HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix F - Geotechnical Investigation Report
Alta Fontana Mixed Use Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
APPENDIX F
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CRP/WP ALTA FONTANA VENTURE, LLC
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. W1450-06-01
NOVEMBER 22, 2021
Project No. W1450-06-01
November 22, 2021
CRP/WP Alta Fontana Venture, LLC
11849 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 204
Los Angeles, California 90064
Attention: Mr. Adam Karaczynski
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
APN’s: 023007103 & 023007104
Dear Mr. Karaczynski,
In accordance with your authorization of our proposal dated June 15, 2021, we have prepared this
geotechnical investigation report for the proposed multi-family residential development located at
14817 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Fontana, California. The accompanying report presents the
findings of our study and our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects
of proposed design and construction. Based on the results of our investigation, it is our opinion that the
site can be developed as proposed, provided the recommendations of this report are followed and
implemented during design and construction.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON WEST, INC.
Joseph Hicks
Project Engineer
Neal Berliner
GE 2576
Susan Kirkgard
CEG 1754
(EMAIL) Addressee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 1
2. SITE CONDITIONS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... 1
3. GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................................... 2
4. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS .............................................................................................................. 2
4.1 Artificial Fill .......................................................................................................................... 2
4.2 Alluvium ................................................................................................................................ 3
5. GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................... 3
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................................. 4
6.1 Surface Fault Rupture ............................................................................................................ 4
6.2 Seismicity ............................................................................................................................... 5
6.3 Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 6
6.4 Liquefaction Potential ............................................................................................................ 8
6.5 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................................ 8
6.6 Earthquake-Induced Flooding ................................................................................................ 8
6.7 Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding ............................................................................................ 9
6.8 Oil Fields & Methane ............................................................................................................. 9
6.9 Subsidence ............................................................................................................................. 9
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 10
7.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 10
7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics ..................................................................................... 12
7.3 Minimum Resistivity, pH, and Water-Soluble Sulfate ........................................................ 13
7.4 Grading ................................................................................................................................ 13
7.5 Shrinkage ............................................................................................................................. 16
7.6 Foundation Design ............................................................................................................... 16
7.7 Foundation Settlement ......................................................................................................... 18
7.8 Miscellaneous Foundations .................................................................................................. 18
7.9 Lateral Design ...................................................................................................................... 19
7.10 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ..................................................................................................... 19
7.11 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations ........................................................................... 20
7.12 Retaining Wall Design ......................................................................................................... 22
7.13 Retaining Wall Drainage ...................................................................................................... 24
7.14 Elevator Pit Design .............................................................................................................. 25
7.15 Elevator Piston ..................................................................................................................... 25
7.16 Temporary Excavations ....................................................................................................... 26
7.17 Stormwater Infiltration ......................................................................................................... 26
7.18 Surface Drainage .................................................................................................................. 28
7.19 Plan Review ......................................................................................................................... 28
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
MAPS, TABLES, AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
Figure 3, Regional Fault Map
Figure 4, Regional Seismicity Map
Figures 5 and 6, Retaining Wall Drain Detail
Figures 7 through 9, Percolation Test Results
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A1 through A5, Boring Logs
Figures A6 through A16, Test Pit Logs
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Figures B1 through B5, Direct Shear Test Results
Figures B6 through B13, Consolidation Test Results
Figures B14 and B15, Expansion Index Test Results
Figure B16, Modified Compaction Test Results
Figure B17, Corrosivity Test Results
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for a proposed multi-family residential
development located at 14817 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Fontana, California (see Vicinity Map,
Figure 1). The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate subsurface soil and geologic conditions
underlying the property, and based on conditions encountered, to provide conclusions and
recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of proposed design and construction.
The scope of this investigation included a site reconnaissance, field exploration, laboratory testing,
engineering analysis, and the preparation of this report. The site was explored on October 18, 2021, by
excavating five 8-inch diameter borings using a truck-mounted hollow stem auger drilling machine.
The borings were excavated to depths of 20½ and 50½ feet below existing ground surface. The site was
also explored on October 20, 2021, by excavating nine test pits utilizing a backhoe. The test pits were
excavated to depths of 4½ to 7½ feet below existing ground surface. The approximate locations of the
exploratory borings are depicted on the Site Plan (Figure 2). A detailed discussion of the field
investigation, including boring logs, is presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation to
determine pertinent physical and chemical soil properties. Appendix B presents a summary of the
laboratory test results.
The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained during the
investigation and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. References reviewed to
prepare this report are provided in the List of References section.
If project details vary significantly from those described herein, Geocon should be contacted to
determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report.
2. SITE CONDITIONS & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located at 14817 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Fontana, California. The site
consists of an approximately 8.8 acre parcel that is undeveloped. The site is bounded by West Foothill
Boulevard to the north, by multiple single-family residential structures to the south, by Live Oak
Avenue to the east, and by single-family residential structures to the west. The site is relatively level,
with no pronounced highs or lows. Surface water drainage at the site appears to be by sheet flow along
the existing contours with no discernable pattern. Vegetation consists of native grasses and a few trees
in the northern portion of the property.
Based on the preliminary information provided to us by the client, it is our understanding that the
proposed development will consist of a four-story, multi-family residential structure to be constructed
at or near present grade. At this time there is no preliminary layout available.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
Based on the preliminary nature of the design at this time, wall and column loads were not available.
It is anticipated that column loads for the proposed structure will be up to 300 kips, and wall loads are
estimated to be up to 3 kips per linear foot.
Once the design phase and foundation loading configuration proceeds to a more finalized plan, the
recommendations within this report should be reviewed and revised, if necessary. Any changes in the
design, location or elevation of any structure, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this
office. Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this
report.
3. GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located in the northeastern Chino Basin in San Bernardino County, California. The Chino
Basin encompasses a broad area of coalescing alluvial fans that extend southward from the San Gabriel
Mountains and overlie a down-dropped structural block which is bounded by the Elsinore Fault and the
Chino Fault to the southwest, by the Red Hill Fault and the San Jose Fault to the northwest, by the San
Gabriel Mountains and Sierra Madre Fault Zone to the north, by the Rialto-Colton Fault to the northeast,
and the La Sierra Hills and Jurupa Hills to the south and southeast. The alluvial deposits within the
Chino Basin consist of Holocene age (last 11,700 years old) and Pleistocene age (11,700 to 2 million
years old) alluvial sediments. Locally, a thin veneer of eolian sand locally covers areas of the basin.
4. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS
Based on our field investigation and published geologic maps, the soils underlying the site consist of
undocumented artificial fill material over Holocene age alluvial fan deposits consisting of cobbles,
gravel, sand and silt (CGS, 2010). Detailed stratigraphic profiles are provided in the boring logs in
Appendix A.
4.1 Artificial Fill
The site is partially mantled by artificial fill and was encountered only in boring B-5 to a maximum
depth of 2 feet below existing ground surface. The artificial fill generally consists of brown sand with
gravel. The fill is characterized as fine- to medium-grained, dry to slightly moist, and medium dense.
The fill is likely the result of past grading and construction activities at the site. Deeper fill may exist
between excavations and in other portions of the site that were not directly explored.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
4.2 Alluvium
Holocene age alluvium is present at the ground surface and beneath the artificial fill, where present at
the site. As encountered in our borings, the alluvium consists of grayish brown to brown or yellowish
brown well-graded to poorly graded sand with varying amounts of silt, fine to coarse gravel, and
cobbles. The alluvium is characterized as dry to moist and medium dense to very dense. Although
not directly observed in our borings, they were observed in the test pits at the site. Cobbles (up to
12 inches) and boulders are common in this geologic environment and should be anticipated to be
encountered in future excavations.
5. GROUNDWATER
The site is located in the Chino Basin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin. A review of
groundwater contour maps published by the Chino Basin Watermaster ([CBWM], 2017), the California
Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG, 1976), and the U. S. Geological Survey (Mendenhall, 1904)
indicate that the groundwater level in the immediate site vicinity has historically been greater than
300 feet beneath the ground surface since 1904. Based on current groundwater basin management
practices, it is unlikely that groundwater levels will ever exceed the historic high levels.
Review of groundwater monitoring well data provided by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS, 2021)
indicates closest monitoring well to the site is Local Well No. CHINO-1002215 (State Well No.
340935N1174885W001), located approximately 0.8 mile southwest of the site. Monitoring data from
this well is available for the period from October 1925 through April 2017. During this time, the depth
to groundwater has been approximately greater 300 feet beneath the ground surface. The most recent
groundwater level measurement was recorded on April 1, 2017 and the depth to groundwater was
approximately greater than 450 feet below the ground surface.
Groundwater was not encountered in our field explorations, drilled to a maximum depth of 50½ feet
below the ground surface. Based on the reported historic groundwater levels in the site vicinity (USGS,
2021; CBWM, 2017; CDMG, 1976; Mendenhall, 1904), the lack of groundwater encountered in our
borings, and the depth of proposed construction, static groundwater is neither expected to be
encountered during construction, nor have a detrimental effect on the project. However, groundwater
seepage may be encountered during construction. It is not uncommon for groundwater levels to vary
seasonally or for groundwater seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed, especially
in impermeable fine-grained soils which are heavily irrigated or after seasonal rainfall. In addition,
recent requirements for stormwater infiltration could result in shallower seepage conditions in the
immediate site vicinity. Proper surface drainage of irrigation and precipitation will be critical for future
performance of the project. Recommendations for drainage are provided in the Surface Drainage
section of this report (see Section 7.18).
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
6.1 Surface Fault Rupture
The numerous faults in Southern California include Holocene-active, pre-Holocene, and inactive faults.
The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey
(CGS, formerly known as CDMG) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Program (CGS,
2018a). By definition, a Holocene-active fault is one that has had surface displacement within
Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years). A pre-Holocene fault has demonstrated surface
displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years) but has had no known
Holocene movement. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive.
The site is not within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2021a; 2021b;
City of Fontana, 2017) for surface fault rupture hazards. No Holocene-active or pre-Holocene faults
with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, the
potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the
proposed development is considered low. However, the site is located in the seismically active
Southern California region and could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of
an earthquake on one of the many Holocene-active Southern California faults. The faults in the vicinity
of the site are shown in Figure 3, Regional Fault Map.
The closest active fault to the site is the Cucamonga Fault of the Sierra Madre Fault Zone located
approximately 3.7 miles to the north (USGS, 2006; Ziony and Jones, 1989). Other nearby active faults
are the Red Hill Fault, the San Jacinto Fault, and the San Andreas Fault Zone located 4 miles north,
5.4 miles north-northeast, and 9.8 miles northeast of the site, respectively (USGS, 2006; Ziony and
Jones, 1989).
