), additional control measures may be warranted to manage storm-water discharges to surface water during construction. These would be captured in the site-specific Soil Management Plan (SMP). Agency Oversight - Request oversight by San Francisco RWQCB for environmental issues associated with site redevelopment; the RWQCB has oversight responsibility at the adjacent property to the southeast. This will serve to document agency concurrence that issues at the property have been appropriately addressed. In our experience, the RWQCB may suggest that the property enter the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP).
However, a more desirable path may be to pursue an agreement between the RWQCB and buyer under the California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act (CLRRA). This is typically referred to as a CLRRA Agreement. The CLRRA Agreement approach would require that the buyer agree to conduct certain activities during redevelopment to address site contamination (e.g., conduct soil investigation or excavation, develop and implement the Soil Management Plan, document activities, etc.). CLRRA agreements typically provide the buyer with RWQCB protections from requirements for future actions associated with historic contamination. In any case, the first step would be to meet with RWQCB staff to discuss the environmental findings at the site.
Report, Phase II Soil & Groundwater Investigation 21
Pin High Golf Center & Adjacent Parcels, San Jose
REFERENCES
E2C, April 14, 2004, Precursor Summary Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 4701 N. First Street, Alviso, California: for Sainte Claire Corp. E2C, September 20, 2004, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 4701 N. First Street, San Jose, California: for Sainte Claire Corp.
GEOLOGICA, May 1, 2015, Work Plan for Remediation and Monitoring of VOCs in Groundwater & Soil Vapor, 237 @ First Street Development Project, San Jose, California: for 237 North First Street Investors, LLC.
Terrasearch, Inc., March 25, 1987, Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation on Proposed Mobile Home Park, St. Claire Corporation Property, Taylor Street, Alviso, California:
for Brandenburg, Staedler and Moore.
United Soil Engineering, July 1985, Preliminary Soil and Foundation Investigation and Piezometer Installation for Taylor Street, San Jose, California: for Lincoln Property Company.
United Soil Engineering, February 7, 2001, Updated Geotechnical Investigation and Pavement Design, Proposed Development Land of Saint Claire Properties, Southeast Corner of North First Street and Liberty Street, San Jose, California: for Boccardo Management Group.
Tables
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment geologica
4701 N. 1st Street, San Jose
Table 1
Summary of Soil Sampling Results
San Jose, CA
Boring ID Table S-1 Table S-2Sample ID GP-1-3.5-4' GP-1-7.5-8' GP-1-11.5-12' GP-2-3.5-4' GP-2-7.5-8' GP-2-11.5-12' GP-2-E2-3.5-4' GP-2-E2-7.5-8' GP-2-E-3.5-4' GP-2-E-7.5-8' GP-2-N-3.5-4' GP-2-N-7.5-8' GP-2-S-3.5-4' GP-2-S-7.5-8' ESLs ESLs Sample Depth, ft bgs 3.5-4' 7.5-8' 11.5-12' 3.5-4' 7.5-8' 11.5-12' 3.5-4' 7.5-8' 3.5-4' 7.5-8' 3.5-4' 7.5-8' 3.5-4' 7.5-8' Analytes Units 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 Petroleum HydrocarbonsGasoline Range Organics (GRO)-C5-C12 mg/kg <0.290 <0.280 - <0.320 <0.310- - - - - - - - - 4,100 3,400 Diesel Range Organics [C10-C28] mg/kg 46 390 <1.3 17 1,400 1.4 9.7 32 4.8 390 <1.1 610 45 310 1,200 3,600 Motor Oil Range Organics [C24-C36] mg/kg 160 1,500 8.7 120 4,800 <6.3 <59 92 <57 1,300 <55 1,000 230 1,900 140,000 -- MetalsAntimony mg/kg 2.5 <0.57 - <0.61 <2.2 - - - ------ 470 -- Arsenic mg/kg 8.7 7.8-5.75 - - - - - - - - - 11(5) --
Barium mg/kg 160 180 - 220 150 - - - - - - - - - 220,000 --Beryllium mg/kg 0.54 0.18 - 0.36 <0.45 - - - ------ 0.39 -- Cadmium mg/kg <0.47 0.15 - 0.18 <0.56 - - - ------ 0.058 --Chromium mg/kg 73 86 - 60 280 - - - - - - - - - 1,800,000 (Cr III) -- Cobalt mg/kg 17 18 - 12 48 - - - - - - - - - 350 --Copper mg/kg 36 41 - 29 27 - - - - - - - - - 47,000 --Lead mg/kg 14 42 - 31 15 - - - - - - - - - 320 --Mercury mg/kg 0.63 0.3 - 0.21 0.21 - - - - - - - - - 190 --Molybdenum mg/kg 2.7 <0.57 - <0.61 <2.2 - - - ------ 5,800 --Nickel mg/kg 94 120 - 82 600 120 - - - - - - - - 11,000 --Selenium mg/kg <3.8 <1.1 - <1.2 <4.5 - - - ------ 5,800 --Silver mg/kg <0.94 <0.28 - <0.31 <1.1 - - - ------ 5,800 --Thallium mg/kg 2.1 <0.57 - <0.61 <2.2 - - - ------ 12 --Vanadium mg/kg 41 61 - 36 43 - - - - - - - - - 580,000 -- Zinc mg/kg 58 79 - 99 46 - - - - - - - - - 350,000 --
PCBsPCB-1260 ug/kg <57 <57 - - - - - - ------ 1,000 6,300Chlorinated Pesticides4,4'-DDD ug/kg 4.6 31 - <43 - - - - - - - - - - 1,200 7,5004,4'-DDE ug/kg 28 57 - <43 - - - - - - - - - - 8,500 1,100,0004,4'-DDT ug/kg <2.3 <4.6 - <43 - - - - ------ 8,500 4,300alpha-Chlordane ug/kg <2.3 11 - <22 - - - - - - - - - - 2,200 15,000 Dieldrin ug/kg <2.3 6.4 - <22 - - - - - - - - - - 170 2.3 gamma-Chlordane ug/kg <2.3 14 - <22 - - - - - - - - - - 2,200 15,000 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/kg <5.7 <5.5 - <6.4 <6.2 - - - ------ 9,500,000 6,4001,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane ug/kg <5.7 <5.5 - <6.4 <6.2 - - - ------ -- 1,1-Dichloroethane ug/kg <5.7 <5.5 - <6.4 <6.2 - - - ------ 18,000 8111,1-Dichloroethene ug/kg <5.7 <5.5 - <6.4 <6.2 - - - ------ 430,000 4,300Acetone ug/kg <57 110 - <64 <62 - - - ------ 650,000,000 500 Benzene ug/kg <5.7 <5.5 - <6.4 <6.2 - - - ------ 1,100 49cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/kg <5.7 <5.5 - <6.4 <6.2 - - - ------ 96,000 3,500Methyl tert-butyl ether ug/kg <5.7 <5.5 - <6.4 <6.2 - - - ------ 200,000 840trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/kg <5.7 <5.5 - <6.4 <6.2 - - - ------ 590,000 39,000Vinyl chloride ug/kg <5.7 <5.5 - <6.4 <6.2 - - - ------ 16 10 Percent Moisture % 13 14 20 26 23 20 15.6 9.5 12.5 13.5 9.3 17.5 18.9 14.1 - - Notes:Table S-1: Soil Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial)Table S-2: Soil Leaching to Groundwater Screening Levels (Organic Compounds only)Table S-3: Soil Gross Contamination Screening LevelsTable S-4: Soil Odor Nuisance Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial)5: Bay Area background arsenic concentration - see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.shtml Direct Exposure
(C/I) Soil Leaching
GP-1 GP-2 GP-2-E2 GP-2-E GP-2-N GP-2-S
Table 1
Summary of Soil Sampling Results
San Jose, CA
Boring IDSample IDSample Depth, ft bgsAnalytes UnitsPetroleum HydrocarbonsGasoline Range Organics (GRO)-C5-C12 mg/kgDiesel Range Organics [C10-C28] mg/kgMotor Oil Range Organics [C24-C36] mg/kgMetalsAntimony mg/kgArsenic mg/kgBarium mg/kgBeryllium mg/kgCadmium mg/kgChromium mg/kgCobalt mg/kgCopper mg/kgLead mg/kgMercury mg/kgMolybdenum mg/kgNickel mg/kgSelenium mg/kgSilver mg/kgThallium mg/kgVanadium mg/kgZinc mg/kgPCBsPCB-1260 ug/kgChlorinated Pesticides4,4'-DDD ug/kg4,4'-DDE ug/kg4,4'-DDT ug/kgalpha-Chlordane ug/kgDieldrin ug/kggamma-Chlordane ug/kgVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/kg1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane ug/kg1,1-Dichloroethane ug/kg1,1-Dichloroethene ug/kgAcetone ug/kgBenzene ug/kgcis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/kgMethyl tert-butyl ether ug/kgtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/kgVinyl chloride ug/kgPercent Moisture % GP-4 Table S-1 Table S-2
GP-2-W-3.5-4' GP-2-W-7.5-8' GP-3-3.5-4' GP-3-7.5-8' GP-4-3.5-4' GP-5-4.5-5' GP-5-7.5-8' GP-5-11.5-12' GP-6-3.5-4' GP-6-7.5-8' GP-6-11.5-12' GP-7-3.5-4' GP-7-7.5-8' ESLs ESLs
3.5-4' 7.5-8' 3.5-4' 7.5-8' 3.5-4' 4.5-5' 7.5-8' 11.5-12' 3.5-4' 7.5-8' 11.5-12' 3.5-4' 7.5-8' 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/22/16 1/22/16 - - <0.270 <0.300 <0.350 <0.310 <0.310 - <0.270 <0.290 - <0.300 <0.280 4,100 3,400 31 66 290 11 5.1 43 46 - 25 9 - 21 1.5 1,200 3,600
140 250 1,200 <60 <71 110 98 - 99 <63 -72 <64 140,000 -- - - <1.9 <1.6 <0.66 <1.9 <2 - <0.43 6.7 - <2.3 <1.6 470 -- -- <3.9 <3.2 5.7 5.1 7.5 - 2.7 11 - 7.1 8.3 11(5) --- - 140 100 180 34 510 - 38 650 - 150 250 220,000 ---- <0.39 <0.32 0.79 <0.38 <0.41 - 0.095 <0.48 - <0.46 0.67 0.39 ---- <0.48 <0.4 0.37 0.85 2.8 - <0.11 4.9 - <0.57 <0.39 0.058 -- - - 32 83 63 32 39 - 24 65 - 60 69 1,800,000 (Cr III) --- - 11 16 13 5.7 13 - 3.9 15 - 14 17 350 --- - 25 63 45 62 140 - 20 99 - 34 39 47,000 --- - 3.6 5.9 39 210 290 - 23 710 13 38 12 320 --- - 0.055 0.27 0.18 0.093 1.1 - 0.081 0.16 - 0.66 0.19 190 --- - <1.9 <1.6 0.76 8 <2 - 4.5 <2.4 - <2.3 <1.6 5,800 --- - 32 86 77 130 50 - 40 79 - 94 94 11,000 --- - <3.9 <3.2 <1.3 <3.8 <4.1 - <0.85 <4.8 - <4.6 <3.2 5,800 -- - - <0.97 <0.81 <0.33 <0.96 <1 - <0.21 <1.2 - <1.1 <0.79 5,800 --- - <1.9 <1.6 <0.66 <1.9 <2 - <0.43 <2.4 - <2.3 <1.6 12 -- - - 50 69 51 11 38 - 14 47 - 39 55 580,000 --- - 37 56 120 2,000 1,100 120 28 460 - 81 79 350,000 --- - - - - - - - <57 130 - - - 1,000 6,300- - <72 - <10 <20 - - 4.4 62 - <4 - 1,200 7,500- - <72 - <10 <20 - - 18 35 - <4 - 8,500 1,100,000 - - <72 - <10 <20 - - 11 3.4 - <4 - 8,500 4,300
