Newark City Council
September 14, 2023

P1. Other Identifier:

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*P2. Location: Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County Alameda and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Newark Date 2021 T ; R ; of of Sec ; Mt. Diablo B.M. c. Address 38600 Cedar Blvd. City Newark Zip 94560
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN 92A-2585-31
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
Location and setting
Pape Machinery, at 38600 Cedar Blvd. is a located on a 40,000 square foot parcel located between the Nimitz Freeway (I-880), which trends northwest to southeast here, and Cedar Blvd., which parallels the freeway to the southwest. It is about one-third of a mile northwest of the intersection of the freeway and Mowry Avenue, which crosses the freeway with an overpass. This is also the location of an interchange, allowing for exiting and accessing the freeway. The closest cross street to the parcel is Moores Avenue, which abuts Cedar Blvd. about where the driveway into the site is located on the southwest side. The lot is occupied by two buildings. Continued on sheet 2 *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP8: Industrial bldg.; HP6: 1-3 story commercial bldg. *P4. Resources Present:  Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates,
etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view,
date, accession #) Garage, west
façade, looking east, 11-3-2022
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source:  Historic
Prehistoric Both 1962
*P7. Owner and Address:

Waymark Development
2801 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 270
Newport Beach, CA 92663
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address)
Diana J. Painter, PhD
Painter Preservation
3681 Cleveland Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
*P9. Date Recorded:

November 3, 2022

*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive for Historic Resource Evaluation
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") None *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):

P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
Packet Page 549
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 38600 Cedar Blvd *NRHP Status Code 6Z

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
B1. Historic Name: International Harvester
B2. Common Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

B3. Original Use: Construction equipment dealership
B4. Present Use: Construction equipment dealership
*B5. Architectural Style: Other: Utilitarian; Modern Movement: Ranch style *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Both the garage and office building were constructed in 1962. No known alterations took place between 1962 and 1965, when the buildings appeared as they are today. An exception is the enclosure of the HVAC equipment on Wing A was added in 2005.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

Related features include fences, signage, a concrete ramp, and landscaping.

B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme Industrial development Area Newark Period of Significance 1962 Property Type Garage, office Applicable Criteria None (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The attached Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and cover document comprise a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the property at 38600 Cedar Blvd., Newark, Alameda County, California. This HRE finds that, although the subject buildings are over 50 years of age, they are not historically significant under any of the criteria documented in this HRE. They are not found to be part of important events or patterns of local, state or national history. Nor are they significant for an association with people important to local, state or national history. They are not architecturally significant. Nor are they important for their information value (see attached DPR forms for additional information). Continued on sheet 3 B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP8: Industrial bldg.; HP6: 1-3 story commercial bldg. *B12. References:

See sheet 35
B13. Remarks: None
*B14. Evaluator: Diana J. Painter, PhD
*Date of Evaluation: November 18, 2022
Packet Page 550
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

*P3a. Description: Continued from sheet 1
Architectural description – 38600 Cedar Blvd.

The land that Pape Machinery is located on today consists of two parcels. The northwest parcel is .918 acres in size and is occupied by a warehouse. The warehouse was constructed in 1979 and will not be evaluated here, as it is not 50 years of age, which is the typical threshold for a building to be considered a historic resource. The second and subject parcel is 2.63 acres in size and is occupied by two buildings, a garage that is 23,704 square feet in size and a Ranch style office that is 1,984 square feet in size. Both were constructed in 1962. The building with the residential appearance was constructed as an office for the adjacent shop and warehouse.

The area in which the buildings are located exhibits a wide variety of land uses. Many of the parcels paralleling the freeway on the southwest side are occupied with industrial uses, often in similar metal buildings. These are slowly giving way to housing developments. For example, a large parcel to the southeast of the subject parcel was redeveloped from industrial buildings to apartment dwellings some time between 2016 and 2018. Nearby, single-family neighborhoods were developed in the 1960s. Newer, more intensive residential development is recent. A large shopping mall called Newpark, with structured and surface parking, is located in the south-southeast quadrant of the intersection of the freeway and Mowry Avenue. Other commercial development and a high school is located south of the ring road encircling the mall. Additional commercial development is located in the north-northwest and northnortheast quadrants of the intersection of the interchange. Numerous motels are located in the area as well. The subject lot is zoned for medium density residential uses.

