The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAppendix G - Geotechnical Investigation GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WAREHOUSE NWC Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue Fontana, California for Duke Realty 22885 Savi Ranch Parkway  Suite E  Yorba Linda  California  92887 voice: (714) 685-1115  fax: (714) 685-1118  www.socalgeo.com August 10, 2021 Duke Realty 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1600 Irvine, CA 92618 Attention: Mr. George Atalla Assistant Development Services Manager Project No.: 20G226-3 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Warehouse NWC Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue Fontana, California Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation at the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations developed from our investigation. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Joseph Lozano Leon Staff Engineer Robert G. Trazo, GE 2655 Principal Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee Proposed Warehouse– Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 3.1 Site Conditions 4 3.2 Proposed Development 5 3.3 Previous Studies 5 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 8 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 8 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions 8 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 10 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 12 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 14 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations 16 6.4 Construction Considerations 20 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction 21 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 22 6.7 Retaining Wall Design and Construction 23 6.8 Pavement Design Parameters 26 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 28 APPENDICES A Plate 1: Site Location Map Plate 2: Boring Location Plan B Boring Logs C Laboratory Test Results D Grading Guide Specifications E Seismic Design Parameters F Excerpts from Previous Study Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire report. Geotechnical Design Considerations • Artificial fill soils were encountered at all of the boring locations for the previous and current investigations performed within the project site, extending from the ground surface to depths of 2½ to 8± feet. • The fill soils and near-surface alluvial soils possess varying strengths. The existing fill soils are considered to represent undocumented fill. These soils, in their present condition, are not considered suitable for support of the foundation loads of the new structure. The results of laboratory testing indicate that the near-surface soils within the upper 5 to 6± feet possess a moderate potential for collapse when exposed to moisture infiltration as well as consolidation when exposed to load increases in the range of those that will be exerted by the new foundations. Additionally, it is anticipated that demolition of the existing structures and associated improvements will cause disturbance of the upper 4 to 5± feet with isolated areas extending to 10 to 12± feet. • Remedial grading will be necessary to remove all of the undocumented fill soils in their entirety, the upper portion of the near-surface native alluvial soils, and any soils disturbed during the demolition process, and replace these materials as compacted structural fill soils. Site Preparation Recommendations • The site plan provided to our office indicates that the existing structures and pavements at the subject site will be demolished in order to facilitate the construction of the proposed development. Demolition should include all foundations, floor slabs, pavements, utilities and any other subsurface improvements that will not remain in place with the new development. Debris resultant from demolition should be disposed of off-site. Alternatively, concrete and asphalt debris may be pulverized to a maximum 2-inch particle size, well mixed with the on- site soils, and incorporated into new structural fills or it may be crushed and made into CMB. • Remedial grading is recommended to be performed within the proposed building area in order to remove all of the undocumented fill soils in their entirety, the upper portion of the near- surface native alluvial soils, and any soils disturbed during the demolition process. The soils within the proposed building area should be overexcavated to a depth of 5 feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 5 feet below proposed building pad subgrade elevations. • The depth of overexcavation should also be sufficient to remove any existing fill soils. The proposed foundation influence zones should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade. • Following completion of the overexcavation, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, and thoroughly flooded to raise the moisture content of the underlying soils to at least 0 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content. If native sands or gravelly sands are encountered at the bottom of the overexcavation, these soils should be thoroughly flooded to raise the moisture content of the underlying soils to at least 0 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, extending to a depth of at least 24 inches. The overexcavation subgrade soils should then be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 2 maximum dry density. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. • The new pavement and flatwork subgrade soils are recommended to be scarified to a depth of 12± inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D- 1557 maximum dry density. • Based on the results of corrosivity testing performed in the previous and current investigations, the on-site soils are considered to be corrosive to ductile iron pipe and to copper pipe. Foundation Design Recommendations • Conventional shallow foundations, supported in newly placed compacted fill. • 3,000 lbs/ft2 maximum allowable soil bearing pressure. • Reinforcement consisting of at least two (2) No. 5 rebars (1 top and 1 bottom) in strip footings. Additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. Building Floor Slab Design Recommendations • Conventional Slabs-on-Grade: minimum 6-inch thickness. • Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: k = 150 psi/in. • Reinforcement is not expected to be necessary for geotechnical considerations. • The actual thickness and reinforcement of the floor slab should be determined by the structural engineer. Pavement Design Recommendations ASPHALT PAVEMENTS (R=50) Materials Thickness (inches) Auto Parking and Auto Drive Lanes (TI = 4.0 to 5.0) Truck Traffic TI = 6.0 TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0 Asphalt Concrete 3 3½ 4 5 5½ Aggregate Base 3 4 5 5 7 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 12 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (R=50) Materials Thickness (inches) Autos and Light Truck Traffic (TI = 6.0) Truck Traffic TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0 PCC 5 5½ 6½ 8 Compacted Subgrade (95% minimum compaction) 12 12 12 12 Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 3 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services performed for this project was in accordance with our Change Order No. 20G226-CO2, dated July 9, 2021. The scope of services included the review of the previous geotechnical investigation performed within the eastern ⅔ of the overall project site, and a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis in the western ⅓ region to provide criteria for preparing the design of the building foundations, building floor slab, and parking lot pavements along with site preparation recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed development. The evaluation of the environmental aspects of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 4 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Conditions The subject site is located at the northwest corner of Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue in Fontana, California. The site is bounded to the north by Union Pacific railroad tracks, to the east by Cypress Avenue and an easement, to the south by Slover Avenue, and to the west by Oleander Ave and a relatively new industrial development. A portion of Boyle Avenue bisects the site in the east-west direction. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, included as Plate 1 in Appendix A of this report. The site consists of several rectangular-shaped parcels, which total 30.81± acres in size. The parcels within the southwestern quadrant of the site are developed with single-family residences (SFRs) of wood-frame and stucco construction. The existing buildings within these parcels range from 500 to 4,500± ft². Ground surface cover within these parcels consists of exposed soils and turf grass. Drive lanes within the parcels consist of crushed aggregate base with some areas of concrete flatwork. The parcels within the southeastern quadrant of the site are currently vacant and undeveloped. Based on recent readily available aerial photographs obtained from Google Earth, dated 2019, these parcels were developed with SFRs ranging from 1,045 to 2,065± ft² in size. The ground surface consists of exposed soil with sparse native grass and shrubs. Several large trees are present throughout the parcels located south of Boyle Avenue. The northwestern quadrant consists of several parcels which are also developed with SFRs of wood-frame and stucco construction. The existing buildings within these parcels range from 1,100 to 4,600± ft² in size. On of these parcels is currently vacant and was previously utilized as truck- trailer storage. One of the SFRs located in the central-northern parcel includes a basement, approximately 10 to 12± feet in depth. Ground surface cover within these parcels consists of crushed aggregate base, areas of fair-conditioned concrete flatwork, turf grass, and exposed soil. The parcels in the northeastern quadrant consist of a construction equipment storage yard, a truck and trailer storage, and a vacant lot. These parcels are developed with one-story wood- frame and stucco construction office buildings, ranging from 1,500 to 4,800± ft2 in size. The construction storage lot also includes two (2) two-to-three-story sheet metal structures, 2,400± ft2 in size. It should be noted that buried concrete exists on the western-face of the storage buildings, extending 15-20± feet away from the building. Ground surface cover within these lots consists of open graded gravel, fairly deteriorated Portland cement concrete pavements, and areas of exposed soil. Occasional large trees are present throughout the parcels located north of Boyle Avenue. Detailed topographic information was not available at the time of this report. However, based on topographic information obtained from Google Earth, the site topography slopes gently downward to the south at a gradient of approximately 2 percent. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 5 3.2 Proposed Development A conceptual site plan, identified as Scheme 7 and prepared by HPA, Inc., for the proposed development was provided to our office by the client. Based on this plan, the subject site will be developed with a 611,997± ft² warehouse, located in the central region of the site. Dock-high doors will be constructed in a cross-dock configuration on the south and north sides of the building. The proposed building is expected to be surrounded by asphaltic concrete (AC) pavements in the parking and drive areas, Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements in the loading dock areas, and concrete flatwork and landscaped planters throughout the site. Detailed structural information has not been provided. We assume that the new warehouse will be a single-story structure of tilt-up concrete construction, supported on a conventional shallow foundation system with a concrete slab-on-grade floor. Based on the assumed construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 100 kips and 4 to 6 kips per linear foot, respectively. No significant amounts of below-grade construction, such as basements or crawl spaces, are expected to be included in the proposed development. Based on the assumed topography, cuts and fills of 3 to 5± feet are expected to be necessary to achieve the proposed site grades. 3.3 Previous Studies Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG) previously performed a geotechnical investigation within the southeastern quadrant of the subject site for the previously proposed development. The previously proposed development consisted of a 180,360± ft2 warehouse building located in the northeastern region of the previous project site. The results of this investigation are presented in the report referenced as follows: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, NWC Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue, Fontana, California, prepared by SCG, prepared for Duke Realty, SCG Project No. 18G213-1, dated November 19, 2018. As part of this investigation, six (6) borings (identified as Boring Nos. B-1 through B-6) were advanced to depths of 20 to 25± feet below the existing site grades. The approximate locations of the previous borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. AC pavements were encountered at the ground surface at Boring No. B-4, with no discernible layer of underlying aggregate base. The pavements generally consisted of 1½± inches of AC. Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface or beneath the pavements at four of the six boring locations, extending to depths of 2½ to 3½± feet. The fill soils generally consisted of loose to very dense sands and silty sands. Native alluvial soils were encountered at the ground surface or beneath the fill soils at all of the boring locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 25± feet. The alluvium generally consisted of medium dense to very dense silty sands, gravelly sands, and sandy gravel with occasional cobbles. Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the borings. Based on the lack of water within the borings, the groundwater was considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 25± feet at the time of the previous subsurface exploration. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 6 Laboratory testing performed by SCG for this study included consolidation/collapse testing, maximum density/optimum moisture, and soluble content. Based upon the identified subsurface conditions, remedial grading was recommended to be performed within the previously proposed building pad area in order to remove the existing undocumented fill soils. The previously proposed building area was recommended to be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed pad grade. It was also recommended to extend the overexcavation to a depth of at least 2 feet below foundation bearing grade within the foundation influence zones. The foundations were recommended to be designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 lbs/ft2. Excerpts from the previous study, including the boring logs, along with the results of laboratory testing, are included in Appendix F of this report. SCG also performed additional geotechnical investigation within the eastern ⅔ of the overall project site for the previously proposed development. The previously proposed development consisted of a 180,360± ft2 warehouse building located in the northeastern region of the previous project site. The results of this investigation are presented in the report referenced as follows: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, NWC Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue, Fontana, California, prepared by SCG, prepared for Duke Realty, SCG Project No. 20G226-1, dated December 2,2020. As part of this investigation seven (7) additional borings (identified as Boring Nos. B-7 through B-13) were advanced to depths of 20 to 25± feet below the existing site grades. The approximate locations of the previous borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. PCC pavements were encountered at Boring Nos. B-8 and B-9, measuring 8± inches in thickness with no discernable underlain aggregate base. Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface and beneath the existing pavements at all of the boring locations, extending to depths of 2½ to 8± feet. The fill soils generally consisted of loose to medium dense silty sands and sandy silts. At Boring No. B-13, the fill soils consisted of medium dense gravelly sands. Native alluvium was encountered beneath the artificial fill soils at all boring locations, extending to at least the maximum explored depth of 25± feet. The near-surface alluvial soils generally consisted of medium dense to very dense sands, gravelly sands and sandy silts. Occasional cobbles were encountered within the alluvial strata. Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the borings. Based on the lack of water within the borings, the groundwater was considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 25± feet at the time of the previous subsurface exploration. Laboratory testing performed by SCG for this study included additional consolidation/collapse testing, maximum density/optimum moisture, and soluble content, as well as corrosivity testing. Based on the results of corrosivity testing, the on-site soils were considered to be corrosive to ductile iron pipe and to copper pipe. Based upon the identified subsurface conditions, remedial grading was recommended to be performed within the previously proposed building pad area in order to remove the existing undocumented fill soils. The previously proposed building area was recommended to be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed pad grade. It was also recommended to extend the overexcavation to a depth Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 7 of at least 2 feet below foundation bearing grade within the foundation influence zones. The foundations were recommended to be designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 lbs/ft2. Excerpts from the previous study, including the boring logs, along with the results of laboratory testing, are included in Appendix F of this report. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 8 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods The subsurface exploration conducted for this phase of the project consisted of five (5) borings (identified as Boring Nos. B-14 through B-18), advanced to depths of 10 and 25± feet below the existing site grades. All of the borings were logged during drilling by a member of our staff. As indicated in Section 3.3 of this report, a total of eighteen (18) borings were drilled for the overall project site. The borings were advanced with hollow-stem augers, by a conventional truck-mounted drilling rig. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken during drilling. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken with a split barrel “California Sampler” containing a series of one inch long, 2.416± inch diameter brass rings. This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method D-3550. In-situ samples were also taken using a 1.4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory. The approximate locations of the borings from this investigation are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as the results of some of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B. 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions Artificial Fill Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface at all of the boring locations, extending to depths of 3 to 7½± feet below the existing site grades. The fill soils generally consist of loose to medium dense silty sands with varying fine to coarse Gravel. The fill soils possess a disturbed mottled appearance resulting in their classification as artificial fill. As indicated in Section 3.3 of this report, fill soils were encountered at the ground surface and beneath the existing pavements at all of the previous boring locations, extending to depths of 2½ to 8± feet. Alluvium Native alluvium was encountered beneath the artificial fill soils at all boring locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 25± feet below existing site grades. The alluvium generally consists of medium dense to very dense sands, gravelly sands and silty sands, with Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 9 occasional medium dense sandy silts. Boring No. B-16 encountered a stratum of loose sandy silts at depths of 4½ to 6½± feet. Occasional to extensive cobbles were encountered at most of the boring locations as shallow as of 7± feet from the ground surface. Groundwater Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the borings. Based on the lack of any water within the borings, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 25± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration. As a part of our research, we reviewed available groundwater data in order to determine groundwater levels for the site. Water level data was obtained from the California Department of Water Resources Water Data Library website, https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. The nearest monitoring well on record (identified as State Well Number: 01S06W24R001S) is located ½± mile west of the project site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicate a high groundwater level of 322± feet below the ground surface in April 1995. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 10 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locations and depths. Test results from the previous studies are denoted using the project numbers (18G213-1 and 20G226-1). The test results from the previous studies are included in Appendix F. Classification All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in accordance with ASTM D-2488. The field identifications were then supplemented with additional visual classifications and/or by laboratory testing. The USCS classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and are periodically referenced throughout this report. Density and Moisture Content The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM D-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs. The results of additional testing performed during the previous studies are included in Appendix F of this report. Consolidation Selected soil samples were tested to determine their consolidation potential, in accordance with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one-inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C-1 through C-4 in Appendix C of this report. Additional consolidation test results performed during the previous studies are included in Appendix F. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Two representative bulk samples of the on-site soils, one from each of the previous studies, have been tested for their maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. The results have been obtained using the Modified Proctor procedure, per ASTM D-1557 and are included in Appendix F of this report. This test is generally used to compare the in-situ densities of undisturbed field samples, and for later compaction testing. Additional testing of other soil types or soil mixes may be necessary at a later date. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 11 Soluble Sulfates Representative samples of the near-surface soils have been submitted to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the soluble sulfate testing are presented below, and are discussed further in a subsequent section of this report. Sample Identification Soluble Sulfates (%) ACI Classification B-2 @ 0 to 5 feet (18G213-1) 0.003 Not Applicable (S0) B-4 @ 0 to 5 feet (18G213-1) 0.005 Not Applicable (S0) B-7 @ 0 to 5 feet (20G226-1) 0.005 Not Applicable (S0) B-16 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.001 Not Applicable (S0) Corrosivity Testing Representative samples of the near-surface soils have been submitted to a subcontracted corrosion engineering laboratory to identify potentially corrosive characteristics with respect to common construction materials. The corrosivity testing included a determination of the electrical resistivity, pH, and chloride and nitrate concentrations of the soils, as well as other tests. The results of some of these tests are presented below. Sample Identification Saturated Resistivity (ohm-cm) pH Chlorides (mg/kg) Nitrates (mg/kg) B-7 @ 0 to 5 feet (20G226-1) 2,120 7.5 13 302 B-16 @ 0 to 5 feet 15,600 7.2 4.6 77 Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 12 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, construction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The recommendations are provided with the assumption that an adequate program of client consultation, construction monitoring, and testing will be performed during the final design and construction phases to verify compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining SCG as the geotechnical consultant from the beginning to the end of the project will provide continuity of services. The geotechnical engineering firm providing testing and observation services shall assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes. The performance of a site specific seismic hazards analysis was beyond the scope of this investigation. However, numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed structures should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life. Faulting and Seismicity Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, SCG did not identify any evidence of faulting during the previous and current geotechnical investigations. Therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered to be low. The potential for other geologic hazards such as seismically induced settlement, lateral spreading, tsunamis, inundation, seiches, flooding, and subsidence affecting the site is considered low. Seismic Design Parameters The 2019 California Building Code (CBC) provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 13 the structure including the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are based on the soil profile and the proximity of known faults with respect to the subject site. Based on standards in place at the time of this report, the proposed development is expected to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the 2019 edition of the California Building Code (CBC), which was adopted on January 1, 2020. The 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters have been generated using the SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool, a web-based software application available at the website www.seismicmaps.org. This software application calculates seismic design parameters in accordance with several building code reference documents, including ASCE 7-16, upon which the 2019 CBC is based. The application utilizes a database of risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) site accelerations at 0.01-degree intervals for each of the code documents. The table below was created using data obtained from the application. The output generated from this program is included as Plate E-1 in Appendix E of this report. The 2019 CBC requires that a site-specific ground motion study be performed in accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 for Site Class D sites with a mapped S1 value greater than 0.2. However, Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 also indicates an exception to the requirement for a site- specific ground motion hazard analysis for certain structures on Site Class D sites. The commentary for Section 11 of ASCE 7-16 (Page 534 of Section C11 of ASCE 7-16) indicates that “In general, this exception effectively limits the requirements for site-specific hazard analysis to very tall and or flexible structures at Site Class D sites.” Based on our understanding of the proposed development, the seismic design parameters presented below were calculated assuming that the exception in Section 11.4.8 applies to the proposed structure at this site. However, the structural engineer should verify that this exception is applicable to the proposed structure. Based on the exception, the spectral response accelerations presented below were calculated using the site coefficients (Fa and Fv) from Tables 1613.2.3(1) and 1613.2.3(2) presented in Section 16.4.4 of the 2019 CBC. 