Several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as “blind" thrusts, underlie the Southern California
area, at depth. These faults are not exposed at the ground surface and are typically identified at depths
greater than three kilometers. The October 1, 1987 Mw 5.9 Whittier Narrows Earthquake and the
January 17, 1994 Mw 6.7 Northridge Earthquake were a result of movement on the Puente Hills Blind
Thrust and the Northridge Thrust, respectively. These blind thrusts and others in the Southern
California area are not exposed at the surface and do not present a potential surface fault rupture
hazard. However, these buried faults are considered active features and are capable of generating future
earthquakes.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
6.2 Seismicity
As with all of Southern California, the site has experienced historic earthquakes from various regional
faults. The seismicity of the region surrounding the site was formulated based on research of an
electronic database of earthquake data. The epicenters of recorded earthquakes with magnitudes equal
to or greater than 5.0 in the site vicinity are depicted on Figure 4, Regional Seismicity Map. A partial
list of moderate to major magnitude earthquakes that have occurred in the Southern California area
within the last 100 years is included in the following table.
LIST OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES
Earthquake
(Oldest to Youngest) Date of Earthquake Magnitude Distance to Epicenter (Miles)
Direction to Epicenter
Near Redlands July 23, 1923 6.3 15 ESE
Long Beach March 10, 1933 6.4 44 SW
Tehachapi July 21, 1952 7.5 107 NW
San Fernando February 9, 1971 6.6 57 WNW
Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 34 W
Sierra Madre June 28, 1991 5.8 32 WNW
Landers June 28, 1992 7.3 60 E
Big Bear June 28, 1992 6.4 38 E
Northridge January 17, 1994 6.7 61 W
Hector Mine October 16, 1999 7.1 77 ENE
Ridgecrest July 5, 2019 7.1 115 N
The site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. However, this
hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking can be mitigated if the
proposed structures are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and
engineering practices.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
6.3 Seismic Design Criteria
The following table summarizes the site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2019 California
Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2018 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-16), Chapter
16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The data was calculated using the online
application Seismic Design Maps, provided by OSHPD. The short spectral response uses a period of
0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.2.2 of the 2019 CBC
and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. The values presented on the following page are for the risk-targeted
maximum considered earthquake (MCER).
2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2019 CBC Reference
Site Class D Section 1613.2.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration – Class B (short), SS 1.939g Figure 1613.2.1(1)
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.735g Figure 1613.2.1(2)
Site Coefficient, FA 1 Table 1613.2.3(1)
Site Coefficient, FV 1.7* Table 1613.2.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration (short), SMS 1.939g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-36)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1 1.25g* Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-37)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 1.293g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.833g* Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-39)
Note:
*Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis shall be performed
for projects for Site Class “E” sites with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0g and for Site Class “D”
and “E” sites with S1 greater than 0.2g. Section 11.4.8 also provides exceptions which
indicates that the ground motion hazard analysis may be waived provided the exceptions are
followed. Using the code-based values presented in the table above, in lieu of a performing a
ground motion hazard analysis, requires the exceptions outlined in ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8
be followed.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
The table below presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design
parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE
7-16.
ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
Parameter Value ASCE 7-16 Reference
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration,
PGA 0.832g Figure 22-7
Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.1 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground
Acceleration, PGAM 0.915g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1)
The Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion (MCE) is the level of ground motion that has a
2 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with a statistical return period of 2,475 years. According to
the 2019 California Building Code and ASCE 7-16, the MCE is to be utilized for the evaluation of
liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlements, and it is our understanding that the intent of the
Building code is to maintain “Life Safety” during a MCE event. The Design Earthquake Ground
Motion (DE) is the level of ground motion that has a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, with
a statistical return period of 475 years.
Deaggregation of the MCE peak ground acceleration was performed using the USGS online Unified
Hazard Tool, 2014 Conterminous U.S. Dynamic edition (v4.2.0). The result of the deaggregation
analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the MCE peak ground acceleration is
characterized as a 6.99 magnitude event occurring at a hypocentral distance of 10.27 kilometers from
the site.
Deaggregation was also performed for the Design Earthquake (DE) peak ground acceleration, and
the result of the analysis indicates that the predominant earthquake contributing to the DE peak
ground acceleration is characterized as a 6.89 magnitude occurring at a hypocentral distance of
12.76 kilometers from the site.
Conformance to the criteria in the above tables for seismic design does not constitute any kind of
guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large
earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since
such design may be economically prohibitive.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
6.4 Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear
strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and
duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions,
and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers
due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations.
The current standard of practice, as outlined in the “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of
DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California”
and “Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California” requires liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of the proposed
structure. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of
poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil
conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to
induce liquefaction.
According to the City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017) and the San Bernardino
Countywide Plan (2010), the site is not located in an area designated as having a potential for
liquefaction. Based on the historic high groundwater levels in the site vicinity (greater than 300 feet
beneath the ground surface, the lack of groundwater encountered in our borings, and depth to
groundwater recorded in nearby water wells in the vicinity, it is our opinion that the potential for
liquefaction of the soils underlying the site is very low.
6.5 Slope Stability
The topography of the site is generally level and the topography in the site vicinity gently slopes to the
southeast at a gradient of less than 5%. According to the City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
(2017) and the San Bernardino Countywide Plan (2010), the site is not located within an area identified
as having a potential for slope instability. There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in
the path of any known or potential landslides. The potential for slope instability or landslides adversely
affecting the proposed project is considered low.
6.6 Earthquake-Induced Flooding
Earthquake-induced flooding is inundation caused by failure of dams or other water-retaining
structures due to earthquakes. A review of the City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017)
and the San Bernardino Countywide Plan (2010), indicates that the site is not located within a potential
inundation area for an earthquake-induced dam failure. Therefore, the probability of earthquake-
induced flooding is considered very low.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
6.7 Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding
The site is not located within a coastal area. Therefore, tsunamis are not considered a significant hazard
at the site.
Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking.
No major water-retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. Flooding
from a seismically induced seiche is considered unlikely.
The site is not within a 100-year flood zone or a 500-year flood zone. The potential for flooding to
adversely impact the site is considered low (City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2017).
6.8 Oil Fields & Methane
Based on a review of the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Well Finder
website, the site is not located within the boundary of a known oil field and no oil wells are located in
the immediate site vicinity. However, due to the voluntary nature of record reporting by the oil well
drilling companies, wells may be improperly located or not shown on the location map and
undocumented wells could be encountered during construction. Any wells encountered during
construction will need to be properly abandoned in accordance with the current requirements of the
CalGEM.
Since the site is not located within the boundaries of a known oil field, the potential for the presence of
methane or other volatile gases is considered low. However, should it be determined that a methane
study is required for the proposed development it is recommended that a qualified methane consultant
be retained to perform the study and provide mitigation measures as necessary.
6.9 Subsidence
Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of
groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high
silt or clay content. The site is not located within an area of known ground subsidence. No large-scale
extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring or planned at the site.
There appears to be little or no potential for ground subsidence due to withdrawal of fluid or gas at the
site.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General
7.1.1 It is our opinion that neither soil nor geologic conditions were encountered during the
investigation that would preclude the construction of the proposed development provided the
recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during design and
construction.
7.1.2 Up to 2 feet of existing artificial fill was encountered during the site investigation.
Deeper fill may exist in other areas of the site that were not directly explored. It is our
opinion that the existing fill, in its present condition, is not suitable for direct support of
proposed foundations or slabs. The existing fill and site soils are suitable for re-use as
engineered fill provided the recommendations in the Grading section of this report are
followed (see Section 7.4).
7.1.3 Based on our observations onsite and our knowledge of the geologic setting, cobbles should
be anticipated during earthwork at the subject site. Additionally, boulders may be
encountered in the existing fill or alluvial soils. The contractor should be prepared for
difficult excavation conditions. The presence of these materials and their impact on
construction methods and equipment selection should be considered by both the developer
and contractor prior to construction.
7.1.4 Screening of the earth materials will likely be required to remove oversize (greater than
6 inches) rock, prior to placement and compaction. Generation of oversized material (greater
than 6 inches) should be anticipated.
7.1.5 Based on these considerations, it is recommended that the upper 5 feet of existing earth
materials within the building footprint areas be excavated and properly compacted for
foundation and slab support. Deeper excavations should be conducted as needed to remove
any encountered fill or soft soils as necessary at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer
(a representative of Geocon). Proposed foundations should be underlain by a minimum of
3 feet of newly placed engineered fill. The limits of existing fill and/or soft soil removal will
be verified by the Geocon representative during site grading activities. The excavation
should extend laterally a minimum distance of three feet beyond the building footprint areas,
including building appurtenances, or a distance equal to the depth of fill below the
foundation, whichever is greater. Recommendations for earthwork are provided in the
Grading section of this report (see Section 7.4).
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.1.6 Subsequent to the recommended grading, the proposed structures may be supported on a
conventional shallow spread foundation system deriving support in newly placed engineered
fill. Recommendations for the design of a conventional foundation system are provided in
Section 7.6.
7.1.7 All excavations must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer
(a representative of Geocon).
7.1.8 Where miscellaneous subterranean improvements are planned (Elevator Pits), these
structures may be supported on a conventional foundation system deriving support in the
undisturbed alluvial soils found at and below a depth of 5 feet. If necessary, these
miscellaneous improvements may derive support in a combination of newly placed
engineered fill and competent alluvial soils found at and below a depth of 5 feet. It is the
intent of the Geotechnical Engineer to allow miscellaneous subterranean structures to derive
support in both engineered fill and alluvial soils if project conditions warrant such an
occurrence. Recommendations for elevator pit design is provided in Sections 7.14 of this
report, respectively.
7.1.9 It is anticipated that stable excavations for the recommended grading associated with the
proposed structures can be achieved with sloping measures. However, if excavations in close
proximity to an adjacent property line and/or structure are required, special excavation
measures may be necessary in order to maintain lateral support of offsite improvements.
Excavation recommendations are provided in the Temporary Excavations section of this
report (Section 7.16).
7.1.10 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as block walls up to 6 feet high, planter walls
or trash enclosures, which will not be tied to the proposed structure, may be supported on
conventional foundations bearing on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered fill
which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation and
proper compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, foundations may derive support
directly in the undisturbed alluvial soils at and below a depth of 24 inches and should be
deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12-inch embedment into the recommended
bearing materials. If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft or loose, compaction
of the soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation
excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical
whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.1.11 Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill soils and soft
alluvial soils be excavated and properly compacted for paving support. The client should be
aware that excavation and compaction of all existing fill in the area of new paving is not
required, however, paving constructed over existing uncertified fill or unsuitable soils may
experience increased settlement and/or cracking, and may therefore have a shorter design life
and increased maintenance costs. As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of soil should be
scarified and properly compacted. Paving recommendations are provided in the Preliminary
Pavement Recommendations section of this report (see Section 7.11).
7.1.12 Based on the results of percolation testing performed at the site, a stormwater infiltration
system is considered feasible for this project. Recommendations for infiltration are provided
in the Stormwater Infiltration section of this report (see Section 7.17).