Architecture - garage
Overview. The garage is occupied by several uses, including offices and the garage portion of the building, which is dominated by craneways, which are the beams on which a crane trolley travels. The Lshaped building is one story in height, with mezzanines in the central portion of Wing C that are occupied by offices or former offices and a library with repair manuals. The main entrance to the building faces west (northwest), toward the lot line between this parcel and the neighboring parcel to the northwest, which is occupied by the 1979 warehouse. The building itself has at least three component parts. A portion with a shallow gable is located on the west side of the building, with its ridgeline oriented largely north-south (Wing A). This portion of the building has the lowest roof and contains the main entrance. A high corrugated metal wall with a metal coping which encloses HVAC equipment is located on the east side of the roof. Two parallel components of the building on the east side have gable ridgelines oriented west to east. The southerly gabled building (Wing C) has a moderately sloped gable roof. The northerly building (Wing B) has a low pitched gable but is a taller building. According to the utilities manager Manny Quintalla, this is necessary due to the larger equipment that the business services here. A shallow enclosure with a shed roof on the south side of the building is used for hazardous materials storage. Steel I-beams in multiple bays frame the building. The beams supporting the roofs are symmetrical, while the vertical beams are tapered, with the smaller dimension located closest to the ground. The building is clad in corrugated metal and the foundation is slab concrete. The roof is clad in metal as well, with corrugated fiberglass panels for additional light. It is a utilitarian building.

Packet Page 551
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Figure 1: Key map
Wing A – west facade: This wing of the building faces the interior of the lot and contains the main building entrance to the offices. These offices came into use when the Horton building, as the Ranch house building is known, was no longer used for offices after Pape Machinery located here. The main entry is composed of a double entry door with full height glass topped by a transom window. To its left is a tall, paired fixed light over a bulkhead that is a solid brown panel. Above the door and these two windows are three solid panels that extend to the narrow building eaves, the one over the door having “Pape Machinery” spelled out. Frames are anodized aluminum. A low concrete pad fronts this ensemble.

To the right of the doorway is a one-over-one-light window, the upper light being fixed and the lower one being a hopper window. The bulkhead and transom here are solid panels of the same proportions as seen on the entry ensemble. There are two additional windows of the same design to the left. To the left of these windows are three similarly proportioned windows that do not display the same black anodized aluminum frames as the central windows and instead match the color of the corrugated metal siding of the building. On the right side of this façade is a metal pedestrian door with a small light in the upper Garage Ranch house
building
Wing A
Wing B
Wing C
Packet Page 552
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

portion and a large solid panel that appears to have been an overhead door at one time. Above the eaves on this façade the corrugated metal enclosure that screens the HVAC units is visible.

North façade: The north façade of this wing displays a wall of glazing that is composed of a bank of tall windows over solid bulkheads. Above the windows are solid panels, under deep open eaves. This façade is fronted by foundation plantings and a narrow sidewalk. It faces out onto a yard that is used for parking equipment. Beyond that is the freeway, separated from the yard by tall shrubs.

East façade: The east façade of the wing faces a work area that is defined by the L-formation of Wings A and B. There is one window on this façade of the same design as those seen on the west façade of Wing A. There are otherwise three metal pedestrian doors on this façade under narrow eaves. There are no other openings on this façade.

Wing B - north façade: The north façade of Wing B forms the other side of the work yard that is defined in part by Wing A. Wing B is the tallest wing on the site and has no eave overhang. It is composed of seven very large overhead metal doors with narrow ribs. Above the doors are three signs displaying the equipment brands that the company services, plus one said that says “We Service All Makes.” A small, six-light window is located on the far north end of this façade.

East façade: There are no openings on the east façade of this building. The bottom portion is clad in corrugated metal siding with wide proportions, while the cladding above the eave line has narrow corrugations. There is no eave overhang.

Wing C – south façade: The south façade of Wing C has four large overhead doors on the southeast end similar in design as those seen on Wing B. They extend to under the narrow eave line because this wing is shorter than Wing B. Toward the west end is a doorway to a projecting addition with a shed roof that is used to store hazardous materials. There are four entry doors on this addition. To its left is a two-light sliding window with an aluminum frame. Also visible on this façade is the south end façade of Wing A.

This displays one overhead garage door near the southwest corner.