- - <37 - <5.2 13 - - <2.3 <2.5 - <2 - 2,200 15,000- - <37 - <5.2 <10 - - 11 4.1 - <2 - 170 2.3- - <37 - <5.2 <10 - - <2.3 <2.5 - <2 - 2,200 15,000-- <5.4 <5.9 <7 <6.2 <6.2 - <5.5 <5.9 - <6 <5.6 9,500,000 6,400-- <5.4 <5.9 <7 <6.2 <6.2 - <5.5 <5.9 - <6 <5.6 - --- <5.4 <5.9 <7 <6.2 <6.2 - <5.5 <5.9 - <6 <5.6 18,000 811-- <5.4 <5.9 <7 <6.2 <6.2 - <5.5 <5.9 - <6 <5.6 430,000 4,300-- <54 <59 <70 <62 <62 - <55 <59 - <60 <56 650,000,000 500-- <5.4 <5.9 <7 <6.2 <6.2 - <5.5 <5.9 - <6 <5.6 1,100 49-- <5.4 <5.9 <7 <6.2 <6.2 - <5.5 <5.9 - <6 <5.6 96,000 3,500-- <5.4 <5.9 <7 <6.2 <6.2 - <5.5 <5.9 - <6 <5.6 200,000 840-- <5.4 <5.9 <7 <6.2 <6.2 - <5.5 <5.9 - <6 <5.6 590,000 39,000-- <5.4 <5.9 <7 <6.2 <6.2 - <5.5 <5.9 - <6 <5.6 16 10
17.8 12.1 10 17 31 21 22 49 13 22 29 18 22 - -
Notes:Table S-1: Soil Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial)Table S-2: Soil Leaching to Groundwater Screening Levels (Organic Compounds only) Table S-3: Soil Gross Contamination Screening LevelsTable S-4: Soil Odor Nuisance Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial)5: Bay Area background arsenic concentration - see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.shtml Soil Leaching Direct Exposure (C/I)
GP-2-W GP-3 GP-5 GP-6 GP-7
Table 1
Summary of Soil Sampling Results
San Jose, CA
Boring IDSample IDSample Depth, ft bgsAnalytes UnitsPetroleum HydrocarbonsGasoline Range Organics (GRO)-C5-C12 mg/kgDiesel Range Organics [C10-C28] mg/kgMotor Oil Range Organics [C24-C36] mg/kgMetalsAntimony mg/kgArsenic mg/kgBarium mg/kgBeryllium mg/kgCadmium mg/kgChromium mg/kgCobalt mg/kgCopper mg/kgLead mg/kgMercury mg/kgMolybdenum mg/kgNickel mg/kgSelenium mg/kgSilver mg/kgThallium mg/kgVanadium mg/kgZinc mg/kgPCBsPCB-1260 ug/kgChlorinated Pesticides4,4'-DDD ug/kg4,4'-DDE ug/kg4,4'-DDT ug/kgalpha-Chlordane ug/kgDieldrin ug/kggamma-Chlordane ug/kgVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/kg1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane ug/kg1,1-Dichloroethane ug/kg1,1-Dichloroethene ug/kgAcetone ug/kgBenzene ug/kgcis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/kgMethyl tert-butyl ether ug/kgtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/kgVinyl chloride ug/kgPercent Moisture % Table S-1 Table S-2
GP-8-3.5-4' GP-8-7.5-8' GP-9-4.5-5' GP-9-7.5-8' GP-10-3.5-4' GP-10-7.5-8' GP-11-3.5-4' GP-11-7.5-8' ESLs ESLs
3.5-4' 7.5-8' 4.5-5' 7.5-8' 3.5-4' 7.5-8' 3.5-4' 7.5-8' 1/22/16 1/22/16 1/22/16 1/22/16 1/22/16 1/22/16 1/22/16 1/22/16 <0.320 <0.310 <0.310 <0.300 <0.290 <0.310 <0.300 <0.310 4,100 3,400 21 <1.2 12 56 400 2.4 90 17 1,200 3,600
90 <61 <64 240 2,100 <68 300 <62 140,000 --
<2.1 <2.3 <2.5 <2.5 <0.5 <1.8 <2.4 <2.2 470 --
44 7.1 17 7.5 1 5.6 7.8 9.4 11(5) --
250 160 250 210 33 250 140 210 220,000 --
0.61 0.81 0.65 0.78 0.2 0.74 <0.47 0.6 0.39 --
<0.52 <0.57 <0.63 <0.61 <0.12 <0.46 <0.59 <0.54 0.058 -- 89 68 84 64 7.1 72 480 74 1,800,000 (Cr III) --21 14 22 16 1.6 15 64 17 350 --53 37 45 43 2.4 38 35 41 47,000 -- 130 11 37 11 3.5 11 44 11 320 --
5.4 0.12 3.8 0.087 0.024 0.11 0.1 0.12 190 --
<2.1 <2.3 <2.5 <2.5 0.89 <1.8 <2.4 <2.2 5,800 --
150 82 140 88 4.8 90 1,100 100 11,000 --
<4.1 <4.6 <5 <4.9 <1 <3.6 <4.7 <4.3 5,800 --
<1 <1.1 <1.3 <1.2 <0.25 <0.91 <1.2 <1.1 5,800 --
<2.1 <2.3 <2.5 <2.5 <2 <1.8 <2.4 <2.2 12 --
55 54 58 51 9.4 57 39 55 580,000 --
130 77 94 73 10 73 68 82 350,000 --
<65 <61 - - <56 <68 - - 1,000 6,300
16 <2.4 <86 - <4.5 <2.7 <41 - 1,200 7,50060 <2.4 <86 - <4.5 <2.7 <41 - 8,500 1,100,00018 <2.4 <86 - <4.5 <2.7 <41 - 8,500 4,300 <2.6 <2.4 <44 - <4.5 <2.7 <21 - 2,200 15,000<2.6 <2.4 <44 - <4.5 <2.7 <21 - 170 2.3<2.6 <2.4 <44 - <4.5 <2.7 <21 - 2,200 15,000<6.5 <6.1 <6.1 <6 <5.7 <6.3 <6 <6.2 9,500,000 6,400<6.5 <6.1 <6.1 <6 <5.7 <6.3 <6 <6.2 - -<6.5 <6.1 <6.1 <6 <5.7 <6.3 <6 <6.2 18,000 811<6.5 <6.1 <6.1 <6 <5.7 <6.3 <6 <6.2 430,000 4,300 <65 <61 <61 <60 <57 <63 <60 <62 650,000,000 500
<6.5 <6.1 <6.1 <6 <5.7 <6.3 <6 <6.2 1,100 49<6.5 <6.1 <6.1 <6 <5.7 <6.3 <6 <6.2 96,000 3,500 <6.5 <6.1 <6.1 <6 <5.7 <6.3 <6 <6.2 200,000 840<6.5 <6.1 <6.1 <6 <5.7 <6.3 <6 <6.2 590,000 39,000<6.5 <6.1 <6.1 <6 <5.7 <6.3 <6 <6.2 16 10 23 19 22 23 13 26 20 21 - -
Notes:Table S-1: Soil Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial)Table S-2: Soil Leaching to Groundwater Screening Levels (Organic Compounds only)Table S-3: Soil Gross Contamination Screening LevelsTable S-4: Soil Odor Nuisance Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial)5: Bay Area background arsenic concentration - see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.shtml Direct Exposure
(C/I) Soil Leaching
GP-8 GP-9 GP-10 GP-11
Table GW-1 Table GW-2 Table GW-3
GP-1 GP-2 GP-2-E GP-2-E2 GP-2-N GP-2-S GP-2-W GP-3 GP-6 GP-7 GP-10 Drinking
Water
Aquatic
Habitat
Vapor
Intrusion
Analytes Units 1/21/16 1/21/16 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 2/23/2016 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/22/16 1/22/16 ESLs ESLs ESLsPetroleum HydrocarbonsGasoline Range Organics (GRO)-C5-C12 ug/L <50 <50 - - - - - <50 <50 <50 <50 220 440 -Diesel Range Organics [C10-C28] ug/L <50 1,900 <51 130 380 81 <51 <52 84 65 150 150 640 -Motor Oil Range Organics [C24-C36] ug/L <100 10,000 150 310 1,100 220 <100 170 120 350 390 Note 1 -- -MetalsAntimony mg/L <0.01 <0.01 ----- <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.0074 0.03 -Arsenic mg/L <0.01 <0.01 ----- <0.01 0.023 <0.01 <0.01 0.000004 0.036 -Barium mg/L <0.05 0.081 ----- 0.052 1.3 0.069 0.097 2 --Beryllium mg/L <0.002 <0.002 ----- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.0000045 0.0027 -Cadmium mg/L <0.002 <0.002 ----- <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.00004 0.00025 -Chromium (total) mg/L <0.01 <0.01 ----- <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - 0.18 -Cobalt mg/L 0.0038 0.0081 ----- 0.01 0.0033 0.002 0.0093 0.006 0.003 -Copper mg/L <0.02 <0.02 ----- <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.3 0.0031 -Lead mg/L <0.005 <0.005 ----- <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.0002 0.0025 -Mercury mg/L 0.00021 <0.0002 ----- <0.0002 <0.0002 0.00025 0.00023 0.0012 0.000051 -Molybdenum mg/L 0.049 0.035 ----- 0.02 0.019 0.072 0.018 0.099 0.24 -Nickel mg/L 0.01 0.025 ----- 0.024 0.013 <0.01 0.013 0.012 0.0082 -Selenium mg/L <0.02 <0.02 ----- <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.03 0.005 -Silver mg/L <0.005 <0.005 ----- <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.086 0.00019 -Thallium mg/L <0.01 <0.01 ----- <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.0001 0.0063 -Vanadium mg/L <0.01 <0.01 ----- <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.019 -Zinc mg/L <0.02 0.024 ----- <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 6 0.081 -Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L <0.5 1.8 ----- <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1,000 62 42,000 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane ug/L <0.5 1.6 ----- <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - --- 1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L <0.5 2.5 ----- <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.7 47 180 1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L <0.5 18 ----- <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 10 3.2 1,400Benzene ug/L <0.5 <0.5 ----- 6.5 0.73 <0.5 <0.5 0.15 46 9.7 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L <0.5 0.62 ----- <0.5 <0.5 0.94 <0.5 11 590 950Methyl tert-butyl ether ug/L <0.5 <0.5 ----- <0.5 <0.5 1.6 <0.5 13 8,000 11,000trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L <0.5 1.1 ----- <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 60 590 7,900Vinyl chloride ug/L <0.5 0.99 ----- <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.042 530 0.53 Notes:Tier 1 ESLTable GW-1: Groundwater Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening LevelsTable GW-2: Ecological Aquatic Habitat Goals Table GW-3. Groundwater Vapor Intrusion Human Health Risk Screening Levels (Volatile Chemicals Only); depth to groundwater less than or equal to 10 feet, Sand Scenario.