7.1.13 Once the design and foundation loading configuration for the proposed structures proceeds
to a more finalized plan, the recommendations within this report should be reviewed and
revised, if necessary. Based on the final foundation loading configurations, the potential for
settlement should be reevaluated by this office.
7.1.14 Any changes in the design, location or elevation of improvements, as outlined in this report,
should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for
review and possible revision of this report.
7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
7.2.1 The in-situ soils can be excavated with moderate effort using conventional excavation
equipment. Due to the granular nature of the soils, moderate to excessive caving should be
anticipated in vertical excavations, especially where granular soils are encountered.
Formwork may be required to prevent caving of foundation excavations. In addition, due to
the presence of cobbles and possible boulders, the contractor should be prepared for difficult
excavation conditions during drilling and earthwork activities.
7.2.2 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are
properly shored and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and regulations
to maintain safety and maintain the stability of adjacent existing improvements.
7.2.3 All onsite excavations must be conducted in such a manner that potential surcharges from
existing structures, construction equipment, and vehicle loads are resisted. The surcharge
area may be defined by a 1:1 projection down and away from the bottom of an existing
foundation or vehicle load. Penetrations below this 1:1 projection will require special
excavation measures such as sloping and shoring. Excavation recommendations are provided
in the Temporary Excavations section of this report (see Section 7.16).
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.2.4 The upper 5 feet of existing site soils encountered during this investigation are considered to
have a “very low” expansive potential (EI < 20 ), and the soils are classified as
“non-expansive” based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3.
Recommendations presented herein assume that proposed foundations and slabs will derive
support in these materials.
7.3 Minimum Resistivity, pH, and Water-Soluble Sulfate
7.3.1 Potential of Hydrogen (pH) and resistivity testing as well as chloride content testing were
performed on representative samples of soil to generally evaluate the corrosion potential to
surface utilities. The tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method
Nos. 643 and 422 and indicate that the soils are considered “mildly corrosive” with respect
to corrosion of buried ferrous metals on site. The results are presented in Appendix B (Figure
B17) and should be considered for design of underground structures.
7.3.2 Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soil to measure the
percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate
tests are presented in Appendix B (Figure B17) and indicate that the on-site materials
possess a sulfate exposure class of “S0” to concrete structures as defined by 2019 CBC
Section 1904 and ACI 318-19 Table 19.3.1.1.
7.3.3 Geocon West, Inc. does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering and mitigation.
If corrosion sensitive improvements are planned, it is recommended that a corrosion engineer
be retained to evaluate corrosion test results and incorporate the necessary precautions to
avoid premature corrosion of buried metal pipes and concrete structures in direct contact
with the soils.
7.4 Grading
7.4.1 Grading is anticipated to include preparation of the building pad, excavation for proposed
foundations and utility trenches, as well as placement of backfill for elevator pit walls and
trenches.
7.4.2 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading
operations with the owner, contractor, civil engineer and soil engineer in attendance. Special
soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.4.3 Earthwork should be observed, and compacted fill tested by representatives of Geocon West,
Inc. The existing fill soil encountered during exploration is suitable for re-use as engineered
fill, provided any encountered oversized material (greater than 12 inches) and any
encountered deleterious debris are removed. It is recommended that materials greater than
6 inches not be placed in the upper 5 feet of the pad. If materials are to be buried in
windrows they should be buried at least 10 feet below the surface, located outside of
proposed building pad areas, and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.
7.4.4 Screening of the earth materials will likely be required to remove oversize (greater than
6 inches) rock, prior to placement and compaction. Generation of oversized material (greater
than 6 inches) should be anticipated. The contractor should be prepared for difficult
excavation conditions. The presence of these materials and their impact on construction
methods and equipment selection should be considered by both the owner and contractor
prior to construction.
7.4.5 Grading should commence with the removal of all existing vegetation and existing
improvements from the area to be graded. Deleterious debris such as wood and root
structures should be exported from the site and should not be mixed with the fill soils.
Asphalt and concrete should not be mixed with the fill soils unless approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer. All existing underground improvements planned for removal should
be completely excavated and the resulting depressions properly backfilled in accordance
with the procedures described herein. Once a clean excavation bottom has been established it
must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of
Geocon West, Inc.).
7.4.6 As a minimum, it is recommended that the upper 5 feet of existing site soils within the
proposed building footprint areas be excavated and properly compacted for foundation and
slab support. Deeper excavation should be conducted as necessary to completely remove all
existing artificial fill or soft soil at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a
representative of Geocon). Proposed foundations should be underlain by a minimum of
3 feet of newly placed engineered fill. It is recommended that the grading contractor verify
the depth of all building foundations prior to commencement of site grading activities
in order to correctly determine the required grading overexcavations for foundations.
The excavation should extend laterally a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the building
footprint area or a distance equal to the depth of fill below the foundation, whichever is
greater. The limits of existing fill and/or soft fill soils removal will be verified by the Geocon
representative during site grading activities.
7.4.7 All excavations must be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer
(a representative of Geocon) prior to placing any fill.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.4.8 All fill and backfill soils should be placed in horizontal loose layers approximately 6 to
8 inches thick, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and properly
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557
(latest edition).
7.4.9 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as block walls up to 6 feet high, planter walls
or trash enclosures, which will not be tied to the proposed buildings, may be supported on
conventional foundations deriving support on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed
engineered fill which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area.
Where excavation and proper compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, foundations
may derive support directly in the undisturbed alluvial soils at or below a depth of 24 inches,
and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a minimum 12-inch embedment into the
recommended bearing materials. If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft or
loose, compaction of the soils will be required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction
of the foundation excavation bottom is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or
mechanical whacker and must be observed and approved by a Geocon representative.
7.4.10. Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill and soft alluvium
be excavated and properly compacted for paving support. As a minimum, the upper
12 inches of soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture
content, and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM
Test Method D 1557 (latest edition). Paving recommendations are provided in Preliminary
Pavement Recommendations section of this report (see Section 7.11).
7.4.11 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as block walls up to 6 feet high, planter walls
or trash enclosures, which will not be tied to the proposed structure, may be supported on
conventional foundations bearing on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered fill
which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation and
proper compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, foundations may derive support
directly in the undisturbed alluvial soils, and should be deepened as necessary to maintain a
minimum 12-inch embedment into the recommended bearing materials. If the soils exposed
in the excavation bottom are soft or loose, compaction of the soils will be required prior to
placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom is typically
accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be observed and
approved in writing by a Geocon representative.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.4.12 All imported fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by Geocon West, Inc. prior to
bringing soil to the site. Rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter shall not be used in the fill.
Import soils used as structural fill should have an expansion index less than 20 and
corrosivity properties that are equally or less detrimental to that of the existing onsite soils
(see Figure B17). Import soils placed in the building area should be placed uniformly across
the building pad or in a manner that is approved by the Geotechnical Engineer (a
representative of Geocon).
7.4.13 Utility trenches should be properly backfilled in accordance with the requirements of the Green
Book (latest edition). The pipe should be bedded with clean sands (Sand Equivalent greater
than 30) to a depth of at least 1 foot over the pipe, and the bedding material must be inspected
and approved in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon). The use of
gravel is not acceptable unless used in conjunction with filter fabric to prevent the gravel from
having direct contact with soil. The remainder of the trench backfill may be derived from
onsite soil or approved import soil, compacted as necessary, until the required compaction is
obtained. The use of minimum 2-sack slurry as backfill is also acceptable. Prior to placing any
bedding materials or pipes, the trench excavation bottom must be observed and approved in
writing by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon).
7.4.14 All trench and foundation excavation bottoms must be observed and approved in writing by
the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon), prior to placing bedding sands, fill,
steel, gravel, or concrete.
7.5 Shrinkage
7.5.1 Shrinkage results when a volume of material removed at one density is compacted to a
higher density. A shrinkage factor between 5 and 10 percent should be anticipated when
excavating and compacting the upper 5 feet of existing earth materials on the site to an
average relative compaction of 92 percent. The shrinkage factor does not include the removal
of oversized material.
7.4.2 If import soils will be utilized in the building pads, the soils must be placed uniformly and at
equal thickness at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon
West, Inc.). Soils can be borrowed from non-building pad areas and later replaced with
imported soils.
7.6 Foundation Design
7.6.1 Subsequent to the recommended grading, a conventional shallow spread foundation system
may be utilized for support of the proposed structures provided foundations derive support in
newly placed engineered fill. Proposed foundations should be underlain by a minimum of
3 feet of newly placed engineered fill.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.6.2 Continuous footings may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per
square foot (psf), and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 18 inches in depth below
the lowest adjacent grade, and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material.
7.6.3 Isolated spread foundations may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf,
and should be a minimum of 24 inches in width, 18 inches in depth below the lowest
adjacent grade, and 12 inches into the recommended bearing material.
7.6.4 The allowable soil bearing pressure above may be increased by 250 psf and 500 psf for each
additional foot of foundation width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil
bearing pressure of 3,500 psf.
7.6.5 The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to
wind or seismic forces.
7.6.6 Continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 steel reinforcing
bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. The reinforcement for
isolated spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer.
7.6.7 If depth increases are utilized for the exterior wall footings, this office should be provided a
copy of the final construction plans so that the excavation recommendations presented herein
could be properly reviewed and revised if necessary. Additional grading should be conducted
as needed in order to maintain the recommended 3-foot-thick blanket of engineered fill
below proposed foundations.
7.6.8 No special subgrade presaturation is required prior to placement of concrete. However, the
slab and foundation subgrade should be sprinkled as necessary; to maintain a moist condition
as would be expected in any concrete placement.
7.6.9 Foundation excavations should be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical
Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to the placement of reinforcing steel
and concrete to verify that the excavations and exposed soil conditions are consistent with
those anticipated. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications
may be required.
7.6.10 This office should be provided a copy of the final construction plans so that the excavation
recommendations presented herein could be properly reviewed and revised if necessary.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.7 Foundation Settlement
7.7.1 The maximum expected static settlement for the proposed structures supported on a
conventional foundation system designed with a maximum bearing pressure of 3,500 psf and
deriving support in the recommended bearing materials is estimated to be less than 1 inch
and occur below the heaviest loaded structural element. Settlement of the foundation system
is expected to occur on initial application of loading. Differential settlement is not expected
to exceed ½ inch over a distance of 20 feet.
7.7.2 Once the design and foundation loading configurations for the proposed structures proceeds
to a more finalized plan, the estimated settlements presented in this report should be
reviewed and revised, if necessary. If the final foundation loading configurations are greater
than the assumed loading conditions, the potential for settlement should be reevaluated by
this office.