East façade: The east façade of Wing C has no openings. Like the east façade of Wing B, which it is adjacent to, it has wide corrugated metal cladding on the lower portion and narrower cladding on the upper portion, extending to narrow eaves.

Changes over time: All three wings of the 1962 building were in place in 1965; it is not known whether construction was phased (UCSB Library Geospatial Collection). The HVAC roof screen on Wing A was added in 2005.

Interiors: The interior of Wing A is made up of enclosed offices and cubicles. Rooms are used for offices and conference rooms. There is a receptionist counter at the entry and a parts counter on the south side of this wing. A hall with a door to the service area is located on the back, east wall in the southeast corner and a hall with a door to the training center is located on the east wall in the northeast corner. Also present in this area are restrooms and coffee stations. This wing is finished in sheet rock with interior cubical partitions, a dropped ceiling, fluorescent lighting, and linoleum floors.

Two major craneways are located within Wings B and C, both oriented east-west, or down the length of the buildings. The cranes are attached to longitudinal beams that are in turn mounted on the steel ceiling rafters. Numerous types of pneumatic equipment are operated in each bay. The bays between the two buildings are largely open, allowing passage from one side to the other. Toward the west end of Wing C are offices and restrooms. At the mezzanine level, up a flight of 14 steps, is a library that is open to the floor and a former enclosed office. Finishes here are primarily the corrugated metal of the building Packet Page 553
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

exteriors and wood-framing and plywood in the portion with offices. The fluorescent lighting is augmented by corrugated fiberglass panels on the ceiling. Floors are concrete. Changes to the garage interior are unknown.

Architecture – Ranch house
Ranch house (former office): The Ranch house is so-called because of the style of the building. It also referred to as the Horton building, after its former owner. The one-story building has a rectangular footprint and is composed of very shallow-pitched cross hip and gable roofs with gables facing west and north, towards the freeway. The fascia on the roofs is wide, covering boxed eaves. The west-facing façade contains the main entry to the building; it is oriented toward the interior of the lot and the main driveway into the parcel. The wood-frame building is finished in stucco with stone cladding at the entry and horizontal wood under the gable ends, with a composition shingle roof (formerly with a rock finish) and a concrete slab foundation. Like the garage building, it was constructed in 1962, Front (west) façade: The front façade displays a shallow projection that contains the main entry and is clad in stone from the building base to the eaves. The eaves are formed by a shallow pent roof under a slightly pitched gable roof. The entry door is in a recessed alcove on the west face. It features an original starburst detail on the door knob. To its left, within the projection, is a four-light window with aluminum frames. At the base of this portion of the building vents are built into the stone cladding. To the left are two, three-part fixed and casement windows with aluminum frames. A low, stone planter fronts this portion of the building.

South façade: The south façade displays four, two-part sliding windows in aluminum frames.

Rear (east) façade: The rear façade displays one, three-part fixed and casement window and two twopart sliding windows, all with aluminum frames. There are two flush doors on this façade.

North façade: The north façade has two, two-part sliding windows with aluminum frames under a gable end.

Interiors: Access was not available to this building, so interior features are unknown.

Site features
The main driveway into the site is located to the west of the Ranch house. The driveway is not differentiated from the rest of the site (including the parcel to the west), which is finished in asphalt and concrete. The large open spaces on the parcel(s) are used for equipment parking, employee parking, and outdoor work space.

Features on the site include two tall signs, one on the freeway, which is composed of a large pylon with the word “Pape” on it, and a pole sign, on the Cedar Blvd. side that spells out “Pape Machinery.” An additional sign on the garage also spells out “Pape Machinery.” Freestanding directional signage is located at the west-southwest corner of the Ranch building.

Additional features include a freestanding concrete ramp on the south side of the yard. Fencing includes a concrete masonry unit wall on the east side of the parcel and chain link fencing with barbed wire on the Cedar Blvd. side of the site and the west side of these two parcels. The site is separated from the freeway with a guard rail and landscaping. There are also storage tanks on the site.

Packet Page 554

*Map Name: Newark Quadrangle *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 2021 DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) * Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Figure 1: Regional location map
Packet Page 555
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Figure 2: Local location map
Source: City of Fremont
Packet Page 556
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Figure 3: Parcel map for 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Packet Page 557

DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow.