Table 2
Summary of Groundwater "Grab" Sampling Results
San Jose, CA
RWQCB Note 1 - "TPH motor oil is not soluble. TPH motor oil detections in water most likely are petroleum degradates or less likely NAPL. If the detections are degradates, add TPH motor oil and TPH diesel results and compare to TPH diesel criterion." Figures
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment geologica
4701 N. 1st Street, San Jose
SITE VICINITY MAP
Pin High Acreage
San Jose, CA 95002
FIGURE 1
Residential
Residential
Retail
Community
Center
Residential
Former
Sainte Claire
Landfill
Residential &
Storage Yards
Former
Santos
Landfill
Guadalupe River
Tri-Valley
Excavating
Former
Marshland
Landfill
Library Youth
Center School
(Acreage Under
Development)
(Acreage Under Development)
Cisco Site 6/
Syntax Ct. Disposal Site
Vacant
Acreage
IBM
Harmonic
Vacant
Acreage
Pin High
Golf Center
RV Lot
Former
Excel Landscape
& Turner Equipment
Verizon
015-39-027
City of
Santa Clara
Sewer Pump
Station
fence
River
Meander
Loop
015-39-020
015-03-012
015-03-018
APN 015-39-020APN 015-39-026APN 015-39-027APN 015-03-012APN 015-03-018
10.81 acres25.36 acres
~0.10 acres
1.376 acres0.619 acres
015-39-026
“Lowland
Area”
Previous Soil Testing Results:
Vacant Lot
Phase II Investigation
San Jose, CA 95002
FIGURE 2a
Former
Santos
Landfill
Guadalupe River
Tri-Valley
Excavating
Former
Marshland
Landfill
Library Youth
Center School
(Acreage Under
Development)
(Acreage Under Development)
Cisco Site 6/
Syntax Ct. Disposal Site
Vacant
Acreage
IBM
Harmonic
Vacant
Acreage
Pin High Pin High
Golf Center Golf Center
Former
Excel Landscape
& Turner Equipment
Verizon Verizon
015-39-027
City of
Santa Clara
Sewer Pump
Station
fence
River
Meander
Loop
015-39-020
APN 015-39-020APN 015-39-026APN 015-39-027APN 015-03-012APN 015-03-018
10.81 acres25.36 acres
~0.10 acres
1.376 acres0.619 acres
015-39-026
“Lowland
Area”
geologica
Groundwater Sampling Location (E2C, 2004)Soil Sampling Location (E2C, 2004) Analyte concentration in groundwaterin milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg)Analyte concentration greater than Table S-1 or Table S-2 Enivronmental Screening Level (ESL) <50 Analyte not Detected above reporting limit
150
11 EXPLANATION
- Not Analyzed
VL-4
TPH-dTPH-mo
TOG <25
15 -
TPH-dTPH-moTOG
590
-
VL-2 2a 2b 2c 2d
670
595971
-
96 106
-
986687
-
101223
-
PCBs 8.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.83 0.16
TPH-d 165
VL-3 3a 3b 3c 3d
<0.1 0.6 12 511
TPH-d
TPH-mo
TOG
44 -
VL-5 5a 5b 5c 5d
1,100
571
1,748
-
3322
-
7499
-
21 <0.1
-
TPH-dTPH-moTOG
340
-
VL-7 7a 7b 7c 7d
130
<0.1
<0.1
5 <0.1
<0.1
<0.1<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1<0.1<0.1
TPH-dTPH-moTOG
299
-
VL-8 8a 8b 8c 8d
130
115216
-
45 1.3
-
51 76
-
3655
-
PCBs 3.2 1.6 <0.1 1.2 <0.1
TPH-dTPH-moTOG
251
-
VL-9 9a 9b 9c 9d
220
101167
-
65 109
-
170287
-
1428
-
VL-1
TPH-dTPH-mo
TOG <25
5 -
VL-6
TPH-dTPH-mo
TOG <25
3 -
VL-10
TPH-dTPH-mo
TOG <25
<0.1
-
VL-11
TPH-dTPH-mo
TOG -
4.4 <0.1
VL-12
TPH-dTPH-mo
TOG -
<0.1
<0.1
VL-13
TPH-dTPH-mo
TOG -
<0.1
<0.1
TPH-dTPH-mo
308476
147239
274522
1214
14a@2’
14a@4’
14c@2’
14c@4’
14d@2’
14d@4’
71 16882 293
VL-14
TPH-dTPH-moTOG
1,200
140,000
Table S-1
Direct
Exposure
ESL (C/I)
-
PCBs 1
Table S-2
Soil
Leaching
ESL
3,400
--
6.3 Previous Soil Testing Results:
Former Turner Equipment / Excel Landscaping
and Golf Maintenance Yard
Phase II Investigation
San Jose, CA 95002
FIGURE 2b
Pin High
Golf Center
Former Excel Landscaping
& Turner Equipment
APN 015-39-020APN 015-39-026APN 015-39-027APN 015-03-012APN 015-03-018
10.81 acres25.36 acres
~0.10 acres
1.376 acres0.619 acres
015-39-026
geologica
Groundwater Sampling Location (E2C, 2004)Soil Sampling Location (E2C, 2004) Analyte concentration in soil in milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg) <25 Analyte not Detected above reporting limit
24 EXPLANATION
- Not Analyzed
015-39-027
Verizon
Scale = 75 ft
Moffat Street
Above Ground
Diesel Tank
TOG
TE-4
@2’
TE-4
@4’
<25 4,700
TOG
TE-1
@2’
TE-1
@4’
<25 <25
TE-5
@2’
TE-5
@4’
TPH-dTPH-mo
10 <0.1
16 <0.1
TE-6
@2’
TE-6
@4’
TPH-dTPH-mo
17 <0.1 4.7<0.1
TE-3a
@4’
TE-3b
@4’
TE-3
@2’
TE-3
@3’
TE-3c
@4’
TE-3d
@4’
TOGTPH-dTPH-mo
<25 110
-
-
--
----
115134
24 40
98 170
2321
TOG
TE-2
@2’
TE-2
@4’
<25 <25
PH-4
@2’
PH-4
@4’
TPH-gTPH-d 8
<0.3
26 <0.3
TPH-d
PH-5
@2’
PH-5
@4’
8.3 <0.1
TPH-d
PH-6
@2’
PH-6
@4’
75 <0.1
PH-10
@2’
PH-10
@4’
TPH-dTPH-mo
716
- 1,250
<0.1
PH-1
@3’
PH-1a
@1’
TPH-gTPH-d 28
<0.3
261
<0.3
TPH-d
PH-7
@2’
PH-7
@4’
278 17
TPH-d
PH-8
@2’
PH-8
@4’
6.5 1.7
PH-3
@2’
PH-3
@4’
TPH-gTPH-d 27
<0.3
183
<0.3
TPH-d
PH-9
@2’
PH-9
@4’
16 4.0
Guadalupe River Trail
TPH-dTPH-moTOG
1,200
140,000
Table S-1
Direct
Exposure
ESL (C/I)
-
PCBs 1
Table S-2
Soil
Leaching
ESL
3,400
--
6.3 PH-2
@2’
PH-2
@3’
TPH-gTPH-d 507
<0.3
5 <0.3
Previous Groundwater Testing Results
Phase II Investigation
San Jose, CA 95002
FIGURE 3
Residential
Residential
Retail
Center
Former
Sainte Claire
Landfill
Residential &
Storage Yards
Former
Santos
Landfill
Guadalupe River
Former
Marshland
Landfill
Library Youth
Center School
(Acreage Under
Development)
(Acreage Under Development)
Cisco Site 6/
Syntax Ct. Disposal Site
Vacant
Acreage
IBM
Harmonic
Vacant
Acreage
Pin High Pin High
Golf Center Golf Center
RV Lot
Former
Excel Landscape
& Turner Equipment
Verizon
015-39-027
City of
Santa Clara
Sewer Pump
Station
fence
River
Meander
Loop
015-39-020
015-03-012
015-03-018
APN 015-39-020APN 015-39-026APN 015-39-027APN 015-03-012APN 015-03-018
10.81 acres25.36 acres
~0.10 acres
1.376 acres0.619 acres
015-39-026
“Lowland
Area”
geologica
Previous Groundwater Sampling Location(E2C, 2004)
<50 Analyte not Detected above reporting limit,
shown in micrograms per liter (ug/L)EXPLANATION
- Not Analyzed
VL-GW
TPH-dTPH-mo
TPH-h <50
<50<50
TE-GW
TPH-dTPH-mo
TPH-h <50
<50<50
PH-GW
TPH-dTPH-mo
TPH-h
<50
-
-
Current Soil Testing Results
Phase II Investigation
San Jose, CA 95002
FIGURE 4
Residential
Residential
Former
Sainte Claire
Landfill
Former
Santos
Landfill
Guada
Tri-Valley
Excavating
Former
Marshland
Landfill
School
(Acreage Under
Development)
(Acreage Under Development)
Cisco Site 6/
Syntax Ct. Disposal Site
Vacant
Acreage
IBM
Harmonic
Vacant
Acreage
Pin High
Golf Center
RV Lot
Former
Excel Landscape
& Turner Equipment
Verizon
015-39-027
City of
Santa Clara
Sewer Pump
Station
fence
River
Meander
Loop
015-39-020
015-03-012
015-03-018
APN 015-39-020APN 015-39-026APN 015-39-027APN 015-03-012APN 015-03-018
10.81 acres25.36 acres
~0.10 acres
1.376 acres0.619 acres
015-39-026
geologica
Soil Sampling Location (January, 2016) Soil and Groundwater Sampling Location (January, 2016) Analyte concentration in soil in milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg)Analyte concentration greater than Table S-1 or Table S-2 Enivronmental Screening Level (ESL) <50 Analyte not Detected above reporting limit
0.79 11
EXPLANATION
- Not analyzed
Soil and Groundwater Sampling Location (February, 2016) GP-11 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 90 17TPH-mo 300 <62
Beryllium <0.47 0.6
GP-8 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 21 <1.2
TPH-mo 90 <61Arsenic 44 7.1
Beryllium 0.61 0.81 0.81
GP-2 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 17 1,400TPH-mo 120 4,800
Cadmium 0.18
11.5-12’
1.4 <6.3
<0.56 -
GP-1 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 46 390TPH-mo 160 1,500Dieldrin <0.0023 0.0064
11.5-12’
Beryllium 0.54 0.18
--
8.7 <1.3
Cadmium <0.47 0.15 -