7.8 Miscellaneous Foundations
7.8.1 Foundations for small outlying structures, such as block walls up to 6 feet in height, planter
walls or trash enclosures which will not be tied to the proposed structures may be supported
on conventional foundations bearing on a minimum of 12 inches of newly placed engineered
fill which extends laterally at least 12 inches beyond the foundation area. Where excavation
and compaction cannot be performed or is undesirable, such as adjacent to property lines,
foundations may derive support in the undisturbed alluvial soils at and below a depth of
24 inches below the existing ground surface, and should be deepened as necessary to
maintain a minimum 12-inch embedment into undisturbed alluvial soils and must be
observed and approved by a Geocon representative.
7.8.2 If the soils exposed in the excavation bottom are soft, compaction of the soft soils will be
required prior to placing steel or concrete. Compaction of the foundation excavation bottom
is typically accomplished with a compaction wheel or mechanical whacker and must be
observed and approved by a Geocon representative. Miscellaneous foundations may be
designed for a bearing value of 1,500 psf, and should be a minimum of 12 inches in width,
18 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent grade and 12 inches into the recommended
bearing material. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for
transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
7.8.3 Foundation excavations should be observed and approved in writing by the Geotechnical
Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to the placement of reinforcing steel
and concrete to verify that the excavations and exposed soil conditions are consistent with
those anticipated.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.9 Lateral Design
7.9.1 Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations,
slabs and by passive earth pressure. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used
with the dead load forces in the newly placed engineered fill or undisturbed alluvial soils.
7.9.2 Passive earth pressure for the sides of foundations and slabs poured against newly placed
engineered fill or undisturbed alluvial soils may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a
density of 270 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a maximum earth pressure of 2,700 psf.
When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be
reduced by one-third.
7.10 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
7.10.1 Concrete slabs-on-grade subject to vehicle loading should be designed in accordance with
the recommendations in the Preliminary Pavement Recommendations section of this report
(Section 7.11).
7.10.2 Subsequent to the recommended grading, concrete slabs-on-grade for structures, not subject
to vehicle loading, should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and minimum slab reinforcement
should consist of No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center in both horizontal
directions. Steel reinforcing should be positioned vertically near the slab midpoint.
7.10.3 Slabs-on-grade at the ground surface that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or
may be used to store moisture-sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder
placed directly beneath the slab. The vapor retarder and acceptable permeance should be
specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be
installed. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in
Section 9.3 of the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that
Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06) and should be installed in
general conformance with ASTM E 1643 (latest edition) and the manufacturer’s
recommendations. A minimum thickness of 15 mils extruded polyolefin plastic is
recommended; vapor retarders which contain recycled content or woven materials are not
recommended. The vapor retarder should have a permeance of less than 0.01 perms
demonstrated by testing before and after mandatory conditioning. The vapor retarder should
be installed in direct contact with the concrete slab with proper perimeter seal. If the
California Green Building Code requirements apply to this project, the vapor retarder should
be underlain by 4 inches of clean aggregate. It is important that the vapor retarder be
puncture resistant since it will be in direct contact with angular gravel. As an alternative to
the clean aggregate suggested in the Green Building Code, it is our opinion that the concrete
slab-on-grade may be underlain by a vapor retarder over 4 inches of clean sand (sand
equivalent greater than 30), since the sand will serve a capillary break and will minimize the
potential for punctures and damage to the vapor barrier.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.10.4 For seismic design purposes, a coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be utilized between concrete
slabs and subgrade soils without a moisture barrier, and 0.15 for slabs underlain by a
moisture barrier.
7.10.5 Exterior slabs for walkways or flatwork, not subject to traffic loads, should be at least
4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center in
both horizontal directions, positioned near the slab midpoint. Prior to construction of slabs,
the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture
content and properly compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction, as determined by
ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition). Crack control joints should be spaced at
intervals not greater than 10 feet and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods
as soon as practical following concrete placement. Crack control joints should extend a
minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness. Construction joints should be designed by
the project structural engineer.
7.10.6 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs
due to settlement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented
herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade may exhibit some cracking due to
minor soil movement and/or concrete shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage
cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced
and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and
curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where
re-entrant slab corners occur.
7.11 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
7.11.1 Where new paving is to be placed, it is recommended that all existing fill and soft alluvium
materials be excavated and properly compacted for paving support. The client should be
aware that excavation and compaction of all existing artificial fill and soft alluvium in the
area of new paving is not required; however, paving constructed over existing uncertified fill
or unsuitable alluvium material may experience increased settlement and/or cracking, and
may therefore have a shorter design life and increased maintenance costs. As a minimum, the
upper 12 inches of paving subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near
optimum moisture content, and properly compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition).
7.11.2 The following pavement sections are based on an assumed R-Value of 35. Once site grading
activities are complete an R-Value should be obtained by laboratory testing to confirm the
properties of the soils serving as paving subgrade, prior to placing pavement.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.11.3 The Traffic Indices listed below are estimates. Geocon does not practice in the field of traffic
engineering. The actual Traffic Index for each area should be determined by the project civil
engineer. If pavement sections for Traffic Indices other than those listed below are required,
Geocon should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. Pavement thicknesses
were determined following procedures outlined in the California Highway Design Manual
(Caltrans). It is anticipated that the majority of traffic will consist of automobile and large
truck traffic.
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS
Location Estimated Traffic
Index (TI)
Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Class 2 Aggregate
Base (inches)
Automobile Parking
and Driveways 4.0 3.0 4.0
Trash Truck &
Fire Lanes 7.0 4.0 9.0
7.11.4 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the “Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction” (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base materials should conform to
Section 26-1.02A of the “Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department
of Transportation” (Caltrans). The use of Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) in lieu of
Class 2 aggregate base is acceptable. Crushed Miscellaneous Base should conform to Section
200-2.4 of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (Green Book).
7.11.5 Unless specifically designed and evaluated by the project structural engineer, where exterior
concrete paving will be utilized for support of vehicles, it is recommended that the concrete
be a minimum of 6 inches of concrete reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed
18 inches on center in both horizontal directions. Concrete paving supporting vehicular
traffic should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of aggregate base and a properly
compacted subgrade. The subgrade and base material should be compacted to 95 percent
relative compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (latest edition).
7.11.6 The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface drainage
away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will
likely result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent cracking, subsidence and
pavement distress. If planters are planned adjacent to paving, it is recommended that the
perimeter curb be extended at least 12 inches below the bottom of the aggregate base to
minimize the introduction of water beneath the paving.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.12 Retaining Wall Design
7.12.1 The recommendations presented below are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 5 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 5 feet are planned, Geocon should be contacted for additional
recommendations.
7.12.2 Retaining wall foundations may be designed in accordance with the recommendations
provided in the Foundation Design sections of this report (see Section 7.6).
7.12.3 Retaining walls with a level backfill surface that are not restrained at the top should be
designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure (active pressure). Restrained walls are
those that are not allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the
retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from
movement at the top, walls may be designed utilizing a triangular distribution of pressure
(at-rest pressure). The table below presents recommended pressures to be used in retaining
wall design, assuming that proper drainage will be maintained.
RETAINING WALL WITH LEVEL BACKFILL SURFACE
HEIGHT OF
RETAINING WALL
(Feet)
ACTIVE PRESSURE
EQUIVALENT FLUID
PRESSURE
(Pounds Per Cubic Foot)
AT-REST PRESSURE
EQUIVALENT FLUID
PRESSURE
(Pounds Per Cubic Foot)
Up to 5 30 60
7.12.4 The wall pressures provided above assume that the retaining wall will be properly drained
preventing the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. If retaining wall drainage is not implemented,
the equivalent fluid pressure to be used in design of undrained walls is 90 pcf. The value
includes hydrostatic pressures plus buoyant lateral earth pressures.
7.12.5 The wall pressures provided above assume that the proposed retaining walls will support
relatively undisturbed alluvium or engineered fill derived from on-site soils.
7.12.6 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground,
vehicular traffic or adjacent structures and should be designed for each condition as the
project progresses.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.12.7 It is recommended that line-load surcharges from adjacent wall footings, use horizontal
pressures generated from NAV-FAC DM 7.2. The governing equations are:
and
where x is the distance from the face of the excavation or wall to the vertical line-load, H is
the distance from the bottom of the footing to the bottom of excavation or wall, z is the depth
at which the horizontal pressure is desired, QL is the vertical line-load and σH(z) is the
horizontal pressure at depth z.
7.12.8 It is recommended that vertical point-loads, from construction equipment outriggers or
adjacent building columns use horizontal pressures generated from NAV-FAC DM 7.2.
The governing equations are:
and
then
where x is the distance from the face of the excavation/wall to the vertical point-load, H is
distance from the outrigger/bottom of column footing to the bottom of excavation, z is the
depth at which the horizontal pressure is desired, Qp is the vertical point-load, σH(z) is the
horizontal pressure at depth z, ϴ is the angle between a line perpendicular to the
excavation/wall and a line from the point-load to location on the excavation/wall where the
surcharge is being evaluated, and σH(z) is the horizontal pressure at depth z.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.12.9 In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of the retaining wall
adjacent to the street or driveway areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure
of 100 psf, acting as a result of an assumed 300 psf surcharge behind the wall due to normal
street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the wall, the traffic surcharge
may be neglected.
7.13 Retaining Wall Drainage
7.13.1 Unless designed for hydrostatic pressures, retaining walls should be provided with a drainage
system extended at least two-thirds the height of the wall. At the base of the drain system, a
subdrain covered with a minimum of 12 inches of gravel should be installed, and a
compacted fill blanket or other seal placed at the surface (see Figure 5). The clean bottom
and subdrain pipe, behind a retaining wall, should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer
(a representative of Geocon), prior to placement of gravel or compacting backfill.
7.13.2 As an alternative, a plastic drainage composite such as Miradrain or equivalent may be
installed in continuous, 4-foot-wide columns along the entire back face of the wall, at 8 feet
on center. The top of these drainage composite columns should terminate approximately
18 inches below the ground surface, where either hardscape or a minimum of 18 inches of
relatively cohesive material should be placed as a cap (see Figure 6).
7.13.3 Subdrainage pipes at the base of the retaining wall drainage system should outlet to an
acceptable location via controlled drainage structures. Drainage should not be allowed to
flow uncontrolled over descending slopes.
7.13.4 Moisture affecting below grade walls is one of the most common post-construction
complaints. Poorly applied or omitted waterproofing can lead to efflorescence or standing
water. Particular care should be taken in the design and installation of waterproofing to avoid
moisture problems, or actual water seepage into the structure through any normal shrinkage
cracks which may develop in the concrete walls, floor slab, foundations and/or construction
joints. The design and inspection of the waterproofing is not the responsibility of the
geotechnical engineer. A waterproofing consultant should be retained in order to recommend
a product or method, which would provide protection to subterranean walls, floor slabs and
foundations.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.14 Elevator Pit Design
7.14.1 The elevator pit slab and retaining wall should be designed by the project structural engineer.
Elevator pit walls may be designed in accordance with the recommendations in the
Foundation Design and Retaining Wall Design sections of this report (see Sections 7.6 and
7.12). The elevator slab and retaining wall footings may derive support in either newly
placed engineered fill or the alluvial soils found at or below a depth of 5 feet if exposed in
the elevator pit excavation bottom.