State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
*Drawn by: Google maps *Date of map: 2022

Parcel outlined in red
Packet Page 558
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Figure 5: Neighborhood context
Source: Google maps
Packet Page 559
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Photo 1 of 21 – Front façade of garage, looking east; Ranch house to right Photo 2 of 21 – Main entry to garage, looking east
Packet Page 560
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Photo 3 of 21 – Front (west) façade, looking north
Photo 4 of 21 – North façade of garage, looking east
Packet Page 561
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Photo 5 of 21 – Rear façade of Wing A, looking west
Photo 6 of 21 – North façade of Wing B, looking south
Packet Page 562
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Photo 7 of 21 – East facades of Wings B and C, looking north Photo 8 of 21 – Wing C, south façade, looking west
Packet Page 563
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Photo 9 of 21 – Main entry lobby
Photo 10 of 21 – Wing B, looking east at travel crane
Packet Page 564
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Photo 11 of 21 – Wing C, looking west, view of offices
Photo 12 of 21 – Ranch house building, north and west facades, looking south Packet Page 565
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Photo 14 of 21 – Ranch house building, front (west) façade, looking south Photo 15 of 21 – Ranch house building,
main entry
Packet Page 566
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Photo 16 of 21 – Ranch house building, south and east facades, looking north Photo 17 of 21 – Main entry, looking toward Cedar Blvd.

Packet Page 567
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Photo 18 of 21 – Tanks and pylon sign, looking toward I-880 Photo 19 of 21 – Looking south toward Moores Avenue
Packet Page 568
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Photo 20 of 21 – Cedar Avenue, looking east; entry to left Photo 21 of 21 – Cedar Avenue, looking west; entry to right Packet Page 569
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

HISTORIC CONTEXT
Continued from sheet 2
Introduction
Newark is surrounded on three sides by the city of Fremont; the fourth, or south side, is close to abutting San Francisco Bay within the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, which is managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The city is bounded on the north-northeast side by Interstate 880 and on the northwest side by Route 84, which continues as the Dumbarton Bridge to Menlo Park in San Mateo County. The southeast side is bounded by Stevenson Blvd. on the northeast side. The city, which was incorporated in 1955, occupies over 13.9 square miles (Google Maps).

Newark is within Alameda County, whose county seat is Oakland. It is part of a large swath of suburban development that stretches from Richmond along the east side of San Francisco Bay to as far south as Milpitas. It is within what is called the Tri-Cities area, which includes Union City, Fremont and Newark.

Between the bay and the Nimitz Freeway or I-880, much of the development around the bay preserves is composed of commercial and light industrial uses, although the stretch between Cedar Blvd. and I-880 is in the process of being redeveloped for mid-rise housing.

The City of Newark
The following establishes a brief history of the area in which the city of Newark is located today.

The 14th mission in California’s mission system, Mission San Jose, was established under Spanish rule in 1797 by Padre Presidente Fermin Francisco de Lasuen. Under the mission system, the Ohlone people of this area were converted to Catholicism and became farmers, herders, laborers, and craftsmen, making Mission San Jose a prosperous center boasting a population high of 1,877 people in 1831 (Kyle 2004:7).

After Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1822, California came under the control of the Mexican government. Historically the area in which Newark is located today was within the three-squareleague Rancho Potrero de los Cerritos, a grant made in 1844. Ex-Mission San Jose, a tract of 28.33 acres that was just five miles from what became Newark, was patented in 1858 (Shumway, 2007:14 ).

The missions in California were secularized between 1834 and 1836.

The Rancho era is associated with Mexican rule, when the larger region was used primarily for raising cattle for tallow and hides. The termination of the Mexican-American war in 1848 brought California under American control. It was followed in 1949 by the Gold Rush in California; California became a state in 1850. Settlement by Euro-American settlers in Alameda County and Washington County began in earnest at that time and the area was converted from ranching to farming grain and vegetables. Taking advantage of its location on the water, warehouses, landings and wharfs were built to store and ship farm goods to the rapidly growing San Francisco. Ex-Mission San Jose itself become a commercial center, with occupation of the mission and the buildings around it.

The neighboring counties of Santa Clara County and Contra Cost County formed in 1850 but Alameda County, which was carved out of the other two, was established in 1853 (County of Alameda, CA, acgov.org). Newark was part of Washington Township, which was also established in 1853 and was made up of eight small towns located in the southern portion of Alameda County: Alvarado (now Union City), Newark, Niles, Centerville, Irvington, Mission San Jose, and Warm Springs (now Fremont). In 1878 the land upon which Newark and other portions of Washington Township were located was purchased by the Pacific Land Investment Company, which named the area Newark (Addiego, 2015:10).