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SS 1.790 Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period S1 0.600 Site Class --- D Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SMS 1.790 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SM1 1.020 Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SDS 1.193 Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SD1 0.680 It should be noted that the site coefficient Fv and the parameters SM1 and SD1 were not included in the SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool output for the 2019 CBC. We calculated these parameters-based on Table 1613.2.3(2) in Section 16.4.4 of the 2019 CBC using the value of S1 Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 14 obtained from the Seismic Design Maps Tool, assuming that a site-specific ground motion hazards analysis is not required for the proposed building at this site. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss, 1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<0.005mm) in excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table. The California Geological Survey (CGS) has not yet conducted detailed seismic hazards mapping in the area of the subject site. The general liquefaction susceptibility of the site was determined by research of the San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays. Map FH29 for the Fontana 7.5-Minute Quadrangle indicates that the subject site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. Based on the mapping performed by the county of San Bernardino and the lack of a historic high ground water table within the upper 50± feet of the ground surface, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for this project. 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations General The near-surface soils encountered at the boring locations from the previous and current studies consist of artificial fill soils and native alluvium. The artificial fill soils, where encountered, extend to depths of 2½ to 8± feet below the existing site grades. The fill soils and near-surface alluvial soils possess varying strengths. The existing fill soils are considered to represent undocumented fill. These soils, in their present condition, are not considered suitable for support of the foundation loads of the new structure. The results of laboratory testing indicate that the near- surface soils within the upper 5 to 6± feet possess a moderate potential for collapse when exposed to moisture infiltration as well as consolidation when exposed to load increases in the range of those that will be exerted by the new foundations. Additionally, it is anticipated that demolition of the existing structures and associated improvements will cause disturbance of the upper 4 to 5± feet with isolated areas extending to 10 to 12± feet due to the presence of a subterranean level within one of the existing SFRs. Therefore, remedial grading is considered warranted within the proposed building areas in order to remove all of the undocumented fill soils in their entirety, the upper portion of the near-surface native alluvial soils, and any soils disturbed during the demolition process, and replace these materials as compacted structural fill soils. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 15 Settlement The recommended remedial grading will remove the existing undocumented fill soils, as well as the potentially compressible/collapsible near-surface native alluvium, and replace these materials as compacted structural fill. The native soils that will remain in place below the recommended depth of overexcavation will not be subject to significant stress increases from the foundations of the new structures. Therefore, following completion of the recommended grading, post- construction settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits. Expansion The on-site soils generally consist of sands and silty sands with varying amounts of gravel. These materials have been visually classified as non-expansive. Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for this site. Soluble Sulfates The results of the soluble sulfate testing indicate that the selected samples of the on-site soils, from the previous and current investigations, contain sulfate concentrations that correspond to Class S0 with respect to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Publication 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Section 4.3. Therefore, specialized concrete mix designs are not considered to be necessary, with regard to sulfate protection purposes. It is, however, recommended that additional soluble sulfate testing be conducted at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils which are present at pad grade within the building area. Corrosion Potential The results of laboratory testing. from the previous and current investigations, indicate that the tested samples of the near-surface on-site soils possess saturated resistivity values of 2,120 ohm- cm and 15,600 ohm-cm, and pH values of 7.2 and 7.5. These test results have been evaluated in accordance with guidelines published by the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA). The DIPRA guidelines consist of a point system by which characteristics of the soils are used to quantify the corrosivity characteristics of the site. Resistivity and pH are two of the five factors that enter into the evaluation procedure. Redox potential, relative soil moisture content and sulfides are also included. Although sulfide testing was not part of the scope of services for this project, we have evaluated the corrosivity characteristics of the on-site soils using resistivity, pH and moisture content. Based on these factors, and utilizing the DIPRA procedure, the on-site soils are considered to be slightly corrosive to ductile iron pipe. Therefore, polyethylene protection may be required for cast iron or ductile iron pipes. It should be noted that SCG does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, the client may also wish to contact a corrosion engineer to provide a more thorough evaluation. Relatively low concentrations (4.6 and 13 mg/kg) of chlorides were detected in the samples submitted for corrosivity testing from the previous and current investigations. In general, soils possessing chloride concentrations in excess of 500 parts per million (ppm) are considered to be corrosive with respect to steel reinforcement within reinforced concrete. Based on the lack of any significant chlorides in the tested samples, the site is considered to have a C1 chloride exposure in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Publication 318 Building Code Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 16 Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. Therefore, a specialized concrete mix design for reinforced concrete for protection against chloride exposure is not considered warranted. Nitrates Nitrates present in soil can be corrosive to copper tubing at concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg. The tested samples from the previous and current investigations possess nitrate concentrations of 77 and 302 mg/kg. Based on these test results, the on-site soils are considered to be corrosive to copper pipe. Since SCG does not practice in the area of corrosion engineering, we recommend that the client contact a corrosion engineer to provide recommendations for the protection of copper tubing/pipe in contact with the on-site soils. Shrinkage/Subsidence Removal and recompaction of the existing fill soils and near-surface alluvium is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 1 to 13 percent. The potential shrinkage estimate is based on dry density testing performed on small-diameter samples taken at the boring locations. If a more accurate and precise shrinkage estimate is desired, SCG can perform a shrinkage study involving several excavated test-pits where in-place densities are determined using in-situ testing methods instead of laboratory density testing on small-diameter samples. Please contact SCG for details and a cost estimate regarding a shrinkage study, if desired. Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.1 feet. These estimates are based on previous experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. The actual amount of subsidence is expected to be variable and will be dependent on the type of machinery used, repetitions of use, and dynamic effects, all of which are difficult to assess precisely. Grading and Foundation Plan Review No grading or foundation plans were available at the time of this report. It is therefore recommended that we be provided with copies of the preliminary plans, when they become available, for review with regard to the conclusions, recommendations, and assumptions contained within this report. 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site-specific recommendations presented below. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 17 Site Stripping and Demolition The proposed development will require demolition of the existing pavements and structures. Additionally, any existing improvements that will not remain in place for use with the new development should be removed in their entirety. This should include all utilities, and any other subsurface improvements associated with the existing pavements. The existing pavements are not expected to be reused with the new development. Debris resultant from demolition should be disposed of off-site. Concrete and asphalt debris may be re-used as compacted fill, provided they are pulverized to a maximum particle size of less than 2 inches and mixed with the on-site soils. Alternatively, existing asphalt and concrete materials may be crushed into miscellaneous base (CMB) and re-used at the site. Detailed structural information regarding the existing buildings has not been provided to our office. Therefore, the foundation systems supporting the existing buildings are generally unknown by SCG. We expect that the existing buildings are supported on conventional shallow foundations. It should be noted that one of the existing SFRs includes a basement. The basement and existing undocumented fill soils should be removed in their entirety, and the resultant excavations should be backfilled with compacted structural fill soils. Initial site stripping should also include removal of any surficial vegetation from the unpaved areas of the site. This should include any weeds, grasses, shrubs, and trees. Root systems associated with the trees should be removed in their entirety, and the resultant excavations should be backfilled with compacted structural fill soils. Any organic materials should be removed and disposed of off-site, or in non-structural areas of the property. The actual extent of site stripping should be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer, based on the organic content and stability of the materials encountered. Treatment of Existing Soils: Building Pad Remedial grading should be performed within the proposed building pad area in order to remove any soils disturbed during demolition, the existing undocumented fill soils, and the upper portion of the near-surface native alluvium. Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations from the previous and current investigations, we recommend that the existing soils within the proposed building area be overexcavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 5 feet below proposed building pad subgrade elevations, whichever is greater. The depth of the overexcavation should also extend to a depth sufficient to remove all undocumented fill soils. The undocumented fills extend to depths of 2½ to 8± feet at most of the boring locations. Additional overexcavation should be performed within the influence zones of the new foundations, to provide for a new layer of compacted structural fill extending to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed bearing grades. The overexcavation areas should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building and foundation perimeters, and to an extent equal to the depth of fill placed below the foundation bearing grade, whichever is greater. If the proposed structure incorporates any exterior columns (such as for a canopy or overhang) the area of overexcavation should also encompass these areas. Following completion of the overexcavation, the subgrade soils within the overexcavation areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structure. This Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 18 evaluation should include proofrolling and probing to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if additional fill materials or loose, porous, or low-density native soils are encountered at the base of the overexcavation. After a suitable overexcavation subgrade has been achieved, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches and moisture treated to 0 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content. If native sands or gravelly sands are encountered at the bottom of the overexcavation, these soils should be thoroughly flooded to raise the moisture content of the underlying soils to at least 0 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, extending to a depth of at least 24 inches. The subgrade soils should then be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D- 1557 maximum dry density. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. Treatment of Existing Soils: Retaining Walls and Site Walls The existing soils within the areas of any proposed retaining walls and site walls should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet below foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted structural fill as discussed above for the proposed building pad. Any undocumented fill soils or disturbed native alluvium within any of these foundation areas should be removed in their entirety. The overexcavation areas should extend at least 5 feet beyond the foundation perimeters, and to an extent equal to the depth of fill below the new foundations. Any erection pads for tilt-up concrete walls are considered to be part of the foundation system. Therefore, these overexcavation recommendations are applicable to erection pads. The overexcavation subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to scarifying, moisture conditioning to within 0 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and recompacting the upper 12 inches of exposed subgrade soils. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. If the full lateral recommended remedial grading cannot be completed for the proposed retaining walls and site walls located along property lines, the foundations for those walls should be designed using a reduced allowable bearing pressure. Furthermore, the contractor should take necessary precautions to protect the adjacent improvements during rough grading. Specialized grading techniques, such as A-B-C slot cuts, will likely be required during remedial grading. The geotechnical engineer of record should be contacted if additional recommendations, such as shoring design recommendations, are required during grading. Treatment of Existing Soils: Flatwork, Parking and Drive Areas Based on economic considerations, overexcavation of the existing near-surface existing soils in the new flatwork, parking and drive areas is not considered warranted, with the exception of areas where lower strength or unstable soils are identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading. Subgrade preparation in the new flatwork, parking and drive areas should initially consist of removal of all soils disturbed during stripping and demolition operations. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of additional unsuitable soils. Any such materials should be removed to a level of firm and unyielding soil. The exposed subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12± inches, moisture conditioned to 0 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 19 of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Based on the presence of variable strength surficial soils throughout the site, it is expected that some isolated areas of additional overexcavation may be required to remove zones of lower strength, unsuitable soils. The grading recommendations presented above for the proposed flatwork, parking and drive areas assume that the owner and/or developer can tolerate minor amounts of settlement within these areas. The grading recommendations presented above do not mitigate the extent of undocumented fill or compressible/collapsible native alluvium in the flatwork, parking and drive areas. As such, some settlement and associated pavement distress could occur. Typically, repair of such distressed areas involves significantly lower costs than completely mitigating these soils at the time of construction. If the owner cannot tolerate the risk of such settlements, the flatwork, parking and drive areas should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below proposed pavement subgrade elevation, with the resulting soils replaced as compacted structural fill. Fill Placement • Fill soils should be placed in thin (6± inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to 0 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted. • On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. • All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with the requirements of the 2019 CBC and the grading code of the city of Fontana. • All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed. • Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job specifications. Selective Grading and Oversized Material Placement Occasional to extensive cobbles were encountered at most of the boring locations as shallow as of 7± feet from the ground surface. It is expected that large scrapers (Caterpillar 657 or equivalent) will be adequate to move the cobble-containing soils. Since the proposed grading will require excavation of cobble and possibly boulder containing soils, it may be desirable to selectively grade the proposed building pad area. The presence of particles greater than 6 inches in diameter within the upper 1 to 3 feet of the building pad subgrade will impact the utility and foundation excavations. Depending on the depths of fills required within the proposed parking areas, it may be feasible to sort the on-site soils, placing the materials greater than 6 inches in diameter within the lower depths of the fills, and limiting the upper 1 to 3 feet of soils to materials less than 6 inches in size. Oversized materials could also be placed within the lower depths of the recommended overexcavations. In order to achieve this grading, it would likely be necessary to use rock buckets and/or rock sieves to separate the oversized materials from the remaining soil. Although such selective grading will facilitate further construction activities, it is not considered mandatory and a suitable subgrade could be achieved without such extensive sorting. However, in any case, it is recommended that all materials greater than 6 inches in size be excluded from the upper 1 foot of the surface of any compacted fills. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 20 The placement of any oversized materials should be performed in accordance with the Grading Guide Specifications included in Appendix D of this report. If disposal of oversized materials is required, rock blankets or windrows should be used and such areas should be observed during construction and placement by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Imported Structural Fill All imported structural fill should consist of very low expansive (EI < 20), well graded soils possessing at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No. 200 sieve). Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D. Utility Trench Backfill In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D- 1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and compacted in place (jetting or flooding is not recommended). Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the city of Fontana. All utility trench backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere. Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a 1h:1v (horizontal to vertical) plane projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 standard. Pea gravel backfill should not be used for these trenches. Any soils used to backfill voids around subsurface utility structures, such as manholes or vaults, should be placed as compacted structural fill. If it is not practical to place compacted fill in these areas, then such void spaces may be backfilled with lean concrete slurry. Uncompacted pea gravel or sand is not recommended for backfilling these voids since these materials have a potential to settle and thereby cause distress of pavements placed around these subterranean structures. 6.4 Construction Considerations Excavation Considerations The near-surface soils generally consist of loose to medium dense sands, silty sands and sandy silts. These materials will likely be subject to moderate caving within shallow excavations. Where caving does occur, flattened excavation slopes may be sufficient to provide excavation stability. On a preliminary basis, the inclination of temporary slopes should not exceed 2h:1v. Deeper excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or bracing. Maintaining adequate moisture content within the near-surface soils will improve excavation stability. All excavation activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 21 Moisture Sensitive Subgrade Soils Some of the near-surface soils possess appreciable silt content. These soils may become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. In addition, based on their granular content, some of the on-site soils will also be susceptible to erosion. The site should, therefore, be graded to prevent ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations. Groundwater The static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 25± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to impact the grading or foundation construction activities. 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction Based on the preceding grading recommendations, it is assumed that the new building pad will be underlain by structural fill soils used to replace existing undocumented fill soils and a portion of the near-surface alluvial soils. These new structural fill soils are expected to extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade, underlain by 1± foot of additional soil that has been densified and moisture conditioned in place. Based on this subsurface profile, the proposed structure may be supported on conventional shallow foundations. Foundation Design Parameters New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows: • Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 3,000 lbs/ft2. • Minimum wall/column footing width: 14 inches/24 inches. • Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Two (2) No. 5 rebars (1 top and 1 bottom). • Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils, and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab. • It is recommended that the perimeter building foundations be continuous across all exterior doorways. Any flatwork adjacent to the exterior doors should be doweled into the perimeter foundations in a manner determined by the structural engineer. The allowable bearing pressures presented above may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration wind or seismic loads. The minimum steel reinforcement recommended above is based on geotechnical considerations; additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the structural engineer. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 22 Foundation Construction The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Soils suitable for direct foundation support should consist of newly placed structural fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable materials should be removed to a depth of suitable bearing compacted structural fill or suitable native alluvium (where reduced bearing pressures are utilized), with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils. As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such isolated overexcavations. The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 0 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches below bearing grade. Since it is typically not feasible to increase the moisture content of the floor slab and foundation subgrade soils once rough grading has been completed, care should be taken to maintain the moisture content of the building pad subgrade soils throughout the construction process. Estimated Foundation Settlements Post-construction total and differential settlements of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the previously presented recommendations are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively. Differential movements are expected to occur over a 30-foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces: • Passive Earth Pressure: 300 lbs/ft3 • Friction Coefficient: 0.30 These are allowable values, and include a factor of safety. When combining friction and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume that footings will be poured directly against compacted structural fill soils. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 3,000 lbs/ft2. 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction Subgrades which will support the new floor slab should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floor of the proposed structure may be constructed as conventional slabs-on-grade supported on newly placed structural fill (or densified existing soils), extending to a depth of at least 5 feet below finished pad grades. Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slab may be designed as follows: Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 23 • Minimum slab thickness: 6 inches. • Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: k = 150 psi/in. • Minimum slab reinforcement: Reinforcement is not considered necessary from a geotechnical standpoint. The actual floor slab reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer, based on the imposed slab loading. • Slab underlayment: If moisture sensitive floor coverings will be used then minimum slab underlayment should consist of a moisture vapor barrier constructed below the entire area of the proposed slab where such moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated. The moisture vapor barrier should meet or exceed the Class A rating as defined by ASTM E 1745-97 and have a permeance rating less than 0.01 perms as described in ASTM E 96- 95 and ASTM E 154-88. A polyolefin material such as Stego® Wrap Vapor Barrier or equivalent will meet these specifications. The moisture vapor barrier should be properly constructed in accordance with all applicable manufacturer specifications. Given that a rock free subgrade is anticipated and that a capillary break is not required, sand below the barrier is not required. The need for sand and/or the amount of sand above the moisture vapor barrier should be specified by the structural engineer or concrete contractor. The selection of sand above the barrier is not a geotechnical engineering issue and hence outside our purview. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor barrier may be eliminated. • Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to 0 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches. The moisture content of the floor slab subgrade soils should be verified by the geotechnical engineer within 24 hours prior to concrete placement. • Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. The actual design of the floor slabs should be completed by the structural engineer to verify adequate thickness and reinforcement. 6.7 Retaining Wall Design and Construction Although not indicated on the site plans, some small (less than 6 feet in height) retaining walls may be required to facilitate the new site grades. The parameters recommended for use in the design of these walls are presented below. Retaining Wall Design Parameters Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site. We have provided parameters assuming the use of on-site soils for retaining wall backfill. The on-site soils generally consist of silty sands, sands, gravelly sands and sandy silts. Based on their composition, the on-site silty sands and sandy silts are expected to possess a friction angle of 30 degrees when compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 24 If desired, SCG could provide design parameters for an alternative select backfill material behind the retaining walls. The use of select backfill material could result in lower lateral earth pressures. In order to use the design parameters for the imported select fill, this material must be placed within the entire active failure wedge. This wedge is defined as extending from the heel of the retaining wall upwards at an angle of approximately 60° from horizontal. If select backfill material behind the retaining wall is desired, SCG should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Design Parameter Soil Type On-site Silty Sands and Sandy Silts Internal Friction Angle () 30 Unit Weight 128 lbs/ft3 Equivalent Fluid Pressure: Active Condition (level backfill) 43 lbs/ft3 Active Condition (2h:1v backfill) 69 lbs/ft3 At-Rest Condition (level backfill) 64 lbs/ft3 The walls should be designed using a soil-footing coefficient of friction of 0.30 and an equivalent passive pressure of 300 lbs/ft3. The structural engineer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety in the design of the retaining walls. The active earth pressure may be used for the design of retaining walls that do not directly support structures or support soils that in turn support structures and which will be allowed to deflect. The at-rest earth pressure should be used for walls that will not be allowed to deflect such as those which will support foundation bearing soils, or which will support foundation loads directly. Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life of the structure. Seismic Lateral Earth Pressures In accordance with the 2019 CBC, any retaining walls more than 6 feet in height must be designed for seismic lateral earth pressures. If walls 6 feet or more are required for this site, the geotechnical engineer should be contacted for supplementary seismic lateral earth pressure recommendations. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 25 Retaining Wall Foundation Design The retaining wall foundations should be underlain by at least 3 feet of newly placed structural fill. Foundations to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the general Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report. Backfill Material On-site soils may be used to backfill the retaining walls. However, all backfill material placed within 3 feet of the back wall face should have a particle size no greater than 3 inches. The retaining wall backfill materials should be well graded. It is recommended that a minimum 1-foot thick layer of free-draining granular material (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) be placed against the face of the retaining walls. This material should extend from the top of the retaining wall footing to within 1 foot of the ground surface on the back side of the retaining wall. This material should be approved by the geotechnical engineer. In lieu of the 1-foot thick layer of free-draining material, a properly installed prefabricated drainage composite such as the MiraDRAIN 6000XL (or approved equivalent), which is specifically designed for use behind retaining walls, may be used. If the layer of free-draining material is not covered by an impermeable surface, such as a structure or pavement, a 12-inch thick layer of a low permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to reduce surface water migration to the underlying soils. The layer of free draining granular material should be separated from the backfill soils by a suitable geotextile, approved by the geotechnical engineer. All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90 and 93 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557-91). Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided. Subsurface Drainage As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained backfill conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage may consist of either: • A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 2-inch diameter holes in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate 10-foot on-center spacing. Alternatively, 4-inch diameter holes at an approximate 20-foot on-center spacing can be used for this type of drainage system. In addition, the weep holes should include a 2 cubic foot pocket of open graded gravel, surrounded by an approved geotextile fabric, at each weep hole location. • A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of drain placed behind the wall, above the retaining wall footing. The gravel layer should be wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce the potential for migration of fines. The footing drain should be extended to daylight or tied into a storm drainage system. The Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 26 actual design of this type of system should be determined by the civil engineer to verify that the drainage system possesses the adequate capacity and slope for its intended use. Weep holes or a footing drain will not be required for building stem walls. 6.8 Pavement Design Parameters Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20-year pavement service life. Pavement Subgrades It is anticipated that the new pavements will be primarily supported on a layer of compacted structural fill, consisting of scarified, thoroughly moisture conditioned and recompacted existing soils. The near-surface soils generally consist of sands, silty sands and gravelly sands. These soils are generally considered to possess excellent pavement support characteristics, with R-values in the range of 50 to 60. The subsequent pavement design is therefore based upon an assumed R- value of 50. Any fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions. It is recommended that R-value testing be performed after completion of rough grading to verify that the pavement design recommendations presented herein are valid. Asphaltic Concrete Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (TI’s) indicated. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that these TI’s are representative of the anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determine that the expected traffic volume will exceed the applicable traffic index, we should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. The design traffic indices equate to the following approximate daily traffic volumes over a 20-year design life, assuming six operational traffic days per week. Traffic Index No. of Heavy Trucks per Day 4.0 0 5.0 1 6.0 3 7.0 11 8.0 35 9.0 93 For the purpose of the traffic volumes indicated above, a truck is defined as a 5-axle tractor trailer unit with one 8-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. All of the traffic indices allow for 1,000 automobiles per day. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 27 ASPHALT PAVEMENTS (R=50) Materials Thickness (inches) Auto Parking and Auto Drive Lanes (TI = 4.0 to 5.0) Truck Traffic TI = 6.0 TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0 Asphalt Concrete 3 3½ 4 5 5½ Aggregate Base 3 4 5 5 7 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 12 The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the batch plant-reported maximum density. The aggregate base course may consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a recycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material. The gradation, R-Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB or CMB should comply with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Portland Cement Concrete The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. The minimum recommended thicknesses for the Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows: PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (R=50) Materials Thickness (inches) Autos and Light Truck Traffic (TI = 6.0) Truck Traffic TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0 PCC 5 5½ 6½ 8 Compacted Subgrade (95% minimum compaction) 12 12 12 12 The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. Any reinforcement within the PCC pavements should be determined by the project structural engineer. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness. Proposed Warehouse – Fontana, CA Project No. 20G226-3 Page 28 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client, in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project. However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, civil engineer, and/or structural engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party’s sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur. The client(s)’ reliance upon this report is subject to the Engineering Services Agreement, incorporated into our proposal for this project. The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development. It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed. SITE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE SCALE: 1" = 2000' DRAWN: RBCHKD: RGT SCG PROJECT 20G226-3 PLATE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP FONTANA, CALIFORNIA SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THEFONTANA QUADRANGLE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 2018 B-8B-12B-9B-10B-11B-13B-14B-15B-16B-17B-18B-3B-1B-2B-6B-4B-5B-7SCALE: 1" = 150'DRAWN: RBCHKD: RGTPLATE 2SCG PROJECT20G226-3FONTANA, CALIFORNIAPROPOSED WAREHOUSEBORING LOCATION PLANNORTH SoCalGeoNOTE: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN (SCHEME 7) PREPARED BY HPA, INC.AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH.GEOTECHNICAL LEGENDAPPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONPREVIOUS BORING LOCATION(SCG PROJECT NO: 20G226-1) PREVIOUS BORING LOCATION(SCG PROJECT NO: 18G213-1) PROPERTY BOUNDARY BORING LOG LEGEND SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AUGER SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO FIELD MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH. (DISTURBED) CORE ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL. TYPICALLY USED ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK. GRAB 1 SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED) CS CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1-INCH HIGH BRASS RINGS. DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED) NSR NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR ROCK MATERIAL. SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4 INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18 INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED) SH SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED. (UNDISTURBED) VANE VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINED USING A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED. COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface. SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above. BLOW COUNT: Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 lb hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3” indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more. POCKET PEN.: Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by pocket penetrometer. GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page. DRY DENSITY: Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample in lbs/ft3. MOISTURE CONTENT: Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. LIQUID LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid. PLASTIC LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic. PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve. UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. SM SP COARSE GRAINEDSOILS SW TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NOFINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES LETTERGRAPH POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLEOR NO FINES GC GM GP GW POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NOFINES SILTSAND CLAYS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL ISLARGER THANNO. 