GP-2-W 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 66TPH-mo 140 250
31 GP-2-S 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 310TPH-mo 230 1,900
45 GP-2-N 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 610TPH-mo <57 1,000
<1.1
GP-2-E 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 4.8 390TPH-mo <57 1,300
GP-3 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 290 11TPH-mo 1,200 <60
GP-5 4.5-5' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 43 46
TPH-mo 110 98
Cadmium 0.85 2.8
GP-7 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 21 1.5
TPH-mo 72 <64
Beryllium <0.46 0.67
GP-10 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 400 2.4TPH-mo 2,100
0.2 0.74
<68
Beryllium
GP-2-E2 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 9.7 32TPH-mo <59 92
TPH-dTPH-moArsenic
1,200
140,000
Table S-1
Direct
Exposure
ESL (C/I)
11*
Lead 320
Table S-2
Soil
Leaching
ESL
3,400
--
Dieldrin
0.39 -
0.058
BerylliumCadmium -
-
0.17 0.0023
*Bay Area background arsenic
concentraƟon
GP-4 3.5-4'
TPH-d 5.1TPH-mo <71
Beryllium 0.79
Cadmium 0.37
GP-9 4.5-5' 7.5-8'
TPH-d 12 56TPH-mo <64 240Arsenic 17 7.5
Beryllium 0.65 0.78 0.81
GP-6 3.5-4' 7.5-8'
TPH-dTPH-moDieldrin
11.5-12’
Arsenic 2.7 11
13 -
Cadmium <0.11 4.9
25 999 <63
--
Lead
-
0.011 0.0041 -
23 710
Groundwater “Grab” Testing Results
Phase II Investigation
San Jose, CA 95002
FIGURE 5
Residential
Residential
Retail
Residential
Former
Sainte Claire
Landfill
Residential &
Storage Yards
Former
Santos
Landfill
Guadalupe River
Tri-Valley
Excavating
Former
Marshland
Landfill
Library
Youth
Center School
(Acreage Under
Development)
(Acreage Under Development)
Cisco Site 6/
Syntax Ct. Disposal Site
IBM
Harmonic
Vacant
Acreage
Pin High Pin High
Golf Center Golf Center
RV Lot
Former
Excel Landscape Excel Landscape
& Turner Equipment &Turner Equipment
Verizon
015-39-027
City of
Santa Clara
Sewer Pump
Station
fence
015-39-020
015-03-012
015-03-018
APN 015-39-020APN 015-39-026APN 015-39-027APN 015-03-012APN 015-03-018
10.81 acres25.36 acres
~0.10 acres
1.376 acres0.619 acres
015-39-026
GP-4
GP-5
GP-8
TPH-d
GP-7
TPH-mo
65 350
geologica
Soil Sampling Location (January, 2016)Soil and Groundwater Sampling Location (January, 2016) Analyte concentration in groundwaterin micrograms per liter (ug/L)Analyte concentration greater than Table GW-2 or Table GW-3 Enivronmental Screening Level (ESL) <50 Analyte not Detected above reporting limit
18 65
EXPLANATIONSoil and Groundwater Sampling Location (February, 2016) GP-9
GP-11
TPH-d
GP-2-E2
130
TPH-mo 310
TPH-d
GP-2-E
<51
TPH-mo 310
TPH-d
GP-2-W
<51
TPH-mo <100
TPH-d
GP-2-S
81 TPH-mo 220
TPH-d
GP-2-N
380
TPH-mo 1,100
GP-2
TPH-dTPH-moVCCobalt 8.1Nickel 25
1,900
10,000
1,1-DCE
0.99 18
GP-1
TPH-dTPH-moCobalt 3.8Nickel 10
<50
<100
GP-3
TPH-dTPH-moCobalt 10Nickel 24
<52
170
GP-6
TPH-dTPH-moCobalt 3.3Nickel 13
84 120
GP-10
TPH-dTPH-moCobalt 9.3Nickel 13
150390
TPH-dTPH-moCobalt
640640*
Table GW-2
AquaƟc
Habitat
ESL
3 VC 530
Table GW-3
Vapor
Intrusion
ESL
--
8.2 -3.2
Nickel1,1-DCE 1,400
-
*See Groundwater Data Tables for
RWQCB Note 1
0.53 Appendix A
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment geologica
4701 N. 1st Street, San Jose
E2C (2004b) Previous Phase II Data
Method Analyte Units PH-1@3' PH-1A@1' PH-2@2' PH-2@3' PH-2@4' PH-3@2' PH-3@4' PH-4@2' PH-4@4' PH-5@2' PH-5@4' PH-6@2' PH-6@4' PH-7@2' PH-7@4' PH-8@2' PH-8@4' PH-9@2' PH-9@4' PH-10@2' PH-10@4' Table S-1 ESLs (3) Table S-2 ESLs (4) 3 1 234 2 4 2 4 2424242424 2 4
6/25/04 6/25/04 6/25/04 6/25/04 6/25/04 6/25/04 6/25/04 6/25/04 6/25/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH Gasoline mg/Kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 - <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 ---------- - - 4,100 3,400 TPH Diesel mg/Kg 261 28 5 507 - 183 27 26 8 8.3 <0.1 74.9 <0.1 277.8 17.2 6.5 1.7 15.7 4.0 <0.1 715.5 1,200 3,600 TPH Motor Oil mg/Kg - - - - ----- ---------- - 1,249.9 140,000 - TPH Hydraulic Fluid mg/Kg - - - - ----- ---------- - 424.1 -- Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
8260B all VOCs mg/Kg <1.0-2.0 <1.0-2.0 - <2.0-4.0 - <1.0-2.0 <1.0-2.0 <1.0-2.0 <1.0-2.0 ---------- - - various various Pesticides
8081A all Pesticides mg/Kg <0.05-0.1 <0.05-0.1 <0.05-0.1 - <0.05-0.1 <0.05-0.1 <0.05-0.1 <0.05-0.1 <0.05-0.1 ---------- - - various various Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
8082B all PCBs mg/Kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ---------- - - various various Notes:(1) mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram(2) Tier 1 Environmental Screeening Levels (ESLs) for unrestricted land use.(3) Table S-1: Soil Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial).(4) Table S-2: Soil Leaching to Groundwater Screening Levels (Organic Compounds only)<0.05 = Not detected above Method Reporting Limit.- = Not analyzed or not established.Sample Depth (feet)Sample Date Direct Exposure
(C/I)
Table A-1
Summary of Previous Soil Sampling Results(E2C, 2004)
Pin High Golf Center
San Jose, CA
Soil Leaching
Table A-2
Summary of Previous Soil Sampling Results (E2C, 2004)
Former Turner Equipment Grading Parcel
San Jose, CA
Method Analyte Units
TE-1@2' TE-1@4' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' TE-2@2' TE-2@4' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' Table S-1 ESLs (3) Table S-2 ESLs (4)
Sample Depth (feet) 2 4 2 4 2 4 24 242424
Sample Date 6/25/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 6/25/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04Petroleum Hydrocarbons SM 5520C Total Oil and Grease (TOG) mg/Kg <25 <25 - - - - <25 <25 ------ -- TPH Diesel mg/Kg - - - - - - -- ------ 1,200 3,600
TPH Motor Oil mg/Kg - - - - - - -- ------ 140,000 -
TPH Hydraulic Fluid mg/Kg - - - - - - -- ------ --
CAM 17 Metals
Antimony mg/Kg <1 <1 - - - - <1 <10 ------ 470 --
Arsenic mg/Kg <1 6.7 - 17.4 - 8.8 <1 <10 - - - - - - 11(5) -- Barium mg/Kg 180 180 ---- 140 310 ------ 220,000 --
Beryllium mg/Kg <1 <1 - - - - <1 <10 ------ 0.39 --Cadmium mg/Kg <1 <1 - - - - <1 <10 ------ 0.058 -- Chromium mg/Kg 75 65 59 59.3 57.3 62.8 59 72 62 39.3 31.6 70.9 69.6 36.7 1,800,000 (Cr III) --Cobalt mg/Kg 24 15 ---- 12 19 ------ 350 -- Copper mg/Kg 29 39 ---- 27 44 ------ 47,000 --
Lead mg/Kg 13 61 ---- 26 23 ------ 320 --
Molybdenum mg/Kg <1 1.2 - - - - <1 <10 ------ 5,800 --
Nickel mg/Kg 72 110 ---- 94 75 ------ 11,000 --
Selenium mg/Kg 11 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 - <5 - 5,800 --Silver mg/Kg <1 <1 - - - - <1 <10 ------ 5,800 -- Thallium mg/Kg <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 - <5 - 12 --Vanadium mg/Kg 67 41 ---- 38 68 ------ 580,000 -- Zinc mg/Kg 48 83 ---- 65 80 ------ 350,000 --
Mercury mg/Kg <0.05 4.0 - 3.49 - <0.05 0.079 0.085 ------ 190 -- Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)8260B all VOCs mg/Kg <1.0-2.0 <1.0-2.0 - - - - <1.0-2.0 <1.0-2.0 ------ various various Notes:(1) mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram(2) Tier 1 Environmental Screeening Levels (ESLs) for unrestricted land use.(3) Table S-1: Soil Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial).(4) Table S-2: Soil Leaching to Groundwater Screening Levels (Organic Compounds only)5: Bay Area background arsenic concentration - see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.shtml<0.05 = Not detected above Method Reporting Limit.- = Not analyzed or not established. 33 Sample concentration greater than one or more ESLs.