7.14.2 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground,
vehicular traffic or adjacent foundations and should be designed for each condition as the
project progresses.
7.14.3 If retaining wall drainage is to be provided, the drainage system should be designed in
accordance with the Retaining Wall Drainage section of this report (see Section 7.13).
7.14.4 It is suggested that the elevator pit walls and slab be waterproofed to prevent excessive
moisture inside of the elevator pit. Waterproofing design and installation is not the
responsibility of the geotechnical engineer.
7.15 Elevator Piston
7.15.1 If a plunger-type elevator piston is installed for this project, a deep drilled excavation will be
required. It is important to verify that the drilled excavation is not situated immediately
adjacent to a foundation, or the drilled excavation could compromise the existing foundation,
especially if the drilling is performed subsequent to the foundation construction.
7.15.2 Casing will likely be required since caving is experienced in the drilled excavation.
The contractor should be prepared to use casing and should have it readily available at the
commencement of drilling activities. Continuous observation of the drilling and installation
of the elevator piston by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.)
is required.
7.15.3 The annular space between the piston casing and drilled excavation wall should be filled
with a minimum of 1½-sack slurry pumped from the bottom up. As an alternative, pea gravel
may be utilized. The use of soil to backfill the annular space is not acceptable.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.16 Temporary Excavations
7.16.1 Excavations on the order of 5 feet in height may be required during grading and construction
operations. The excavations are expected to expose fill and alluvial soils, which may be
subject to caving. Due to the presence of cobbles, the contractor should be prepared for
difficult excavation conditions. Vertical excavations up to 5 feet in height may be attempted
where not surcharged; however, the contractor should be prepared for caving, sloughing, and
raveling in open excavations. Due to the granular nature of soils and potential for caving, the
contractor should also be prepared to form foundation excavations at the excavation bottom.
7.16.2 Vertical excavations greater than 5 feet or where surcharged by existing structures will
require sloping or shoring measures in order to provide a stable excavation. It is anticipated
that stable excavations for construction of the proposed improvements can be achieved and
maintained with sloping measures. Where sufficient space is available, temporary
unsurcharged embankments could be sloped back at a uniform 1:1 slope gradient or flatter up
to a maximum height of 8 feet. A uniform slope does not have a vertical portion.
7.16.3 Where temporary construction slopes are utilized, the top of the slope should be barricaded
to prevent vehicles and storage loads at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance
equal to the height of the slope. If the temporary construction slopes are to be maintained
during the rainy season, berms are suggested along the tops of the slopes where necessary to
prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. Geocon
personnel should inspect the soils exposed in the cut slopes during excavation so that
modifications of the slopes can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur.
All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation.
7.17 Stormwater Infiltration
7.17.1 During the October 18, 2021 site exploration, borings B3, B4 and B5 were utilized to
perform percolation testing. The borings were advanced to the depth listed in the table
below. Slotted casing was placed in the boring, and the annular space between the casing and
excavation was filled with gravel. The boring was then filled with water to pre-saturate the
soils. The casing was refilled with water and percolation test readings were performed after
repeated flooding of the cased excavation. Based on the test results, the average infiltration
rate (adjusted percolation rate), for the earth materials encountered, is provided in the
following table. The field-measured percolation rate has been adjusted to infiltration rates in
accordance with the County of San Bernardino Technical Guidance Document for Water
Quality Management Plans (June 2013). Additional correction factors may be required and
should be applied by the engineer in responsible charge of the design of the stormwater
infiltration system and based on applicable guidelines. Percolation test field data and
calculation of the measured percolation rate and design infiltration rate are provided on
Figures 7 through 9.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
Boring Soil Type Infiltration
Depth (ft)
Average Infiltration
Rate (in / hour)
B3 Sand (SW) 10-15 8.92
B4 Sand (SW) 5-10 10.67
B5 Sand (SW) 30-50 2.07
7.17.2 The results of the percolation testing indicate that the soils are conductive to infiltration. It is
our opinion that the soil zones encountered at the depths and locations as listed in the table
above are suitable for infiltration of stormwater.
7.17.3 It is our opinion that the introduction of stormwater at the depth and location indicated above
will not induce excessive hydro-consolidation, will not create a perched groundwater
condition, will not affect soil structure interaction of existing or proposed foundations due to
expansive soils, will not saturate soils supported by existing or proposed retaining walls, and
will not increase the potential for liquefaction. Resulting settlements are anticipated to be
less than ¼ inch, if any.
7.17.4 Where infiltration systems will be utilized, it is recommended that a minimum 10-foot
horizontal and vertical setback be maintained from existing or proposed foundations.
Additional setbacks may be required by the governing jurisdiction and should be
incorporated into the stormwater infiltration system design as necessary.
7.17.5 Subsequent to the placement of the infiltration system, it is acceptable to backfill the
resulting void space between the excavation sidewalls and the infiltration system with
minimum two-sack slurry provided the slurry is not placed in the infiltration zone. It is
recommended that pea gravel be utilized adjacent to the infiltration zone so communication
of water to the soil is not hindered.
7.17.6 Due to the preliminary nature of the project at this time, the type of stormwater infiltration
system and location of the stormwater infiltration systems has not yet been determined.
The design drawings should be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.
The installation of the stormwater infiltration system should be observed and approved by
the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon).
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.18 Surface Drainage
7.18.1 Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Uncontrolled
infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the soils can adversely affect the
performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal
shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the original designed
engineering properties. Proper drainage should be maintained at all times.
7.18.2 All site drainage should be collected and controlled in non-erosive drainage devices.
Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any
foundation or retaining wall. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface
drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2019 CBC 1804.4 or other
applicable standards. In addition, drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over
any descending slope. Discharge from downspouts, roof drains and scuppers are not
recommended onto unprotected soils within 5 feet of the building perimeter. Planters which
are located adjacent to foundations should be sealed to prevent moisture intrusion into the
soils providing foundation support. Landscape irrigation is not recommended within
5 feet of the building perimeter footings except when enclosed in protected planters.
7.18.3 Positive site drainage should be provided away from structures, pavement, and the tops of
slopes to swales or other controlled drainage structures. The building pad and pavement
areas should be fine graded such that water is not allowed to pond.
7.18.4 Landscaping planters immediately adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the
potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course.
Either a subdrain, which collects excess irrigation water and transmits it to drainage
structures, or an impervious above-grade planter boxes should be used. In addition, where
landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, it is recommended that consideration be
given to providing a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least
12 inches below the base material.
7.19 Plan Review
7.19.1 Grading, foundation, and, if applicable, shoring plans should be reviewed by the
Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon West, Inc.), prior to finalization to verify
that the plans have been prepared in substantial conformance with the recommendations of
this report and to provide additional analyses or recommendations.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
7.19.2 All site drainage should be collected and controlled in non-erosive drainage devices.
Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any
foundation or retaining wall. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface
drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2019 CBC 1804.4 or other
applicable standards. In addition, drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over
any descending slope. Discharge from downspouts, roof drains and scuppers are not
recommended onto unprotected soils within 5 feet of the building perimeter. Planters which
are located adjacent to foundations should be sealed to prevent moisture intrusion into the
soils providing foundation support. Landscape irrigation is not recommended within 5 feet of
the building perimeter footings except when enclosed in protected planters.
7.19.3 Positive site drainage should be provided away from structures, pavement, and the tops of
slopes to swales or other controlled drainage structures. The building pad and pavement
areas should be fine graded such that water is not allowed to pond.
7.19.4 Landscaping planters immediately adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the
potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course.
Either a subdrain, which collects excess irrigation water and transmits it to drainage
structures, or an impervious above-grade planter boxes should be used. In addition, where
landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, it is recommended that consideration be
given to providing a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least
12 inches below the base material.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction,
or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon West, Inc.
should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or
identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the
scope of services provided by Geocon West, Inc.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out
such recommendations in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report. However, changes in the
conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural
processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in
applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly
or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
4. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to
provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of
geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical
aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of
improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to
perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should
prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical
engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their
records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the
geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their
concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform
additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
LIST OF REFERENCES
California Department of Water Resources, 2021, Water Data Library (WDL) Station Map, Web Site
https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1976, Geologic Hazards in Southwestern San Bernardino
County, California, Special Report 113, Prepared in cooperation with the County of San
Bernardino Environmental Improvement Agency, the County of San Bernardino Planning
Department, and the U.S. Geological Society.
California Geologic Energy Management Division, 2021, Geologic Energy Management Division Well
Finder, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov.doggr/index.html#close.
California Geological Survey, 2021a, CGS Information Warehouse, Regulatory Map Portal,
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps.
California Geological Survey, 2021b, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.
California Geological Survey, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies,
Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture
Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.
California Geological Survey, 2010, Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in
southern California, San Bernardino 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, A Project for the Department of
Water Resources by the California Geological Survey, Compiled from existing sources by
Trinda L. Bedrossian, CEG, Cheryl A. Hayhurst, PG, and Peter D. Roffers, dated July 2010.
Chino Basin Water Master, 2017, 2016 State of the Basin Report, Prepared for the Chino Basin
Watermaster by Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. dated June, 2017.
FEMA, 2021, Online Flood Hazard Maps, http://www.esri.com/hazards/index.html.
Fontana, City of, 2017, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Jennings, C. W. and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological
Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6.
Mendenhall, W. C., 1904, Map Showing the Artesian Areas and Hydrographic Contours in the Valley
of Southern California, data compiled by W. C. Mendenhall, 1904, U.S. Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper No. 219, Plate III.
San Bernardino, County of, 2010a, San Bernardino County General Plan, Safety Element.
San Bernardino, County of, 2010b, San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Geologic
Hazard Overlays, Figure EHFH C VICTORVILLE/SAN BERNARDINO.
San Bernardino, County of, 2010c, San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Hazard
Overlays, Figure EHFH B VICTORVILLE/SAN BERNARDINO.
San Bernardino Countywide Plan, 2021, Hazards Element, Web Site
https://countywideplan.com/policy-plan/beta/hz/.
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
LIST OF REFERENCES (Continued)
Toppozada, T., Branum, D., Petersen, M, Hallstrom, C., and Reichle, M., 2000, Epicenters and Areas
Damaged by M> 5 California Earthquakes, 1800 – 1999, California Geological Survey, Map
Sheet 49.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2021, National Water Information System: Web Interface, Web Site
Address: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gw.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2018, Fontana, California 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map.
U.S. Geological Survey 2006, Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States, accessed
October 11, 2021, from USGS web site: http//earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults.