200 SIEVE SIZE MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THANNO. 200 SIEVESIZE MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTION PASSING ON NO.4 SIEVE MORE THAN 50%OF COARSE FRACTIONRETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES FINEGRAINED SOILS SYMBOLSMAJOR DIVISIONS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART PT OH CH MH OL CL ML CLEAN SANDS SC SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILTMIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINESANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEYSILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANICSILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND ORSILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITHHIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS SILTS AND CLAYS GRAVELS WITH FINES SAND AND SANDY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH FINES LIQUID LIMITLESS THAN 50 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS GRAVEL AND GRAVELLYSOILS (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) (LITTLE OR NO FINES) WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES CLEAN GRAVELS 115 111 115 119 118 5 3 2 2 2 1 2 4 FILL: Gray Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace to little fineGravel, medium dense-damp FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, tracefine to coarse Gravel, medium dense-damp ALLUVIUM: Brown to Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, medium dense-damp @ 7 feet, extensive cobbles Gray fine to coarse Sand, trace to little fine to coarse Gravel, traceSilt, dense to very dense-dry to damp @ 13½ feet, occasional Cobbles Boring Terminated at 25' 16 19 24 44 50 76/10" 79/9" 37 LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEFIELD RESULTS GRAPHIC LOGPOCKET PEN.(TSF)ORGANICCONTENT (%)WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 7 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSBORING NO. B-14 DRILLING DATE: 7/21/21 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)BLOW COUNTDRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)JOB NO.: 20G226-3 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California PLATE B-14 5 10 15 20 25 DESCRIPTION TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL TBL 20G226-3.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 8/10/21 112 105 119 125 2 2 3 3 7 3 2 FILL: Light Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, trace to little medium tocoarse Sand, little fine Gravel, trace Plastic Fragments, mediumdense-dry FILL: Light Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand,loose-dry FILL: Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace to little fine to coarse Gravel, mottled, medium dense-damp ALLUVIUM: Gray Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, little Silt,occasional to extensive Cobbles, medium dense to very dense-damp Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, mediumdense-damp to moist Brown fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, trace Silt, dense-damp Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, very dense-damp Boring Terminated at 25' No SampleRecovery 19 14 38 41 50/5" 22 44 50/5"LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEFIELD RESULTS GRAPHIC LOGPOCKET PEN.(TSF)ORGANICCONTENT (%)WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 10 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSBORING NO. B-15 DRILLING DATE: 7/21/21 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)BLOW COUNTDRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)JOB NO.: 20G226-3 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California PLATE B-15 5 10 15 20 25 DESCRIPTION TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL TBL 20G226-3.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 8/10/21 109 103 106 113 115 110 111 4 4 5 8 2 9 3 2 FILL: Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand,medium dense-damp @ 3 feet, loose ALLUVIUM: Light Brown fine Sandy Silt, loose to medium dense-damp Gray SIlty fine to medium Sand, little coarse Sand, mediumdense-dry Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, mediumdense-moist Dark Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, medium dense-damp Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace to little Silt, mediumdense-damp @ 23½ feet, dense Boring Terminated at 25' 17 7 9 19 20 16 34 47 LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEFIELD RESULTS GRAPHIC LOGPOCKET PEN.(TSF)ORGANICCONTENT (%)WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 21 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSBORING NO. B-16 DRILLING DATE: 7/21/21 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)BLOW COUNTDRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)JOB NO.: 20G226-3 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California PLATE B-16 5 10 15 20 25 DESCRIPTION TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL TBL 20G226-3.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 8/10/21 1 1 1 1 FILL: Light Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, little to some fine tocoarse Gravel, medium dense-dry ALLUVIUM: Light Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, dense to very dense-dry @ 8½ feet, occasional Cobbles Boring Terminated at 10' 25 62/9" 43 33 LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEFIELD RESULTS GRAPHIC LOGPOCKET PEN.(TSF)ORGANICCONTENT (%)WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 8 inches READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSBORING NO. B-17 DRILLING DATE: 7/21/21 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)BLOW COUNTDRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)JOB NO.: 20G226-3 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California PLATE B-17 5 10 DESCRIPTION TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL TBL 20G226-3.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 8/10/21 5 6 16 5 FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, loose-damp ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, medium dense-moist tovery moist Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, medium dense-damp Boring Terminated at 10' 7 8 10 16 LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEFIELD RESULTS GRAPHIC LOGPOCKET PEN.(TSF)ORGANICCONTENT (%)WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 19 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSBORING NO. B-18 DRILLING DATE: 7/21/21 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)BLOW COUNTDRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)JOB NO.: 20G226-3 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California PLATE B-18 5 10 DESCRIPTION TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL TBL 20G226-3.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 8/10/21 Classification: FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel Boring Number:B-14 Initial Moisture Content (%)3 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)15 Depth (ft)3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf)110.7 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)116.6 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)0.94 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 20G226-3 PLATE C- 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Added at 1600 psf Classification: Brown to Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, little Silt Boring Number:B-14 Initial Moisture Content (%)2 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)15 Depth (ft)5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf)114.7 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)123.0 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)1.23 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 20G226-3 PLATE C- 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Added at 1600 psf Classification: Brown to Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, little Silt Boring Number:B-14 Initial Moisture Content (%)2 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)14 Depth (ft)7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf)119.1 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)124.7 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)0.62 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 20G226-3 PLATE C- 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Addedat 1600 psf Classification: Gray fine to coarse Sand, trace to little fine to coarse Gravel, trace Silt Boring Number:B-14 Initial Moisture Content (%)2 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)13 Depth (ft)9 to 10 Initial Dry Density (pcf)117.8 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)122.6 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)0.52 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 20G226-3 PLATE C- 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Added at 1600 psf Grading Guide Specifications Page 1 GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading operations. They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern. General • The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county, and applicable building codes. • The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman-like manner, nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by the Contractor. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job- site to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the approved compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report. • Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of areas that are ready for inspection. • Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water seepage encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains. Site Preparation • The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. • If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner/Builder should be notified immediately. Grading Guide Specifications Page 2 • Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This includes trees, brush, heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. • Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the inspection of the Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be formulated. • Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement. • Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill. • Subsequent to clearing and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted • The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing. Compacted Fills • Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as “contaminated,” and shall be very low to non-expansive with a maximum expansion index (EI) of 50. The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximum 6-inch particle size, except as noted below. • All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high expansion potential, low strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may require removal from the site or selective placement and/or mixing to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer. • Rock fragments or rocks less than 6 inches in their largest dimensions, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer, may be used in compacted fill, provided the distribution and placement is satisfactory in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. • Rock fragments or rocks greater than 12 inches should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations and in areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. These materials should be placed in accordance with Plate