8015M
6010B
Direct Exposure
(C/I) Soil Leaching
Table A-2
Summary of Previous Soil Sampling Results (E2C, 2004)
Former Turner Equipment Grading Parcel
San Jose, CA
Method Analyte Units
Sample Depth (feet)Sample DatePetroleum Hydrocarbons
SM 5520C Total Oil and Grease (TOG) mg/Kg
TPH Diesel mg/KgTPH Motor Oil mg/Kg
TPH Hydraulic Fluid mg/Kg
CAM 17 Metals
Antimony mg/KgArsenic mg/KgBarium mg/KgBeryllium mg/KgCadmium mg/KgChromium mg/KgCobalt mg/KgCopper mg/KgLead mg/KgMolybdenum mg/KgNickel mg/KgSelenium mg/KgSilver mg/KgThallium mg/KgVanadium mg/KgZinc mg/KgMercury mg/Kg Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)8260B all VOCs mg/Kg
8015M
6010B
TE-3@2' TE-3@3' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' TE-4@2' TE-4@4' [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Table S-1 ESLs (3) Table S-2 ESLs (4)
23 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 24 2 4 2 4
6/25/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 6/25/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 <25 110 - - - - - - - -<25 4,700 ---- --
-- - 115 - 23.8 - 97.5 - 23.2 -- 15.9 10.1 <0.1 17 1,200 3,600 -- - 134 - 40.2 - 169.7 - 20.9 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.7 140,000 --- - 47.4 -<0.1- 41.1 - <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -- <1 <1- - - - - - - -<5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 470 --
33 31 8.8 7 10.1 <5 11.1 9.3 12.5 18.1 20 12 9.5 31.1 8.2 26.6 11(5) -- 150 110 -------- 110 69 122 182 114 198 220,000 --
<1 <1 - - - - - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 0.39 --<1 <1 - - - - - - - - <5 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 0.058 -- 46 36 39.5 - 28 - 51.3 - 33.4 - 66 25 42.1 58.9 29.5 58.8 1,800,000 (Cr III) --13 8 -------- 15 6 10.2 14.1 8.1 14.3 350 --30 25 -------- 33 15 24.2 39.7 21.9 34.9 47,000 -- 44 42 -------- 26 7.6 14.1 95.4 49.7 49.2 320 --
<1 <1 - - - - - - - - <5 <1 1.9 1.7 2 2.1 5,800 --
75 68 -------- 70 39 44.2 97.2 38 99.2 11,000 --
<5 10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 7.9 <5 <5 <5 <5 5,800 -- <1 <1 - - - - - - - - <1 <1 2.2 2.6 1.8 2.7 5,800 --<5 <5 - <5 - <5 - <5 - 11.3 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 -- 39 35 -------- 51 20 51.9 42.8 34.8 43.2 580,000 --
77 62 -------- 60 29 54.6 85.2 62.6 63.2 350,000 --
1.5 0.297 -------- 0.074 0.177 <0.05 2.93 0.15 2.77 190 -- <2.0-4.0 <1.0-2.0 - - - - - - - - <1.0-2.0 <1.0-2.0 - - - - various various Notes:(1) mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram(2) Tier 1 Environmental Screeening Levels (ESLs) for unrestricted land use.(3) Table S-1: Soil Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial).(4) Table S-2: Soil Leaching to Groundwater Screening Levels (Organic Compounds only)5: Bay Area background arsenic concentration - see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.shtml<0.05 = Not detected above Method Reporting Limit.- = Not analyzed or not established. 33 Sample concentration greater than one or more ESLs.
Direct Exposure (C/I) Soil Leaching
Table A-3
Summary of Previous Soil Sampling Results (E2C, 2004)
Vacant Parcels 012 and 018
San Jose, CA
Method Analyte Units VL-1 VL-1a VL-1b VL-1c VL-1d VL-2 VL-2a VL-2b VL-2c VL-2d VL-3 VL-3a VL-3b VL-3c VL-3d VL-4 VL-4a VL-4b VL-4c VL-4d Table S-1 ESLs (3) Table S-2 ESLs (4)
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SM 5520C Total Oil and Grease (TOG) mg/Kg <25 ---- 670 - - - - <25 - - - - <25 - - - - TPH Gasoline mg/Kg <0.3 - - - - <0.3 - - - - <0.3 - - - - <0.3 - - - - 4,100 3,400TPH Diesel mg/Kg 5 ---- 590 594.9 96 985.5 101.1 165 <0.1 0.6 12.2 510.9 15 - - - - 1,200 3,600 TPH Motor Oil mg/Kg - - - - - - 971 106.4 686.7 222.9 ---------- 140,000 --TPH Hydraulic Fluid mg/Kg - - - - - - 344.1 31.1 410.2 83.1 ---------- CAM 17 Metals
Antimony mg/Kg <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - 470 --Arsenic mg/Kg 29 155 <5 <5 19.6 40 <5 15.3 15.1 10.8 33 8.5 <5 10.9 6.8 56 7.9 <5 <5 24.9 11(5) -- Barium mg/Kg 180 ---- 140 ---- 250 ---- 260 ---- 220,000 -- Beryllium mg/Kg <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - 0.39 --Cadmium mg/Kg <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - 0.058 --Chromium mg/Kg 51 ---- 59 71.1 72.3 45.2 53.5 62 50.5 48.2 50.8 47.2 91 76.7 48.9 5.9 64.1 1,800,000 (Cr III) -- Cobalt mg/Kg 14 ---- 17 ---- 15 ---- 17 - - - - 350 --
Copper mg/Kg 26 ---- 47 ---- 39 ---- 45 - - - - 47,000 -- Lead mg/Kg 14 ---- 53 ---- 17 ---- 74 - - - - 320 --
Molybdenum mg/Kg <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - 5,800 --Nickel mg/Kg 58 ---- 130 ---- 85 ---- 140 - - - - 11,000 -- Selenium mg/Kg 8.9 - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - 5,800 -- Silver mg/Kg <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - 5,800 --Thallium mg/Kg <5 17 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5 <5 <5 <5 5.2 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 -- Vanadium mg/Kg 45 ---- 66 ---- 48 ---- 52 ---- 580,000 -- Zinc mg/Kg 53 ---- 86 ---- 74 ---- 93 ---- 350,000 --
7471A Mercury mg/Kg 0.092 ---- 0.226 ---- 0.072 ---- 16 9.12 0.08 <0.05 7.25 190 -- Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
8260B all VOCs mg/Kg <1.0-2.0 - - - - <2.0-4.0 - - - - <1.0-2.0 - - - - <1.0-2.0 - - - - various various Pesticides
4,4'-DDE mg/Kg 0.14 - - - - <0.05 - - - - <0.05 - - - - 1.5 - - <0.05 1.7 12 7.5 4,4'-DDD mg/Kg <0.05 - - - - <0.05 - - - - <0.05 - - - - 0.85 - - <0.05 1.1 8.5 1,100 4,4'-DDT mg/Kg <0.05 - - - - <0.05 - - - - <0.05 - - - - 0.95 - - <0.05 0.92 8.5 4.3All other Pesticides mg/Kg <0.05-0.1 - - - - <0.05-0.1 - - - - <0.05-0.1 - - - - <0.05-0.1 - - <0.05-0.1 <0.05-0.1 various various Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1254 mg/Kg <0.1 ---- 8.1 <0.1 0.83 <0.1 0.16 <0.1 - - - - <0.1 - - - - 16.3 all other PCBs mg/Kg <0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - <0.1 - - - - 16.3 Notes:(1) mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram.(2) Tier 1 Environmental Screeening Levels (ESLs) for unrestricted land use. (3) Table S-1: Soil Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial).(4) Table S-2: Soil Leaching to Groundwater Screening Levels (Organic Compounds only)(5): Bay Area background arsenic concentration - see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.shtml <0.05 = Not detected above Method Reporting Limit.- = Not analyzed or not established. 73 Sample concentration greater than one or more ESLs.
Sample Depth (feet)Sample Date
8015M
8082A
6010B
8081A
Direct Exposure
(C/I) Soil Leaching
Table A-3
Summary of Previous Soil Sampling Results (E2C, 2004)
Vacant Parcels 012 and 018
San Jose, CA
Method Analyte Units
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SM 5520C Total Oil and Grease (TOG) mg/Kg
TPH Gasoline mg/Kg
TPH Diesel mg/KgTPH Motor Oil mg/KgTPH Hydraulic Fluid mg/Kg CAM 17 Metals
Antimony mg/KgArsenic mg/Kg
Barium mg/Kg
Beryllium mg/KgCadmium mg/Kg
Chromium mg/KgCobalt mg/KgCopper mg/KgLead mg/KgMolybdenum mg/KgNickel mg/KgSelenium mg/KgSilver mg/KgThallium mg/Kg Vanadium mg/Kg
Zinc mg/Kg
7471A Mercury mg/Kg
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
8260B all VOCs mg/Kg
Pesticides
4,4'-DDE mg/Kg4,4'-DDD mg/Kg4,4'-DDT mg/KgAll other Pesticides mg/Kg Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1254 mg/Kgall other PCBs mg/Kg
Sample Depth (feet)Sample Date
8015M
8082A
6010B
8081A
VL-5 VL-5-1 (VL-5a) VL-5-2 (VL-5b) VL-5-3 (VL-5c) VL-5-4 (VL-5d) VL-6 VL-6a VL-6b VL-6c VL-6d VL-7 VL-7ad VL-7bd VL-7cd VL-7dd VL-8 VL-8a VL-8b VL-8c VL-8d VL-9 VL-9a Table S-1 ESLs (3) Table S-2 ESLs (4)
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 1,100 - - - - <25 - - - - 130 ---- 130 ---- 220 -
<0.3 - - - - <0.3 - - - - <0.3 - - - - <0.3 - - - - <0.3 - 4,100 3,400 44 571.1 33.2 73.7 20.7 3 ---- 340 <0.1 <0.1 5.0 <0.1 299 114.9 45.4 50.7 35.5 251 100.6 1,200 3,600 - 1,748 21.7 98.8 <0.1 - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 216.3 1.3 75.5 54.5 - 166.7 140,000 -- - 338.1 <0.1 26.5 <0.1 - - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 48.8 5.5 13.1 <0.1 - 40.7 <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - 3.0 - - - - <1 - 470 -- 26 14 14.9 15.4 12.7 <1 - - - - 12 21.2 9.7 8 10.4 <1 - - - - <1 - 11(5) -- 130 ---- 180 ---- 190 ---- 180 ---- 170 - 220,000 --
<1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - 0.39 --<1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - 0.058 -- 290 73.9 86.5 59.1 68.9 55 ---- 81 62.3 68.9 63.1 75.1 81 49.8 42.8 107 40.9 49 - 1,800,000 (Cr III) -- 38 ---- 13 ---- 18 ---- 21 ---- 15 - 350 --
27 ---- 31 ---- 39 ---- 44 ---- 31 - 47,000 --
34 ---- 16 ---- 56 ---- 53 ---- 19 - 320 --
<1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - 5,800 -- 570 ---- 90 ---- 140 ---- 120 ---- 55 - 11,000 --
<5 - - - - 12 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 13 <5 <5 <5 <5 11 <5 5,800 -- <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - 5,800 --
9.7 <5 - <5 <5 5.2 <5 <5 <5 <25 8.2 <5 <5 8.5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 -- 40 ---- 38 ---- 48 ---- 77 ---- 54 - 580,000 --
62 ---- 62 ---- 88 ---- 110 ---- 59 - 350,000 --
0.061 ---- 0.069 ---- 18 9.36 2.16 <0.05 1.59 1.4 ---- 0.055 - 190 -- <1.0-2.0 - - - - <1.0-2.0 - - - - <1.0-2.0 - - - - <2.0-4.0 - - - - <1.0-2.0 - various various <0.05 - - - - <0.05 - - - - 1.2 - - - - <0.05 - - - 1.3 <0.05 - 12 7.5<0.05 - - - - <0.05 - - - - 0.70 - - - - <0.05 - - - 0.75 <0.05 - 8.5 1,100<0.05 - - - - <0.05 - - - - 0.70 - - - - <0.05 - - - 0.68 <0.05 - 8.5 4.3 <0.05-0.1 - - - - <0.05-0.1 - - - - <0.05-0.1 - - - - <0.05-0.1 - - - <0.25-0.5 <0.05-0.1 - various various <0.1 - - - - <0.1 - - - - <0.1 - - - - 3.2 1.6 <0.1 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 - 16.3 <0.1 - - - - <0.1 - - - - <0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - 1 6.3 Notes:(1) mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram.(2) Tier 1 Environmental Screeening Levels (ESLs) for unrestricted land use.(3) Table S-1: Soil Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial).(4) Table S-2: Soil Leaching to Groundwater Screening Levels (Organic Compounds only)(5): Bay Area background arsenic concentration - see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.shtml<0.05 = Not detected above Method Reporting Limit.- = Not analyzed or not established. 73 Sample concentration greater than one or more ESLs.