Ziony, J. I., and Jones, L. M., 1989, Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978–1984 Seismicity
of the Los Angeles Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies
Map MF-1964.
REFERENCE: U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, 7.5 MINUTE SERIES, FONTANA, CA QUADRANGLE
FIG. 1
VICINITY MAP
PHONE (818) 841-8388 - FAX (818) 841-1704
3303 N. SAN FERNANDO BLVD. - SUITE 100 - BURBANK, CA 91504
ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS
CHECKED BY: SFKDRAFTED BY: RA PROJECT NO. W1450-06-01NOV. 2021
14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
SITE
PHONE (818) 841-8388 - FAX (818) 841-17043303 N. SAN FERNANDO BLVD. - SUITE 100 - BURBANK, CA 91504ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALSCHECKED BY: NDBDRAFTED BY: JMHFIG. 2SITE PLANLEGENDPROJECT NO. W1450-06-01NOVEMBER 2021FONTANA, CALIFORNIA14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD80'160'North0Property LimitsApproximate Location of BoringLimits of Proposed StructureB5Approximate Location of BoringTP-9B2TP-1B1TP-2PROPOSED 4-STORY MFR STRUCTURE (ON GRADE)B3B4B5TP-3TP-9A/BTP-4TP-5TP-6TP-8PROPOSED 4-STORY MFR STRUCTURE (ON GRADE)TP-7A/B
SITE01224 MilesReference: Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6.REGIONAL FAULT MAPFONTANA, CALIFORNIAPROJECT NO. W1450-06-01NOV. 2021FIG. 3PHONE (818) 841-8388 - FAX (818) 841-17043303 N. SAN FERNANDO BLVD. - SUITE 100 - BURBANK, CA 91504ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALSCHECKED BY: SFKDRAFTED BY: RA14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
SITEDRAFTED BY: RA CHECKED BY: SFKPHONE (818) 841-8388 - FAX (818) 841-17043303 N. SAN FERNANDO BLVD. - SUITE 100 - BURBANK, CA 91504ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALSREGIONAL SEISMICITY MAPFIG.402040MilesReference: Toppozada, T., Branum, D., Petersen, M., Hallstrom, C., Cramer, C., and Reichle, M., 2000,Epicenters and Areas Damaged by M>5 California Earthquakes, 1800 - 1999, CaliforniaGeological Survey, Map Sheet 49.FONTANA, CALIFORNIAPROJECT NO. W1450-06-01NOV. 202114817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
2/3 H
H
3/4" CRUSHED
ROCK
MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
4" DIA. PERFORATED ABS
OR ADS PIPE - EXTEND TO
RETAINING
WALL
DRAINAGE SYSTEM
WATERPROOF
WALL
PROPERLY
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
GROUND SURFACE
NO SCALE
FOUNDATION
PHONE (818) 841-8388 - FAX (818) 841-1704
3303 N. SAN FERNANDO BLVD. - SUITE 100 - BURBANK, CA 91504
ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS
CHECKED BY: NDBDRAFTED BY: JMH
RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL
FIG. 5PROJECT NO. W1450-06-01NOVEMBER 2021
14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
RETAINING
WALL
NO SCALE
FOUNDATION
PROPERLY
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
GROUND SURFACE
18"
WATER PROOFING
BY ARCHITECT
DRAINAGE PANEL (J-DRAIN 1000
OR EQUIVALENT)
4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED
PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO APPROVED
OUTLET
(1 CU. FT./FT.)
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
3/4" CRUSHED ROCK
MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT
PHONE (818) 841-8388 - FAX (818) 841-1704
3303 N. SAN FERNANDO BLVD. - SUITE 100 - BURBANK, CA 91504
ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS
RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL
CHECKED BY: NDBDRAFTED BY: JMH FIG. 6NOVEMBER 2021 PROJECT NO. W1450-06-01
14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
Project:Project No:Date:10/18/2021
B3 Tested By:
15
Length Width
8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time
Δt
Time Interval
(min)
D0
Initial Depth
to Water (in)
Df
Final Depth
to Water (in)
ΔD
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Greater than
or Equal to
6"? (y/n)
1 2:00 2:25 25 120.0 163.2 43.2 y
2 2:27 2:52 25 120.0 156.6 36.6 y
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time
Δt
Time Interval
(min)
D0
Initial Depth
to Water (in)
Df
Final Depth
to Water (in)
ΔD
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Percolation
Rate (min/in)
1 2:38 2:48 10 120.0 156.0 36.0 400
2 2:53 3:03 10 120.0 156.4 36.4 396
3 3:08 3:18 10 120.0 156.0 36.0 400
4 3:23 3:33 10 120.0 155.5 35.5 405
5 3:38 3:48 10 120.0 155.5 35.5 405
6 3:53 4:03 10 120.0 153.6 33.6 429
7
8
Infiltration Rate Calculation:
Time Interval, Δt = 10 minutes Ho = 60.0 inches
Final Depth to Water, Df = 153.6 inches Hf = 26.4 inches
Test Hole Radius, r = 4 inches ΔH = 33.6 inches
Initial Depth to Water, Do = 120.0 inches Havg = 43.2 inches
Total Depth of Test Hole, DT = 180.0 inches
Infiltration Rate, It = 8.92 inches/hour
PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test
shall be run for an additional hour with measurements, taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill)
overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute
intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".
JS
W1450‐06‐0114817 Foothill Blvd
Test Hole No:
Depth of Test Hole, DT:
Test Hole Dimensions (inches)
SWUSCS Soil Classification:
Diameter (if round) =
Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
Sides (if rectangular) =
Figure 7
Project:Project No:Date:10/18/2021
B4 Tested By:
10
Length Width
8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time
Δt
Time Interval
(min)
D0
Initial Depth
to Water (in)
Df
Final Depth
to Water (in)
ΔD
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Greater than
or Equal to
6"? (y/n)
1 2:03 2:28 25 60.0 114.0 54.0 y
2 2:29 2:54 25 60.0 104.4 44.4 y
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time
Δt
Time Interval
(min)
D0
Initial Depth
to Water (in)
Df
Final Depth
to Water (in)
ΔD
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Percolation
Rate (min/in)
1 2:59 3:09 10 60.0 101.2 41.2 350
2 3:14 3:24 10 60.0 100.8 40.8 353
3 3:29 3:39 10 60.0 99.1 39.1 368
4 3:44 3:54 10 60.0 98.6 38.6 373
5 3:59 4:09 10 60.0 98.2 38.2 377
6 4:14 4:24 10 60.0 98.2 38.2 377
7
8
Infiltration Rate Calculation:
Time Interval, Δt = 10 minutes Ho = 60.0 inches
Final Depth to Water, Df = 98.2 inches Hf = 21.8 inches
Test Hole Radius, r = 4 inches ΔH = 38.2 inches
Initial Depth to Water, Do = 60.0 inches Havg = 40.9 inches
Total Depth of Test Hole, DT = 120.0 inches
Infiltration Rate, It = 10.67 inches/hour
PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test
shall be run for an additional hour with measurements, taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill)
overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute
intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".
JS
W1450‐06‐0114817 Foothill Blvd
Test Hole No:
Depth of Test Hole, DT:
Test Hole Dimensions (inches)
SWUSCS Soil Classification:
Diameter (if round) =
Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
Sides (if rectangular) =
Figure 8
Project:Project No:Date:10/18/2021
B5 Tested By:
50
Length Width
8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time
Δt
Time Interval
(min)
D0
Initial Depth
to Water (in)
Df
Final Depth
to Water (in)
ΔD
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Greater than
or Equal to
6"? (y/n)
1 9:34 9:59 25 360.0 495.0 135.0 y
2 10:02 10:27 25 360.0 496.9 136.9 y
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time
Δt
Time Interval
(min)
D0
Initial Depth
to Water (in)
Df
Final Depth
to Water (in)
ΔD
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Percolation
Rate (min/in)
1 10:31 10:41 10 360.0 439.6 79.6 181
2 10:46 10:56 10 360.0 434.4 74.4 194
3 11:01 11:11 10 360.0 414.0 54.0 267
4 11:16 11:26 10 360.0 411.6 51.6 279
5 11:31 11:41 10 360.0 399.5 39.5 365
6 11:46 11:56 10 360.0 398.4 38.4 375
7
8
Infiltration Rate Calculation:
Time Interval, Δt = 10 minutes Ho = 240.0 inches
Final Depth to Water, Df = 398.4 inches Hf = 201.6 inches
Test Hole Radius, r = 4 inches ΔH = 38.4 inches
Initial Depth to Water, Do = 360.0 inches Havg = 220.8 inches
Total Depth of Test Hole, DT = 600.0 inches
Infiltration Rate, It = 2.07 inches/hour
SWUSCS Soil Classification:
Diameter (if round) =
Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
Sides (if rectangular) =
PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test
shall be run for an additional hour with measurements, taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill)
overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute
intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".
JS
W1450‐06‐0114817 Foothill Blvd
Test Hole No:
Depth of Test Hole, DT:
Test Hole Dimensions (inches)
Figure 9
APPENDIX A
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The site was explored on October 18, 2021, by excavating five 8-inch diameter borings using a
truck-mounted hollow stem auger drilling machine. The borings were excavated to depths of 20½ and
50½ feet below existing ground surface. The site was also explored on October 20, 2021, by
excavating nine test pits utilizing a backhoe. The test pits were excavated to depths of 4½ to 7½ feet
below existing ground surface. Representative and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by
driving a 3-inch O. D., California Modified Sampler into the “undisturbed” soil mass with blows
from a 140-pound auto-hammer falling 30 inches. The California Modified Sampler was equipped
with 1-inch high by 23/8-inch diameter brass sampler rings to facilitate soil removal and testing.
Bulk samples were also obtained.
The soil conditions encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified and logged in
general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The logs of the borings and
test pits are presented on Figures A1 through A16. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions
encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The logs also include our interpretation
of the conditions between sampling intervals. Therefore, the logs contain both observed and
interpreted data. We determined the lines designating the interface between soil materials on the logs
using visual observations, penetration rates, excavation characteristics and other factors.
The transition between materials may be abrupt or gradual. Where applicable, the logs were revised
based on subsequent laboratory testing. The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2.
ALLUVIUM
Sand with Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, dry to slightly moist, brown,
fine- to medium-grained, fine gravel, trace to some cobbles.
Sand with Silt and Gravel, poorly graded, slightly moist, dense, yellowish
brown, fine-grained.
- increase in gravel and cobbles
Gravelly Sand, well-graded, dense, slightly moist, grayish brown, fine- to
coarse-grained, fine to medium gravel.