D-8 of these Grading Guide Specifications and in accordance with the following recommendations: • Rocks 12 inches or more in diameter should be placed in rows at least 15 feet apart, 15 feet from the edge of the fill, and 10 feet or more below subgrade. Spaces should be left between each rock fragment to provide for placement and compaction of soil around the fragments. • Fill materials consisting of soil meeting the minimum moisture content requirements and free of oversize material should be placed between and over the rows of rock or Grading Guide Specifications Page 3 concrete. Ample water and compactive effort should be applied to the fill materials as they are placed in order that all of the voids between each of the fragments are filled and compacted to the specified density. • Subsequent rows of rocks should be placed such that they are not directly above a row placed in the previous lift of fill. A minimum 5-foot offset between rows is recommended. • To facilitate future trenching, oversized material should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities or other underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and the developer/owner representative. • Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously prepared to receive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer for the project. • Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557-78 unless otherwise indicated. • Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies. • Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made. • Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5-to-1 inclination (horizontal-to-vertical) or steeper should be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates D-2, D-4, and D-5. • Cut/fill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet and rebuilt with fill (see Plate D-1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. • All cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration. • Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture penetration. • Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design. Grading Guide Specifications Page 4 Foundations • The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside edge of a footing, and proceeding downward at a ½ horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:1) inclination. • Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above. • Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to the floor subgrade elevation. Fill Slopes • The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core • Slope compaction may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4 vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction, the slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then grid rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used if approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. • Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face. • All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet, the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate D-5). • All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling. • The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed through all surficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate D- 2). Cut Slopes • All cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay in recommendations. • Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations. • All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate D-5. Grading Guide Specifications Page 5 • Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details are shown on Plates D-6. Subdrains • Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate D-3. Subdrains should be installed after approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer. • Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent. Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square-cut (backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. • Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTRANS Specification 68-1.025 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean ¾-inch crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet and 8 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four-inch diameter pipe may be used in buttress and stabilization fills. GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM PLATE D-2 FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL 9' MIN. 4' TYP. MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) REMOVE U N S U I T A B L E M A T E R I A L BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL BEDROCK OR APPROVED COMPETENT MATERIAL CUT SLOPE NATURAL GRADE CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE SHOWN ON "AS-BUILT" COMPETENT MATERIAL CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN NEW COMPACTED FILL 10' TYP. KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5 FEET IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM PLATE D-4 FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL 10' TYP.4' TYP. (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) OR 2% SLOPE MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK REMOVE UN S U I T A B L E M A T E R I A L NEW COMPACTED FILL COMPETENT MATERIAL KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL. RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNIAL ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5' IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 2' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH OVERFILL REQUIREMENTS PER GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN BACKCUT - VARIES PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL TO ORIGINAL GRADE PROJECT SLOPE GRADIENT (1:1 MAX.) NOTE: BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1 OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FINISHED SLOPE FACE MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM PLATE D-5 STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE COMPACTED FILL MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) 10' TYP. 2' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH 3' TYPICAL BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOIL ENGINEER KEYWAY WIDTH, AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TOP WIDTH OF FILL AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 4' TYP. PROPOSED WAREHOUSE DRAWN: RBCHKD: RGT SCG PROJECT 20G226-3 PLATE E-1 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS - 2019 CBC FONTANA, CALIFORNIA SOURCE: SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool <https://seismicmaps.org/> 20 21 37 59 21 21 24 ALLUVIUM:Light Gray Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, littlefine Gravel, medium dense-dry Light Gray fine to coarse Sand, some fine to coarse Gravel,trace to little Silt, medium dense to dense-dry Light Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, very dense-dry Light Brown to Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, tracemedium Sand, trace coarse Sand, medium dense-moist Boring Terminated at 25' 1 1 1 2 11 9 11 JOB NO.: 18G213 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-1 PLATE B-1 DRILLING DATE: 10/30/18 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Scott McCann FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 6 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion 5 10 15 20 25 GRAPHICLOGPASSING#200SIEVE(%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION POCKETPEN.(TSF)DRYDENSITY(PCF)DEPTH(FEET)MOISTURECONTENT(%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOWCOUNTORGANICCONTENT(%)TBL18G213.GPJSOCALGEO.GDT11/19/18 64 35 59 56 29 40 57 FILL:Brown fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, tracefine Gravel, trace to little Silt, dense-damp ALLUVIUM:Light Gray fine to coarse Sand, some fine to coarse Gravel, medium dense to dense-dry Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, mediumdense-damp Light Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, some fine to coarse Gravel, dense-damp Gray Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarseGravel, very dense-damp Boring Terminated at 20' DisturbedSample DisturbedSample 114 125 104 3 2 1 1 5 3 6 JOB NO.: 18G213 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-2 PLATE B-2 DRILLING DATE: 10/30/18 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Scott McCann FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 10 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion 5 10 15 20 GRAPHICLOGPASSING#200SIEVE(%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION POCKETPEN.(TSF)DRYDENSITY(PCF)DEPTH(FEET)MOISTURECONTENT(%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOWCOUNTORGANICCONTENT(%)TBL18G213.GPJSOCALGEO.GDT11/19/18 30 13 31 63 21 33 59 FILL:Light Brown fine to medium Sand, little Silt, little coarseSand, little fine to coarse Gravel, loose to medium dense-dry ALLUVIUM:Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium to coarseSand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, loose to medium dense-dry to damp Light Gray Brown to Light Gray fine to coarse Sand, some fineGravel, medium dense to dense-dry to damp Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, medium dense-damp Light Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, some fineGravel, little coarse Gravel, dense-dry Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand, verydense-damp Light Gray fine to coarse Sand, some fine to coarse Gravel,very dense-dry Boring Terminated at 20' Disturbed Sample DisturbedSample 115 120 98 1 4 2 1 6 2 7 2 JOB NO.: 18G213 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-3 PLATE B-3 DRILLING DATE: 10/30/18 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Scott McCann FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 11 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion 5 10 15 20 GRAPHICLOGPASSING#200SIEVE(%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION POCKETPEN.(TSF)DRYDENSITY(PCF)DEPTH(FEET)MOISTURECONTENT(%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOWCOUNTORGANICCONTENT(%)TBL18G213.GPJSOCALGEO.GDT11/19/18 10 21 43 54 67 24 69 1½± inches Asphaltic concrete, no discernible Aggregate base FILL:Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace coarseSand, loose to medium dense-damp to moist ALLUVIUM:Light Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little fineto coarse Gravel, trace Silt, medium dense-damp to moist Light Gray fine to coarse Sand, some fine to coarse Gravel,dense-dry Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, mediumdense-moist Light Gray fine to coarse Sand, some fine to coarse Gravel,very dense-dry Boring Terminated at 20' 111 113 115 118 116 6 7 4 2 2 9 2 JOB NO.: 18G213 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-4 PLATE B-4 DRILLING DATE: 10/30/18 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Scott McCann FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 7 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion 5 10 15 20 GRAPHICLOGPASSING#200SIEVE(%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION POCKETPEN.(TSF)DRYDENSITY(PCF)DEPTH(FEET)MOISTURECONTENT(%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOWCOUNTORGANICCONTENT(%)TBL18G213.GPJSOCALGEO.GDT11/19/18 23 27 54 20 35 34 84 FILL:Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand,little fine Gravel, medium dense-dry ALLUVIUM:Light Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little tosome fine Gravel, trace to little Silt, medium dense to verydense-dry Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand, trace to little fine Gravel, medium dense to dense-damp Light Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little fine Gravel, traceSilt, dense-damp Light Gray fine to coarse Sand, some fine Gravel, very dense-damp Boring Terminated at 25' 2 2 2 4 4 3 3 JOB NO.: 18G213 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-5 PLATE B-5 DRILLING DATE: 10/30/18 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Scott McCann FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 14 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion 5 10 15 20 25 GRAPHICLOGPASSING#200SIEVE(%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION POCKETPEN.(TSF)DRYDENSITY(PCF)DEPTH(FEET)MOISTURECONTENT(%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOWCOUNTORGANICCONTENT(%)TBL18G213.GPJSOCALGEO.GDT11/19/18 52 19 42 72/11" 29 21 ALLUVIUM:Light Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, littlecoarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, trace fine root fibers, very dense-dry Light Brown fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand, little Silt,trace fine to coarse Gravel, medium dense-damp Light Gray fine to coarse Sand, some fine to coarse Gravel,trace Silt, medium dense to very dense-dry Light Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, medium dense-very moist Brown Silty fine Sand, trace to little medium to coarse Sand,medium dense-damp to moist Boring Terminated at 20' 2 3 2 2 2 13 6 JOB NO.: 18G213 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-6 PLATE B-6 DRILLING DATE: 10/30/18 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Scott McCann FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 9 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion 5 10 15 20 GRAPHICLOGPASSING#200SIEVE(%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION POCKETPEN.