Direct Exposure
(C/I) Soil Leaching
Table A-3
Summary of Previous Soil Sampling Results (E2C, 2004)
Vacant Parcels 012 and 018
San Jose, CA
Method Analyte Units
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
SM 5520C Total Oil and Grease (TOG) mg/Kg
TPH Gasoline mg/Kg
TPH Diesel mg/KgTPH Motor Oil mg/KgTPH Hydraulic Fluid mg/Kg CAM 17 Metals
Antimony mg/KgArsenic mg/Kg
Barium mg/Kg
Beryllium mg/KgCadmium mg/Kg
Chromium mg/KgCobalt mg/KgCopper mg/KgLead mg/KgMolybdenum mg/KgNickel mg/KgSelenium mg/KgSilver mg/KgThallium mg/Kg Vanadium mg/Kg
Zinc mg/Kg
7471A Mercury mg/Kg
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
8260B all VOCs mg/Kg
Pesticides
4,4'-DDE mg/Kg4,4'-DDD mg/Kg4,4'-DDT mg/KgAll other Pesticides mg/Kg Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1254 mg/Kgall other PCBs mg/Kg
Sample Depth (feet)Sample Date
8015M
8082A
6010B
8081A
VL-9b VL-9c VL-9d VL-10 VL-10a VL-10b VL-10c VL-10d VL-11 VL-12 VL-13 [email protected]'[email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected]' [email protected] [email protected]' Table S-1 ESLs (3) Table S-2 ESLs (4)
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 4 2 4 2 4 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 6/25/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/11/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 - - - <25 - - - - - - - ------- - - <0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,100 3,400
65.1 169.9 14.3 <0.1 - - - - 4.4 <0.1 <0.1 308.1 146.5 273.8 12 71.2 167.7 1,200 3,600 108.5 287.1 28 - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 476 238.5 522.4 14.2 81.7 293.3 140,000 --
18.3 53.2 <0.1 - - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 171.7 69.7 151.2 <0.1 22.3 83.9 - - - <1 - - - - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 470 --- - - <1 - - - - 7.6 7.5 11.8 7.8 9.2 7.6 7.9 9.7 9.6 11(5) -- - -- 200 ---- 167 152 196 153 152 146 146 125 196 220,000 -- - - - <1 - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 0.39 --- - - <1 - - - - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 0.058 --- -- 49 ---- 45.1 65 32.3 54 66.9 110 46.4 88.8 44.3 1,800,000 (Cr III) -- - -- 12 ---- 10.5 16.2 9.5 13.9 14.6 14.6 11.3 12.6 10.3 350 --- -- 37 ---- 30 36.7 40.4 30 31.5 25.1 23.7 25.7 22.9 47,000 -- - -- 54 ---- 27.8 27.9 26.4 23.6 31.3 106 18 27.5 19.8 320 --- - - <1 - - - - 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.5 5,800 -- - -- 65 ---- 51.6 59.7 50.5 92.4 114 132 48.4 124 57.5 11,000 -- <5 <5 <5 10 - - - - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 5,800 -- - - - <1 - - - - 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.4 5,800 -- <5 <5 <5 5.7 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 12 -- - -- 41 ---- 40.7 67.6 39.9 54.4 55.1 46.5 49 47.3 42.9 580,000 --- -- 110 ---- 61.1 50.5 78.9 56.6 64.4 93 44 53.9 44.3 350,000 --- -- 0.276 ---- 0.1 0.08 0.32 0.23 0.15 0.1 0.06 0.24 0.11 190 -- - - - <1.0-2.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - various various- -- 0.068 ------- - - - - - - 12 7.5 - - - <0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.5 1,100- -- 0.064 ------- - - - - - - 8.5 4.3 - - - <0.05-0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - various various- - - <0.1 - - - - - - - ------ 1 6.3- - - <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 6.3 Notes:(1) mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram.(2) Tier 1 Environmental Screeening Levels (ESLs) for unrestricted land use.(3) Table S-1: Soil Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening Levels (Commercial/Industrial).(4) Table S-2: Soil Leaching to Groundwater Screening Levels (Organic Compounds only)<0.05 = Not detected above Method Reporting Limit.- = Not analyzed or not established. 73 Sample concentration greater than one or more ESLs.
Direct Exposure
(C/I) Soil Leaching
Method Analyte Units VL-GW TE-GW PH-GW Table GW-1 Table GW-2 Table GW-3 Sample Date 8/12/04 8/12/04 8/12/04 Drinking
Water ESLs
Aquatic
Habitat
ESLs
Vapor
Intrusion
ESLs
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH Diesel ug/L <50 <50 <50 150 640 -
TPH Motor Oil ug/L <50 <50 - Note 1 -- -
TPH Hydraulic Fluid ug/L <50 <50 ----
CAM 17 Metals
Antimony mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - 0.0074 0.03 -
Arsenic mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - 0.000004 0.036 -
Barium mg/L 0.13 0.21 - 2 --
Beryllium mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - 0.0000045 0.0027 -
Cadmium mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - 0.00004 0.00025 -
Chromium mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - -0.18 -
Cobalt mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - 0.006 0.003 -
Copper mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - 0.3 0.0031 -
Lead mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - 0.0002 0.0025 -
Molybdenum mg/L 0.07 <0.05 - 0.0012 0.000051 -
Nickel mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - 0.099 0.24 -
Selenium mg/L <0.10 <0.10 - 0.012 0.0082 -
Silver mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - 0.03 0.005 -
Thallium mg/L <0.10 <0.10 - 0.086 0.00019 -
Vanadium mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - 0.0001 0.0063 -
Zinc mg/L <0.05 <0.05 - 0.05 0.019 -
Mercury (7470A) mg/L <0.0002 <0.0002 - 6 0.081 -
Pesticides
8081 All Pesticides ug/L ND - ----
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
8082 all PCBs ND - ----
Notes:
- = Not analyzed or not established.
<0.05 = not detected above concentration listed.
Table GW-1: Groundwater Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Screening Levels, RWQCB February 2016.
Table GW-2: Ecological Aquatic Habitat Goals, RWQCB February 2016.
0.07 Sample concentration greater than one or more ESLs.
RWQCB Note 1 - "TPH motor oil is not soluble. TPH motor oil detections in water most likely are petroleum degradates or less likely NAPL. If the detections are degradates, add TPH motor oil and TPH diesel results and compare to TPH diesel criterion."
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Francisco Bay Region, Feburary 2016 Update, Tier 1 ESLs, default environmental screening levels (ESLs) for unrestricted land use. 8015
6010B
San Jose, CA
Various Locations
Summary of Previous Groundwater Analytical Results
Table A-4
Table GW-3. Groundwater Vapor Intrusion Human Health Risk Screening Levels (Volatile Chemicals Only); depth to groundwater less than or equal to 10 feet, Sand Scenario, RWQCB February 2016.
PHASE II
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
4701 North First Street
San Jose, California
September 20, 2004
E2C, Inc. Project Number 2310SC01
E2C INC
ENVIRONMENTAL I ENGINEERING CoNSULTANTS
Sinct !910
.. - -----~------
. -- . --·- ~:--- ··-- /._;.- _._._
PHASE II
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
4701 North First Street
San Jose, California
September 20, 2004
E2C, Inc. Project Number 2310SC01
Prepared For
Mr. James C. Rees
Sainte Claire Corporation
985 University Ave., Suite 12
Los Gatos, California 95032
Prepared By
E2C, Inc.
382 Martin Avenue
Santa Clara; California 95050
408.327.5700
---- ---"'" , ..... ...,.---- I ... :::. -.... · ·.· . •. : .c.-:~:-_,- ;:-·-·-. 1 ..• September 20,2004
Project Number 2310SC01
Via US Mail
Sainte Claire Corporation
985 University Ave., Suite 12
Los Gatos, California 95032
Attn:
Subject:
Mr. James C. Rees
PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
4701 North First Street
San Jose, California
Dear Mr. Rees:
E2C, Inc., is pleased to present the accompanying final report of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the subject Site.
E:zC, Inc., appreciates the opportunity to have been of service. Should you have any questions or require additional information or services please call us at 408.327.5700.
Sincerely,
E2C, Inc.