- medium dense, yellowish brown
- increase in gravel and cobbles
- dense to very dense
- mostly gravel and cobble fragments
- no recovery
Total depth of boring: 20.5 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
*Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by
auto-hammer.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
1.0
SP
SP
SW
BULK
0-5'
B1@3'
B1@6'
B1@9'
B1@12'
B1@15'
B1@20'
58
77
59
50 (4")
53
50 (3")
123.5
SAMPLE
NO.
HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
BORING 1
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/18/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 BORING LOGS.GPJFigure A1,
Log of Boring 1, Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Gravelly Sand with Cobbles, poorly graded, dense, dry to slightly moist,
brown, fine-grained.
Sand with Silt and Gravel, poorly graded, dense, moist, yellowish brown,
fine- to medium-grained, fine gravel.
Gravelly Sand with Cobbles, very dense, moist, brown, fine- to
coarse-grained, fine to medium gravel and cobble fragments (to 2").
- minimal recovery
Total depth of boring: 20.5 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
*Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by
auto-hammer.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
0.6SP
SP
SW
BULK
0-5'
B2@2.5'
B2@5'
B2@7.5'
B2@10'
B2@15'
B2@20'
50 (4")
60
50 (4")
50 (5")
50 (5")
50 (3")
102.9
SAMPLE
NO.
HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
BORING 2
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/18/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 BORING LOGS.GPJFigure A2,
Log of Boring 2, Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Gravelly Sand, well-graded, dense, dry to slightly moist, brown, fine- to
coarse-grained, fine to coarse gravel, some cobbles.
- mostly gravel and cobble fragments (to 3")
Sand with Gravel and Cobbles, well-graded, dense, moist, grayish brown,
fine- to coarse-grained, fine to coarse gravel.
- no recovery, very dense, mostly gravel
- minimal recovery
- minimal recovery
0.9
1.3
1.4
SW
SW
0-5'
B3@2.5'
B3@5'
B3@7.5'
BULK
B3@10'
B3@15'
B3@20'
B3@25'
50 (3")
74
72
89
50 (4")
50 (4")
50 (4")
127.0
132.2
139.6
SAMPLE
NO.
HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
BORING 3
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/18/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 BORING LOGS.GPJFigure A3,
Log of Boring 3, Page 1 of 2
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
Total depth of boring: 30.5 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
*Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by
auto-hammer.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
1.5SWB3@30'50 (2") 133.4
SAMPLE
NO.
HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
30 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
BORING 3
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/18/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 BORING LOGS.GPJFigure A3,
Log of Boring 3, Page 2 of 2
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Gravelly Sand with Cobbles, well-graded, medium dense, dry to slightly
moist, brown, fine- to medium-grained, fine to coarse gravel.
Sand with Gravel and Cobbles, well-graded, dense, slightly moist, brown, fine
to coarse gravel fragments (to 3").
- very dense
Sand with Silt, poorly graded, medium dense, moist, brown, fine-grained.
Sand and Gravel with Cobbles, well-graded, dense, slightly moist, fine- to
coarse-grained, fine to coarse gravel.
- minimal recovery
Total depth of boring: 20.5 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Percolation testing performed.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
*Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by
auto-hammer.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
1.0
1.4
1.3
2.6
10.5
1.8
SW
SW
SP-SM
SW
BULK
0-5'
B4@3'
B4@6'
B4@9'
B4@12'
B4@15'
B4@20'
49
50 (6")
50 (4")
70
36
50 (6")
131.3
129.3
135.5
114.6
115.8
128.7
SAMPLE
NO.
HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
BORING 4
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/18/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 BORING LOGS.GPJFigure A4,
Log of Boring 4, Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ARTIFICIAL FILL
Sand with Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, dry to slightly moist, brown,
fine- to medium-grained, fine to medium gravel.
ALLUVIUM
Gravelly Sand, well-graded, dense, slightly moist to moist, brown, fine- to
coarse-grained, fine to coarse gravel (to 2").
- cobbly
- gravel and cobble fragments (to 3")
- no recovery, gravel and cobble fragments only
- very dense
1.6
SW
B5@5'
B5@10'
B5@20'
61
72
50 (4")
116.1
SAMPLE
NO.
HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
BORING 5
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/18/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 BORING LOGS.GPJFigure A5,
Log of Boring 5, Page 1 of 2
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
- minimal recovery
- no recovery
- minimal recovery
- no recovery
Total depth of boring: 50.5 feet
Fill to 2 feet.
No groundwater encountered.
Percolation testing performed.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
*Penetration resistance for 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches by
auto-hammer.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SW
B5@30'
B5@40'
B5@45'
B5@50'
50 (4")
50 (4")
50 (2")
50 (3")
SAMPLE
NO.
HOLLOW STEM AUGER
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
BORING 5
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/18/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 BORING LOGS.GPJFigure A5,
Log of Boring 5, Page 2 of 2
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Sand with Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, dry, brown, fine- to
medium-grained, gravel (to 3"), some roots, trace cobbles (to 4").
- increase in gravel and cobbles
Sand and Gravel with Cobbles, medium dense, dry to slightly moist,
yellowish brown, fine- to medium-grained, gravel (to 3"), cobbles (to 8").
- some caving of sidewall
Total depth of boring: 7 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SP
SP
BULK
0-5'
SAMPLE
NO.
BACKHOE
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
TEST PIT 1
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/20/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 TEST PIT LOGS.GPJFigure A6,
Log of Test Pit 1, Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Sand with Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, dry to slightly moist, brown,
fine- to medium-grained, fine to medium gravel.
Sand and Gravel with Cobbles, poorly graded, medium dense, slighty moist,
brown, fine- to medium-grained, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles (to 11"), trace
coarse-grained and boulders (to 14").
Sand and Gravel with Cobbles, well-graded, medium dense, slighty moist,
brown, fine- to coarse-grained, fine to medium gravel, cobbles (to 11"), trace
boulders (to 14").
Total depth of boring: 7 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SP
SP
SW
SAMPLE
NO.
BACKHOE
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
TEST PIT 2
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/20/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 TEST PIT LOGS.GPJFigure A7,
Log of Test Pit 2, Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Sand, poorly graded, medium dense, dry, brown, fine- to medium-grained.
Sand and Gravel and Cobbles, well-graded, medium dense, slightly moist,
brown, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles (to 11").
Total depth of boring: 5 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SP
SW
BULK
0-5'
SAMPLE
NO.
BACKHOE
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
TEST PIT 3
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/20/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 TEST PIT LOGS.GPJFigure A8,
Log of Test Pit 3, Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Sand with Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, dry to slightly moist, brown,
fine- to medium-grained, some roots, trace to some fine gravel.
Sand and Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, moist, brown, fine- to
medium-grained, fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles (to 4").
Sand, poorly graded, medium dense, moist, light brown, fine- to
medium-grained.
Sand and Gravel, well-graded, medium dense, moist, brown, fine to coarse
gravel, some cobbles (to 8").
- 5" thick layer of gravelly sand / sand and gravel
Total depth of boring: 6 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SP
SP
SP
SW
BULK
0-5'
SAMPLE
NO.
BACKHOE
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
TEST PIT 4
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/20/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 TEST PIT LOGS.GPJFigure A9,
Log of Test Pit 4, Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Sand with Silt and Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, dry, brown, fine- to
medium-grained, fine gravel.
Sand and Gravel and Cobbles, poorly graded, medium dense, dry to slightly
moist, brown, fine- to medium-grained, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles (to 12").
- grades to well-graded sand
- yellowish brown, moist
Total depth of boring: 6.5 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SP-SM
SP
BULK
0-5'
SAMPLE
NO.
BACKHOE
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
TEST PIT 5
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/20/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 TEST PIT LOGS.GPJFigure A10,
Log of Test Pit 5, Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Sand with Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, dry, brown, fine- to
medium-grained, fine gravel.
Sand with Gravel and Cobbles, well-graded, medium dense, slightly moist to
moist, brown, fine- to coarse-grained, fine gravel, some medium to coarse
gravel, cobbles ( to 10.5").
Total depth of boring: 4.5 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SP
SW
SAMPLE
NO.
BACKHOE
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
TEST PIT 6
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/20/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 TEST PIT LOGS.GPJFigure A11,
Log of Test Pit 6, Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Sand with Gravel and Cobbles, poorly graded, medium dense, dry to slightly
moist, brown, fine- to medium-grained, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles (to 8").
Sand and Gravel and Cobbles, poorly gradded, medium dense, slightly moist,
brown, fine- to medium-grained, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles (to 10").
- grades to well-graded sand
Sand with Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, moist, yellowish brown,
fine- to medium-grained, fine to medium gravel.
Total depth of boring: 7 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SP
SP
SP
SAMPLE
NO.
BACKHOE
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
TEST PIT 7A (WEST FACE)
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/20/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 TEST PIT LOGS.GPJFigure A12,
Log of Test Pit 7A (WEST FACE), Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Sand with Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, dry to slightly moist, brown,
fine- to medium-grained, fine to coarse gravel, trace to some cobbles (to 6").
Sand and Gravel with Cobbles, well-graded, medium dense, slightly moist,
brown, fine- to coarse-grained, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles (to 10"), boulder
(to 14").
Sand, poorly graded, medium dense, moist, yellowish brown, fine- to
medium-grained.
- trace to some fine to medium gravel
Total depth of boring: 7 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SP
SW
SP
SAMPLE
NO.
BACKHOE
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
TEST PIT 7B (EAST FACE)
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/20/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 TEST PIT LOGS.GPJFigure A13,
Log of Test Pit 7B (EAST FACE), Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Sand with Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, dry to slightly moist, brown,
fine- to medium-grained, fine gravel.
Sand and Gravel and Cobbles, well-graded, medium dense, slightly moist,
brown, fine- to coarse-grained, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles (to 11").
Total depth of boring: 6 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SP
SW
BULK
0-5'
SAMPLE
NO.
BACKHOE
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
TEST PIT 8
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/20/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 TEST PIT LOGS.GPJFigure A14,
Log of Test Pit 8, Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Sand with Gravel, poorly graded, medium dense, dry to slightly moist, brown,
fine- to mediumgrained, fine gravel, plastic.
Sand and Gravel with Cobbles, well-graded, medium dense, slightly moist,
brown, fine- to coarse-grained, fine gravel, some medium to coarse gravel,
cobbles (to 12").
Total depth of boring: 7.5 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SP
SW
BULK
0-5'
SAMPLE
NO.
BACKHOE
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
TEST PIT 9A (WEST FACE)
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/20/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 TEST PIT LOGS.GPJFigure A15,
Log of Test Pit 9A (WEST FACE), Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
ALLUVIUM
Sand with Gravel, poorly graded, meidum dense, dry to slightly moist, brown,
fine- to medium-grained, fine gravel.
Sand and Gravel with Cobbles, medium dense, slightly moist, brown, fine- to
coarse-grained, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles (to 12").
Silty Sand with Gravel, medium dense, moist, yellowish brown, fine-to
medium-grained, fine gravel.
- decrease in silt
- Sandy Clay interbed
Total depth of boring: 7.5 feet
No fill.