(TSF)DRYDENSITY(PCF)DEPTH(FEET)MOISTURECONTENT(%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOWCOUNTORGANICCONTENT(%)TBL18G213.GPJSOCALGEO.GDT11/19/18 15 12 23 35 33 50/10" 63 50 103 107 122 119 116 4 5 3 2 2 2 3 2 FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace to little medium to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, loose to medium dense-damp ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, occasional Cobbles, medium dense-dry to damp @ 9 feet trace to little Silt Gray brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, occasional cobbles, very dense-dry to damp Boring Terminated at 25' JOB NO.: 20G226-1 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-7 PLATE B-1 DRILLING DATE: 11/3/20 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer FIELD RESULTS POCKET PEN.(TSF)LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL DRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOW COUNTWATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 19 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion ORGANICCONTENT (%)5 10 15 20 25 GRAPHIC LOGPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION TBL 20G226-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 12/2/20 10 44 39 73 45 16 16 103 116 120 119 3 2 2 2 1 3 8 8± inches Portland cement concrete FILL: Brown fine Sandy Silt to Silty fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, loose to medium dense-dry to damp @ 3 feet little fine to coarse Gravel ALLUVIUM: Light Brown fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, trace Silt, medium dense-dry to damp Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, occasional Cobbles, dense-dry to damp Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, occasional Cobbles, medium dense-damp Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium to coarse Sand, medium dense-moist Boring Terminated at 20' Disturbed Sample JOB NO.: 20G226-1 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-8 PLATE B-2 DRILLING DATE: 11/3/20 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer FIELD RESULTS POCKET PEN.(TSF)LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL DRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOW COUNTWATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 9 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion ORGANICCONTENT (%)5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC LOGPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION TBL 20G226-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 12/2/20 16 21 48 33 14 74/8" 50/5" 4 2 2 2 13 2 3 8± inches Portland cement concrete FILL: Light Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, medium dense-damp ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Gravelly fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand, medium dense to dense-dry to damp Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, occasional Cobbles, dense-dry to damp Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, to fine Sandy Silt, medium dense-moist to very moist Gray Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, occasional Cobbles, very dense-dry to damp Boring Terminated at 25' JOB NO.: 20G226-1 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-9 PLATE B-3 DRILLING DATE: 11/3/20 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer FIELD RESULTS POCKET PEN.(TSF)LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL DRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOW COUNTWATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 19 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion ORGANICCONTENT (%)5 10 15 20 25 GRAPHIC LOGPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION TBL 20G226-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 12/2/20 31 34 19 51 62 50/4" 54 120 120 121 4 2 9 2 2 3 2 FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, medium dense-damp ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, occasional Cobbles, medium dense-dry to damp Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, medium dense-moist Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, dense-damp Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, occasional Cobbles, very dense-damp Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, little fine to coarse Gravel, very dense-damp Boring Terminated at 20' Disturbed Sample Disturbed Sample JOB NO.: 20G226-1 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-10 PLATE B-4 DRILLING DATE: 11/3/20 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer FIELD RESULTS POCKET PEN.(TSF)LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL DRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOW COUNTWATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 11 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion ORGANICCONTENT (%)5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC LOGPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION TBL 20G226-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 12/2/20 4 13 10 20 39 57 4 6 11 2 2 6 FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, loose-damp FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium to coarse Sand, medium dense-damp FILL: Brown fine Sandy Silt, loose to medium dense-moist to very moist ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown fine to medium Sand, little coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, medium dense to dense-dry to damp @ 13½ feet trace Silt, little fine to coarse Gravel Dark Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, very dense-damp Boring Terminated at 20' JOB NO.: 20G226-1 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-11 PLATE B-5 DRILLING DATE: 11/3/20 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer FIELD RESULTS POCKET PEN.(TSF)LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL DRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOW COUNTWATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 12 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion ORGANICCONTENT (%)5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC LOGPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION TBL 20G226-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 12/2/20 30 10 27 50/6" 55 36 1 1 1 1 1 1 FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand, trace to little fine to coarse Gravel, medium dense to dense-dry ALLUVIUM: Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, little fine to coarse Gravel, medium dense to very dense-dry Gray Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, occasional Cobbles, very dense-dry Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, little fine to coarse Gravel, occasional Cobbles, dense-dry Boring Terminated at 20' JOB NO.: 20G226-1 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-12 PLATE B-6 DRILLING DATE: 11/3/20 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer FIELD RESULTS POCKET PEN.(TSF)LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL DRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOW COUNTWATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 0 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion ORGANICCONTENT (%)5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC LOGPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION TBL 20G226-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 12/2/20 20 25 24 19 24 34 51 121 123 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 FILL: Light Brown Gravelly fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, little Silt, medium dense-damp ALLUVIUM: Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, little fine to coarse Gravel, occasional Cobbles, medium dense-dry to damp Dark Gray fine to coarse Sand, trace to little fine to coarse Gravel, trace Silt, medium dense-dry to damp Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace to little fine to coarse Gravel, dense-damp Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, very dense-damp Boring Terminated at 20' JOB NO.: 20G226-1 PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse LOCATION: Fontana, California BORING NO. B-13 PLATE B-7 DRILLING DATE: 11/20/20 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Jose Zuniga FIELD RESULTS POCKET PEN.(TSF)LABORATORY RESULTS COMMENTSSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL DRY DENSITY(PCF)DEPTH (FEET)MOISTURECONTENT (%)LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMITSAMPLEBLOW COUNTWATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 3 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion ORGANICCONTENT (%)5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC LOGPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)TEST BORING LOG DESCRIPTION TBL 20G226-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 12/2/20 Classification: FILL: Brown fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel Boring Number:B-2 Initial Moisture Content (%)3 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)13 Depth (ft)1 to 2 Initial Dry Density (pcf)113.6 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)122.5 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)1.75 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 18G213 PLATE C- 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Addedat 1600 psf Classification: Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand Boring Number:B-3 Initial Moisture Content (%)5 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)14 Depth (ft)3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf)114.1 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)122.1 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)1.43 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 18G213 PLATE C- 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Added at 1600 psf Classification: Light Gray Brown to Light Gray fine to coarse Sand, some fine Gravel Boring Number:B-3 Initial Moisture Content (%)2 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)13 Depth (ft)5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf)120.1 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)122.6 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)0.58 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 18G213 PLATE C- 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Added at 1600 psf Classification: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand Boring Number:B-3 Initial Moisture Content (%)7 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)28 Depth (ft)9 to 10 Initial Dry Density (pcf)97.3 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)101.0 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)0.74 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 18G213 PLATE C- 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Added at 1600 psf Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 18G213 PLATE C-5 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14DryDensity(lbs/ft3)Moisture Content (%) Moisture/Density Relationship ASTM D-1557 Soil ID Number B-2 @ 0 to 5' Optimum Moisture (%)6.5 Maximum Dry Density (pcf)130.5 Soil Brown fine to coarse Sand, Classification little fine to coarse Gravel Zero Air Voids Curve: Specific Gravity = 2.7 Classification: Boring Number:B-7 Initial Moisture Content (%)4 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)17 Depth (ft)1 to 2 Initial Dry Density (pcf)103.5 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)111.2 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)1.72 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 20G226-1 PLATE C- 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Added at 1600 psf Classification: Boring Number:B-7 Initial Moisture Content (%)5 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)18 Depth (ft)3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf)101.3 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)109.3 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)1.53 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 20G226-1 PLATE C- 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Added at 1600 psf Classification: Boring Number:B-7 Initial Moisture Content (%)3 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)10 Depth (ft)5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf)119.8 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)129.2 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)1.14 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 20G226-1 PLATE C- 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Added at 1600 psf Classification: Boring Number:B-7 Initial Moisture Content (%)2 Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)14 Depth (ft)7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf)112.7 Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)118.0 Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)0.78 Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 20G226-1 PLATE C- 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100ConsolidationStrain(%)Load (ksf) Consolidation/Collapse Test Results Water Added at 1600 psf Proposed Warehouse Fontana, California Project No. 20G226-1 PLATE C-5 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 4 6 8 10 12 14 16DryDensity(lbs/ft3)Moisture Content (%) Moisture/Density Relationship ASTM D-1557 Soil ID Number B-7 @ 0-5' Optimum Moisture (%)8.5 Maximum Dry Density (pcf)128 Soil Classification Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, Zero Air Voids Curve: Specific Gravity = 2.7