Amy Dombo~i"
Project ager
Kenda
President
ENVIRONMENTAL I ENGINEERING CoNSULTANTS
382 Martin Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050-3112 Tel: 408.327.5700 Fax: 408.327.5707
CONTENTS
1.0 SITE LOCATION AND BACKGROUND 1
1.1 Site Location and Description ................................................................................ 1
1.2 Purpose and Authorization for Completed Work .................................................... 1
1.3 Local Hydrogeologic Conditions ............................................................................. 1
1.4 Project History- Previous Investigation Evaluation ................................................ 2
2.0 CURRENT DIRECT-PUSH SAMPLING 4
2.1 Direct Push Sampling Locations ............................................................................ 4
2.2 Direct Push Sample Collection Methods ................................................................ 4
2.3 Direct Push Encountered Subsurface Conditions ................................................. 5
3.0 DIRECT-PUSH SAMPLE ANALYTICAL METHODS AND RESULTS 5
3.1 Direct Push Sample Analytical Methods ............... ; ................................................ 5
3.2 Direct Push Soil Sample Analytical Results ........................................................... 6
3.3 Direct Push Grab Groundwater Sample Analytical Results ................................... 6
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES 7
4.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 7
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND PROFFESIONAL CERTIFICATION 8
5.1 Quality Assurance .................................................................................................. 8
5.2 Professional Certification ............................ : .......................................................... 8
6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX 8
FIGURES & APPENDICES
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP LOCATION
SITE MAP
PIN HIGH GOLF CENTER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
TURNER EQUIPMENT & GRADING SAMPLE LOCATIONS
VACANT LOT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY DOCUMENTS AND LABORATORY DATA
SHEETS
ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING LEVELS, JULY 1993
Project Number 2310SC01 September 20, 2004
1.0 SITE LOCATION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Site Location and Description
The subject property is identified as 4701 North First Street, in the Alviso District in the city of San Jose, California (hereinafter referred to as the "Site"). The approximately 38 acre Site the Site consists of six adjoining parcels of land totaling approximately 38 acres encompassing four Assessors Parcel Numbers. The westernmost parcel, bordering Liberty Street, covering approximately 82,500 square feet is an undeveloped vacant lot; an R.V. Storage yard adjoins to the east and occupies approx. 4 acres of land; Excel Landscaping boarders the Southeastern corner of the R.V Storage Yard occupying approx. 5 acres of land, Turner Equipment & Grading situated on approx 15,000 square feet of land boarders Excel Landscaping to the east; and finally The Pin High Golf Center, the easternmost parcel, utilizes approx. 23 acres of the Site. Contained within the 23 acre Pin High Golf Center is an approximately 5,000-square-foot commercial structure identified as The Pin High Golf Center Club House, restaurant and golf supply shop, a 16 acre driving range, and a Verizon Wireless Cell site (formerly G.T.E. Mobilnet). Verizon Wireless resides within an approx. 7500 square foot parcel of land protected by a double walled concrete fence, containing a 150-gallon aboveground diesel tank, and battery acid for use by its generator. The Site lies less than 30 feet from the Alviso Slough, approximately 200 feet south of the San Francisco Bay and 200 feet north of Highway 237. A Topographic Map (Figure 1) and Site Plan (Figure 2) are provided in the Figures section of this report.
1.2 Purpose and Authorization For Completed Field Work
The fieldwork described and documented in this report was performed in accordance with the recommendations and conclusions contained within the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment presented dated April 29, 2004 (section 1.4 of current report), our Proposal- Soil Sampling and Analysis (E2C Inc, June 7, 2004 and August 4, 2004). The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the presence or absence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), elemental metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), and volatile organic compounds (VOC's) in the groundwater, surficial, and shallow soils within the areas identified as Pin High Golf Center Maintenance Area, Turner Equipment & Grading, and the Vacant Lot identified by shaded regions on Figure 2. Additional site characterization sampling was preformed on August 11, 2004 in any areas exceeding the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region's (SF Bay RWOCB) Risk-Based Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for Shallow Soils (<3m bgs) Where Groundwater is NOT a Current or Potential Source of Drinking Water for Residential Land Use, Interim Final July 2003. ESLs have been provided for reference in Appendix B.
1.3 Local Hydrogeologic Conditions
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of The Santa Clara Area, California, the surface soils at the subject Site and in the immediate vicinity are classified as the Alviso Series, consisting of saline or "alkali" soil that occurs near and on the E2C, Inc. Page 1
Project Number 2310SC01 September 20, 2004
margin of the tidal marsh. The average annual rainfall is about 15 inches. The parent material in very finely divided alluvium, mainly from areas of sandstone and shale rocks.
The water, which in many places saturates the lower subsoil and keeps the upper subsoil and part of the surface soil constantly moist, is mostly seepage from the San Francisco Bay. The surface soil is dark-gray calcareous clay to depths of 6 to 10 inches. The surface soil grades into a dark-gray or dark grayish-brown,_ calcareous, medium blocky, upper subsoil of fine clay texture. Lime occurs throughout the surface soil and upper subsoil, but in the upper subsoil it is segregated as small white specks of masses. There is normally an abrupt transition to a light gray, highly calcareous; fine textured lower subsoil that has rust-brown and bluish-green mottles. The lower subsoil generally contains a few calcareous nodules, and in some places a few small nodules occur in the upper subsoil. Alviso clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occurs near Tidal marsh. Nearly all of the soil is moderately or strongly affected with salts.
The Site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, a northwest-southeast trending structural basin that is bound on the southwest by the San Andreas Fault Zone and the Santa Cruz Coastal Mountains, and on the northeast by the Hayward Fault, Calaveras Fault, and the Diablo Range. During the Cenozoic Era (the last 65 million years), the region has been subject to complex tectonic evolution as the ancestral California continental margin underwent transition from a convergent to a transform plate margin (Atwater, 1970). The Bay Area continues to experience forces associated with the continental margin and the San Andreas Fault System. Crustal blocks that now form the San Francisco Bay Area were broken into sinking areas that formed highland areas. Sand, clay, and gravel were eroded from these upland areas and deposited on alluvial fans or beneath the sea in the subsided structural basins. The positions of these basins and uplands shifted from time to time, and basins of sediment accumulation were uplifted (Helley & Lajoie, 1979).
The Milpitas, California, Quadrangle Topographic Map (USGS 1980) shows no physical features that would environmentally impact the Site. The map reveals no storage tanks, mines, or wells, in the immediate area. The Alviso Slough flows into the Guadalupe River forming protected wetlands boarding the site to the South. This topographic map shows the elevation of the Site to be approximately at sea level with an approximate topographic gradient direction to the north. Based on Site field observations soils varied dramatically ranging from stiff silty clays within the Pin High Golf Center Maintenance Area to fill within the Vacant Lot consisting of non-uniform conglomerates of various soil types. Groundwater within the Pin High Golf Center was first encountered at a stable depth of six feet bgs, suggesting unconfined aquifer conditions, and observed to be a dense, black, liquid typical of Bay water. On the contrary, Turner Equipment & Grading and the Vacant Lot produced groundwater at a first encountered depth of 12 feet bgs., stabilizing at nine feet bgs., suggesting confined aquifer conditions, and observed as a clear liquid with some sediment.
Groundwater is expected to flow in a northwesterly direction, towards the Alviso Slough and the San Francisco Bay.
1.4 Project History- Previous Investigation Evaluation
Previous investigations pertaining to the Site reviewed by E2C, include soil sampling conducted by Earth Systems Consultants, of San Luis Obispo on July 21, 1993 regarding the G.T.E Mobilnet Alviso Cell Site determined a groundwater elevation of 5-feet below ground surface. Also, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, preformed by E2C, Inc. in E2C, Inc. Page2
---~.::;---.-~··.·. ! -~o . • I' ., __ _
Project Number 2310SC01 September 20, 2004
1996 was reviewed, updated by E2C, and presented in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated April 29, 2004. Conclusions and recommendations from the April Phase I ESA were the basis for this Phase II ESA and are presented as follows:
Based on the site inspection completed on April 6, 2004, by Amy Domboski of E2C, Inc., and review of available past and present documentation we conclude that the potential of adverse environmental impacts from past and present on-site land use exists. Observations of improper storage of chemicals and disposal o; wastes in or near a waterway, mass accumulations of debris, excess oil staining on hardpack fill and waterway embankments, and an aboveground diesel storage tanks were documented. A second aboveground diesel tank located within the Verizon Wireless premises is referenced in a hazardous materials business plan on file at the San Jose Fire Department. In response, a brief description with conclusions and recommendations of each tenants activities within the parcel boundaries owned by the Sainte Claire Corporation follows.
TURNER EQUIPMENT & GRADING
The current activities at Turner Equipment & Grading were observed as noncompliant with state and federal automotive repair standards. An outdoor welding area is staged near the entrance to the property, utilizing a mobile unit equipped with an air compressor and containerized gases. An automotive body repair staging area with small quantity chemical storage shelves are situated under a tarp-covered, ·makeshift shelter. A lift is present near the rear of the premises with extensive oil staining on the hardpack fill ground beneath. Behind a removable shed, a waste oil basin was identified with secondary containment; however, the ground around the disposal area was heavily stained.
Based on these observations it is our conclusion that the present operations may be adversely impacting the environment. E2C, Inc., recommends the collection of soil samples in areas where chemical storage and automotive repair exists.
PIN HIGH GOLF CENTER
The majority of the land occupied by the Pin high Golf Center is of no apparent concern. The areas within the Club House, parking area, and driving range are well kept and clean. The only area of potential concern is the landscape maintenance area located at the rear of the premises, south of the Club House.
A noncompliant 55-gallon diesel tank was observed with the absence of secondary containment, mounted on a steel frame inadequate for the load imposed by the tank. A usage log located inside the maintenance . shed indicated the tank is currently being used, presumably for the landscaping equipment. A file review of the Golf Center has no record of permits, or a hazardous materials business plan, required by California regulations.
In conclusion, we recommend compliance of the aboveground diesel storage tank or removal from premises, and soil sampling to eliminate the possibility of contamination. Also, a hazardous materials business plan should be prepared for the Pin High Golf Center and any tenants operating a business on the property as required by California law.
VERIZON WIRELESS (FORMER GTE MOBILENETJ.
Review of files at the San Jose Fire Department indicate the presence of a 150-gallon aboveground diesel tank, and battery acid (not exceeding 38-ga//ons per day) present within the double walled boundary of the site. Due to the locked entrance gate, a detailed inspection of the premises was not conducted. Visual observations from outside the gate were limited; the site appeared well kept and clean. If the premise occupied by Verizon Wireless is of concern for this environmental assessment, we recommend arranging a thorough inspection of this area to determine any potential environmental concerns.