No groundwater encountered.
Backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped.
NOTE: The stratification lines presented herein represent the approximate
boundary between earth types; the transitions may be gradual.
SP
SW
SMTP9B@6'
SAMPLE
NO.
BACKHOE
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
DEPTH
IN
FEET
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
GEOCON
- -
0
2
4
6 DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT
TEST PIT 9B (EAST FACE)
JS MOISTUREBY:(P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)GROUNDWATERSAMPLE SYMBOLS CONTENT (%)... CHUNK SAMPLE
10/20/2021ELEV. (MSL.)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT*)MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
W1450-06-01 TEST PIT LOGS.GPJFigure A16,
Log of Test Pit 9B (EAST FACE), Page 1 of 1
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
W1450-06-01
APPENDIX B
Geocon Project No. W1450-06-01 November 22, 2021
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were
tested for direct shear strength, consolidation and expansion characteristics, corrosivity, in-place dry
density and moisture content. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Figures B1
through B17. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented in the
boring logs, Appendix A.
Project No.: W1450-06-01
3.26
Boring No. B1+B2 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B1+B2@0-5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.77 1.98
0.01
Depth (ft) 0-5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.72 1.97 3.23
Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.01 0.01
Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0
Silty Sand (SM), olive brown Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 11.0 10.4 11.7
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 111.8 112.4 111.1
56.1 60.9
Peak 132 32.0 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2
C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 58.5
Ultimate 91 32.1 Final Moisture Content (%) 15.3 14.7
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by: MR
15.0
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0Shear Stress (ksf)Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
3.49
Boring No. B-2 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B2@2.5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.76 2.23
0.01
Depth (ft) 2.5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.67 2.16 3.42
Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)0.01 0.01
Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.)1.0 1.0 1.0
Brown Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP)Ring Inside Diameter (in.)2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%)7.9 6.6 5.3
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf)100.9 99.3 101.2
25.7 21.3
Peak 107 34.4 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2
C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 32.0
Ultimate 23 34.5 Final Moisture Content (%)20.6 20.0
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by: MR
20.5
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0Shear Stress (ksf)Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
10.0
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by: MR
9.8
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B3
Ultimate 35 44.1 Final Moisture Content (%) 12.3
54.0 46.6
Peak 75 45.1 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2
C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 31.6
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 114.7 121.3 125.2
Brown Well Graded Sand with Gravel (SW)Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 5.5 7.8 6.0
Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.01
Depth (ft) 2.5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.85 3.25 4.73
Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.01 0.01
5.01
Boring No. B-3 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B3@2.5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 1.00 3.25
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0Shear Stress (ksf)Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
3.35
Boring No. B3+B4 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B3+B4@0-5'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 0.73 2.05
0.01
Depth (ft) 0-5'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0.73 2.04 3.35
Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.01 0.01
Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0
Brown Well Graded Sand with Gravel (SW)Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 10.7 11.5 11.3
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 112.8 111.9 112.2
61.5 60.9
Peak 79 33.2 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2
C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 58.4
Ultimate 75 33.2 Final Moisture Content (%) 15.0 14.8
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by: MR
14.7
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B4
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0Shear Stress (ksf)Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
5.88
Boring No. B-4 Normal Strest (kip/ft2) 1 3 5
Sample No. B4@3'Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) 1.27 3.63
0.01
Depth (ft) 3'Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 1.17 3.43 5.69
Sample Type:Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.01 0.01
Soil Identification:Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.0 1.0 1.0
Well Graded Sand with Gravel (SW)Ring Inside Diameter (in.) 2.375 2.375 2.375
Initial Moisture Content (%) 7.7 6.2 6.6
Strength Parameters Initial Dry Density (pcf) 121.7 122.7 122.0
44.7 46.4
Peak 136 49.1 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 1.2 1.2 1.2
C (psf)Initial Degree of Saturation (%) 54.3
Ultimate 40 48.5 Final Moisture Content (%) 10.5 11.5
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080
Checked by: MR
11.0
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B5
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0Shear Stress (ksf)Normal Stress (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335
Checked by: MR
ASTM D-2435
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B6
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B3@10'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Well Graded Sand
with Gravel (SW)117.0 2.4 14.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.1 1.0 10.0Percent ConsolidationConsolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B3@20'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Grayish Brown Sand
with Gravel (SW)121.0 3.0 10.9
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335
Checked by: MR
ASTM D-2435
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.1 1.0 10.0Percent ConsolidationConsolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335
Checked by: MR
ASTM D-2435
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B8
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B4@6'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Brown Well graded
Sand with Gravel (SW)121.9 2.7 11.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.1 1.0 10.0Percent ConsolidationConsolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335
Checked by: MR
ASTM D-2435
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B9
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B4@9'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Brown Well Graded
Sand with Gravel (SW)114.5 3.4 12.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.1 1.0 10.0Percent ConsolidationConsolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335
Checked by: MR
ASTM D-2435
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B10
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B4@12'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Brown Well Graded
Sand with Gravel (SW)122.2 4.3 12.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.1 1.0 10.0Percent ConsolidationConsolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335
Checked by: MR
ASTM D-2435
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B11
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B4@15'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Brown Sand with Silt
(SP-SM)105.6 13.1 20.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.1 1.0 10.0Percent ConsolidationConsolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335
Checked by: MR
ASTM D-2435
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B12
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B5@5'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Brown Well graded
Sand with Gravel (SW)121.8 2.7 11.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.1 1.0 10.0Percent ConsolidationConsolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335
Checked by: MR
ASTM D-2435
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B13
WATER ADDED AT 2.0 KSF
SAMPLE ID.
B5@10'
SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY
(PCF)
INITIAL
MOISTURE (%)
FINAL
MOISTURE (%)
Brown Well Graded
Sand with Gravel (SW)126.5 3.0 10.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.1 1.0 10.0Percent ConsolidationConsolidation Pressure (ksf)
Project No.: W1450-06-01
61.0
Specimen Diameter
Date Time
Non-Expansive
Expansive
Very Low
Low
Expansion Index, EI50 CBC CLASSIFICATION * UBC CLASSIFICATION **
128.2
118.8
0.4
0.3
61.1
(%)
(pcf)
(pcf)
(cc)
(gm)
(gm)
B1+B2@0-5'
1.0
0
10
0.4415
0.4413
Expansion Index ( Report ) =
Expansion Index (EI meas) =-0.6
0
1490 0.440711/9/2021 11:00 1.0
14301.0
Pressure (psi)Elapsed Time (min) Dial Readings (in.)
709.7
687.7
409.7
7.9
(gm)
118.7
0.4
0.3
MOLDED SPECIMEN BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST
4.0
1.0
596.5
171.4
2.7
(in.)
(in.)
(gm)
(gm)
(Assumed)
4.0
Specimen Height
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold
Wt. of Mold
Specific Gravity
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont.
Wt. of Container
91-130
>130
14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D-4829
* Reference: 2019 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.3
** Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table 18-I-B.
Checked by: MR
Medium
High
Very High
Expansive
Expansive
Expansive
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B14
Moisture Content
Wet Density
Dry Density
Void Ratio
Total Porosity
Pore Volume
51-90
0-20
21-50
Degree of Saturation
610.7
394.0
171.4
11.5
132.3
1.0
610.7
171.4
2.7
0.440710:0011/9/2021
74.451.4(%) [Smeas]
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
11/8/2021
11/8/2021
10:00
10:10
1.0
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont.
Project No.: W1450-06-01
58.5
Specimen Diameter
Date Time
Non-Expansive
Expansive
Very Low
Low
Expansion Index, EI50 CBC CLASSIFICATION * UBC CLASSIFICATION **
129.2
120.7
0.4
0.3
58.7
(%)
(pcf)
(pcf)
(cc)
(gm)
(gm)
B3+B4@0-5'
1.0
0
10
0.3889
0.3888
Expansion Index ( Report ) =
Expansion Index (EI meas) =-1
0
1490 0.387811/9/2021 11:00 1.0
14301.0
Pressure (psi)Elapsed Time (min) Dial Readings (in.)
707.7
688.1
407.7
7.0
(gm)
120.6
0.4
0.3
MOLDED SPECIMEN BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST
4.0
1.0
598.4
170.1
2.7
(in.)
(in.)
(gm)
(gm)
(Assumed)
4.0
Specimen Height
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold
Wt. of Mold
Specific Gravity
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont.
Wt. of Container
91-130
>130
14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D-4829
* Reference: 2019 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.3
** Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table 18-I-B.
Checked by: MR
Medium
High
Very High
Expansive
Expansive
Expansive
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B15
Moisture Content
Wet Density
Dry Density
Void Ratio
Total Porosity
Pore Volume
51-90
0-20
21-50
Degree of Saturation
617.7
400.3
170.1
11.8
134.8
1.0
617.7
170.1
2.7
0.387810:0011/9/2021
80.848.1(%) [Smeas]
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
11/8/2021
11/8/2021
10:00
10:10
1.0
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont.
Sample No:
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(g)
(%)
(pcf)
(pcf)
Preparation Method:
Project No.: W1450-06-01
Well Graded Sand with Gravel (SW)B1+B2@0-5'
Checked by: MR
COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS USING
MODIFIED EFFORT TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335ASTM D-1557
56
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold 6278 6344 6372 6352
TEST NO. 1234
Net Weight of Soil 1986 2052 2080 2060
Weight of Mold 4292 4292 4292 4292
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont.2302.6 2298.5 2320.4 2271.3
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont.2397.4 2432.9 2491.5 2474.3
Moisture Content 5.0 7.0 9.0 10.9
Weight of Container 410.2 378.6 408.9 409.9
Dry Density 125.6 127.3 126.8 123.3
Wet Density 131.9 136.3 138.1 136.8
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B16
A
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Bulk Specific Gravity (dry)
8.0
35.0
Corrected Maximum Dry Density (pcf)5.2
Optimum Moisture Content (%)
Oversized Fraction (%)
Corrected Moisture Content (%)
127.6
2.62
138.2
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
140.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0Dry Density (pcf)Moisture Content (%)
S.G. 2.65
S.G. 2.7
S.G. 2.75
Project No.: W1450-06-01
Sample No.
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No.Water Soluble Sulfate
(% SQ4)Sulfate Exposure*
Chloride Ion Content (%)
0.036
0.048
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CHLORIDE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
EPA NO. 325.3
B1+B2@0-5'
B3+B4@0-5'
B1+B2@0-5' 0.007 S0
B3+B4@0-5' 0.003 S0
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL
OF HYDROGEN (pH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 643
Sample No.
B1+B2@0-5' @ 0-5
B3+B4@0-5' @ 0-5
pH
7.5
7.8
Resistivity
(ohm centimeters)
11000 (Mildly Corrosive)
18000 (Mildly Corrosive)
Checked by: MR
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS 14817 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
FONTANA CA, 92335
NOVEMBER 2021 Figure B17