E,C, Inc. Page3
Project Number 2310SC01 September 20, 2004
RVSTORAGE
No apparent concerns were identified. The use of Roundup, an over-the-counter weed killer, was observed being applied as intended throughout the asphalt-paved premises.
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
The presence of noncompliant waste drums on a wooden pallet was observed near the entrance to the property. Drums should be stored, labeled and disposed of in accordance with California regulation.
VACANT LOT
The parcel of land associated with the western most portion of the site, identified as an undeveloped vacant lot, representing approx. 82,500 square feet of land; had been previously utilized as engineered landfill. As part of the 1996 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by E2C, Inc., 28 soil samples were collected and analyzed for asbestos containing materials at representative locations throughout the Site properties. However, other constituents of concern for fill materials were not analyzed for at that time. Due to the unknown origin of the fill materials, soil samples analyzed according to the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Criteria for Determining the Characteristics of Hazardous Materials and Wastes, is recommended to eliminate any potential environmental risk.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the above listed areas of concern pose a potential threat to the environment.
Recommended shallow soil sampling would provide a qualitative and quantitative representation of the environmental assessment with regard to the subject Site. The data obtained would help to define or eliminate the possibility of remedial efforts necessary to insure environmental soundness.
Appendix A contains specific information pertaining to E2C's current investigation of the of the subject site. Included within Appendix A are comparison tables of analytical data from each area of concern; current E2C analytical data supplied by both North State Labs and Entech Analytical Labs.
. 2.0 CURRENT DIRECT-PUSH SAMPLING
2.1 Direct-Push Sampling Locations
The direct-push sampling locations are shown on Figures 3, 4, and 5; a total of 86 directpush borings were advanced between June 25, 2004 and August 11, 2004. Three groundwater samples, one from each area of concern, were collected on August 11, 2004.
Based upon the initial site reconnaissance, sample locations were dispersed on a random grid within each area of concern resulting in four locations, sampled at two and four feet bgs., within the Pin High Golf Center Maintenance Area; four locations, sampled at two _and four feet bgs., within Turner Equipment & Grading, and 10 sample locations, at one and a half feet bgs., within the Vacant Lot. Pursuant to collection and analysis of the initial sampling locations, "hotspots" were identified, initiating a second round of sampling and analysis. The additional sampling was intended to determine the lateral extent of contamination subsequently identified. Sample locations during the second round of this investigation were carefully placed within an approx. 10-foot radius from the initially identified contaminated centers whenever practical. The second collection yielded six E,C, Inc. Page4
I
·,
Project Number 2310SC01 September 20, 2004
sampling locations, sampled at two feet and four feet bgs. within the Pin High Golf Center Maintenance Area; 11 sample locations, at two feet and four feet bgs., within Turner Equipment & Grading; and 44 sample locations, at one and a half feet bgs., within the Vacant· lot. Additionally, one groundwater sample was collected from each area of concern during the second collection.
2.2 Direct-Push Sample Collection Methods
E2C subcontracted the direct push sampling equipment and equipment operator services of Well Test, of San Jose, California. Well Test is a State of California licensed drilling contractor (C-57 license No. 843074). A truck mounted GeoProbe™ direct-push portable sampling rig was used to facilitate the sample collection. Steel core barrels, which are approximately 2.0-inch outside diameter and five foot in length, were direct pushed - hammered in approximate two to four foot intervals at each sampling location. This process was repeated until the desired depth was reached at each location. All subsurface sampling equipment was cleaned (decontaminated) prior to each use.
The core barrels were lined with clear plastic disposable polyethylene tubing when soil samples were retained for analysis. Soil samples, for laboratory analysis, were collected by cutting the desired section of disposable plastic tubing, sealing the ends of the tube section with plastic caps, and placing the sample in a cooler with crushed ice. · Grab groundwater samples were collected by placing PVC casing approximately 1-inch in diameter, (with five feet of screen at the bottom), into each direct-push boring sample hole. Disposable flexible plastic tubing (hand siphoning) was utilized to facilitate grab groundwater sample collection. Subsurface sampling materials were used only once and then disposed.
2.3 Direct-Push Encountered Subsurface Conditions
Samples collected from the Pin High Golf Center Maintenance Area and Turner Equipment & Grading were direct-pushed to a total depth of four feet below ground surface (bgs), with depth discrete soil sample collection at two and four feet. The soils encountered within these two areas consisted of black, silty clay from the ground surface in to the total depth explored. With the exception being a silty sandy lens encountered at six feet bgs in boring PH-GW, producing a stable aquifer suggesting unconfined aquifer conditions. In contrast, TE-GW consisted of a black to light gray sandy gravel lens encountered at twelve feet bgs, and stabilizing at nine feet bgs., typical of confined aquifer conditions.
Samples collected from the Vacant lot parcel were direct-pushed to a total depth of one and a half feet bgs for soil collection. Various soil types were present without uniformity presumably due to historical land use as engineered fill. Groundwater was first encountered at 12 feet bgs and stabilized at a depth of 9 feet bgs., suggesting confined aquifer conditions.
E,C, Inc. Page5
Project Number 2310SC01 September 20, 2004
3.0 DIRECT-PUSH SAMPLE ANALYTICAL METHODS AND RESULTS
3.1 Direct-Push Sample Analytical Methods
All samples for laboratory analysis were placed in a cooler with crushed ice and delivered to North State Labs (NSL) (ELAP Certification No.1753) in South San Francisco, California, ProVera Analytical Laboratories, Inc. (ELAP Certification No. 1920) in Bakersfield, California, and Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. (ELAP Certification No. 2346) in Santa Clara, California State-certified analytical laboratories for analysis.
Selected soil samples collected in June 2004 from each boring were analyzed by Entech Analytical Labs, Inc. for CAM 17 Metals by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method No. 60108; Mercury by EPA 7471; Total Oil and Grease-IR by EPA 5520C; Pesticides by EPA 8081A; and PCB's by EPA 8082A. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline (TPHg) and Diesel (TPHd) by EPA 8015M were analyzed at ProVera Laboratories.
Selected soil samples collected in August 2004 from each boring were analyzed by NSL for CAM 17 Metals by EPA 60108, Mercury by EPA 7471A. ProVera Laboratories analyzed TPH as Gasoline, TPH as Diesel, TPH as Motor Oil and TPH as Hydraulic Oil all by EPA 8015M.
The Chain-Of-Custody Records and Certified Laboratory Analytical Reports are presented in Appendix A.
3.2 Direct-Push Soil Sample Analytical Results
A summary of all detected soil sample analytical results, from both sampling events, is presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 within Appendix A. Two depth discrete samples for laboratory analysis were collected from each direct-push boring relevant to PinHigh Golf Center and Turner Equipment and Grading.
Soils collected from within the Vacant Lot from which one depth discrete sample was collected at 1.5 feet below ground surface. During the second phase of sampling an "oil puddle" was observed within the Vacant Lot, identified as VL-14 on Figure 5, and subsequently sampled at two and four feet bgs. The "oil puddle" accumulation is presumed to be a result of inappropriate business practices within the adjoining RV Storage Facility.
One groundwater sample was collected from Turner Equipment & Grading, Excel Landscape, and Pin High Golf Center. A total of 26 soil samples were collected in June 2004 and 65 soil samples were collected for further characterization and analysis in August 2004. The highest contaminant concentration, Total Oil and Grease, was detected within the Turner Equipment portion of the site, specifically TE-4@4' at 4700 mg/kg (4700 ppm). The shaded areas presented within Figures 3, 4 and 5 identify site-specific areas of contamination.
E,C, Inc. Page6
Project Number 2310SC01 September 20, 2004
3.3 Direct-Push Grab Groundwater Sample Analytical Results Tables 1, 2, and 3 within Appendix A, present a summary of all grab groundwater sample analytical results. All analyzed grab groundwater samples were below laboratory detection limits and ESLs for each of the analyzed constituents.
E,C, Inc. Page7
'
'
) __ ._, _-·
Project Number 2310SC01 September 20, 2004
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Conclusions
Based on the data obtained during the preparation of our ESA, E2C, Inc., draws the following conclusions:
• Pursuant to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment presented in April of 2004, 88 soil samples and three groundwater samples were collected for subsequent analysis from primary areas of concern within the Pin High Golf Center Maintenance Area, Turner Equipment & Grading; and the Vacant Lot. The resulting analytical data indicates the presence contamination such as total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHd) within all three locations; metals including Arsenic (As), Selenium (Se), Thallium (TI) and Mercury (Hg) present within Turner Equipment & Grading and the Vacant Lot; and Pesticides and PCB's present within the Vacant Lot. However, although concentrations present in select locations are above the ESLs and that the impact to soil and/or the environment is eminent; groundwater at all three locations appears to be autonomous of contamination. Therefore, remedial action including further site characterization, excavation, and disposal of contaminated areas may be required prior to site redevelopment.
Therefore, E2C, Inc., recommends the following remedial action be taken:
a.
b.
c.
d.
E,C, Inc.
Upon termination of all business activities at the subject site, the impacted areas shall be surveyed prior to building demolition allowing for areas of remediation to be identified for over-excavation. E2C shall be present to initially identify these areas.
The identified areas should then be over-excavated to the dimensions shown in Figures 2-5 of the site plans.
Upon completion of the initial phase of excavation, the lateral and vertical extent of contamination can be characterized and removed from the subject site.
Alternatively, encapsulating contaminated areas with certified, non-contaminated fill, to the specifications necessary for site development and usage, may prevent or reduce the implementations of recommendations a, b or c above. Also, please be advised that disclosure of contamination may be required if encapsulated.
PageS
I""';,_ ... ------- - --
- --
Project Number 2310SC01 September 20, 2004
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION.
5.1 Quality Assurance
Soil and grab groundwater samples were stored on ice and sent promptly to a Statecertified analytical laboratory. Laboratories are audited by the State certification program for maintaining quality control procedures and for record keeping. Chain-of-custody records and certified laboratory analytical reports are attached as Appendix A.
5.2 Professional Certification
We declare, under penalty of perjury, that to the best of our knowledge, everything presented in this report is true and correct.
Should you have any questions or require supplemental information, please do not hesitate to contact us at (408) 327-5700.
Sincerely,
Amy Domboski
Project Manager
Page9
[ .. -c----- ·-.-,--.- \ .
Project Number 2310SC01 September 20, 2004
7.0 REFERENCES
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Soil survey of Santa Clara County. Eastern Part. California. 1991.
E2C, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Pin High Golf Center, June 18, 2004.
E2C, Inc.
•j·~-~---·-.
-· --. --- . --·:---'.<:~:-·,. -· ~ - . -' . , ..
!