Packet Page 570
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Newark was originally known for its industry. The marshland on which Newark was founded attracted salt companies, which established their factories near the town’s salt resources. Smaller companies eventually consolidated and formed the Arden Salt Company, which later became Leslie Salt Company and is Cargill Salt today. Another company that boosted Newark’s industrial presence was the Graham Figure 6: Alameda County and Washington Township in 1878 Manufacturing Company, a metalworks. Newark was also known for a foundry that later manufactured Wedgewood stoves (Holmes, “A Brief History of Washington Township”).

Newark was well served by railroads. The South Pacific Coast Railroad, incorporated in 1876 with headquarters in Newark, would eventually extend from Santa Cruz to the town of Alameda, with a ferry connection via the Newark to San Francisco. The railroad had a station, roundhouse and railroad shop near the center of Newark in the area between Thornton Avenue, Sycamore Street, and Carter Avenue (City of Newark , http://newark.org/visitors/about-newark-history). The Carter Railroad also served Newark, where they had a manufacturing facility.

The Dumbarton Bridge attracted new settlers to Newark and Fremont from San Mateo County. The Dumbarton Bridge was the first vehicular bridge to cross San Francisco Bay. It was originally constructed in 1927; a new bridge replaced it in 1982. Previously the Dumbarton Rail Bridge was constructed just south of today’s vehicular bridge in 1910. It has not been in use since 1981 (Addiego, 2015:9.) A 1939 aerial photograph shows that for the most part Newark still retained extensive farmlands and orchards at that time, in addition to its industrial uses. Grain farmlands had shifted to orchards and diverse agriculture, including tomatoes, in the early 20th century. The canning industry grew as well, which Packet Page 571
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

had been facilitated by the coming of the railroads to Washington Township in 1869. Poultry farms and the dairy industry also became a presence.

The vineyards were wiped out by disease about 1900, followed by the Prohibition. There was a further impact to agriculture when the water table dropped and it became necessary to irrigate crops (Holmes, “A Figure 7: Portion of Newark in 1939, showing subject site in red Source: UCSB Library Geospatial Collection
Packet Page 572
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Brief History of Washington County”). Nonetheless, the Great Depression brought new residents to the area to work in the factories, and residential areas were developed on orchard lands (TreanorHL, 2022:8).

Author Phil Holmes describes the impact that World War II had on Newark and the surrounding area:

Pearl Harbor changed everything for everybody. Many young men and women scattered around the world to fight the war. People of all ages worked in defense industries or on the farms. Life in Washington Township was filled with blackouts, Red Cross and defense programs, bond and scrap drives, price ceilings, restrictions, shortages, rationing, air raid signals, enlistments, draft calls, separations, and sad telegrams . . . All development that was not part of the war effort was postponed (Holmes, “A Brief History of Washington County”).

The Japanese of Newark and the surrounding areas were evacuated during World War II and held in internment camps, as Washington Township was within the 100-mile evacuation zone in which it was felt that both Japanese and Japanese-Americans were a threat to national security. This affected approximately 550 people in Washington County, many of whom worked in the saltworks or were farmers, in 1942, when Executive Order 9066 was issued by President Theodore Roosevelt (Helfman, 1994).

In the post-World War II era Washington Township grew to a population of about 25,000 people, governed by Alameda County. Construction began on the Nimitz Freeway in 1947, which replaced SR 17 through the East Bay. It was completed in 1857, extending almost the entire length of the east shore of San Francisco Bay. This kicked off a period of urbanization, replacing the prominence of agriculture in Washington County. An often-repeated story is about Newark’s drive to become an independent city, rather than part of what became Fremont, which incorporated Niles, Ex-Mission San Jose, Centerville, Irvington, and Warm Springs into the new city in 1956. Incorporation of Newark occurred in 1955, when it was still a very small town. Among the issues that concerned the community was that it did not want to be relegated to being a center for industry and affordable housing and, because it was on low-lying land, flood control (Addiego, 2015:26).

A 1965 aerial photograph shows the city still under development on the southwest side of the I-880, while its neighbor Fremont on the northeast side of the Nimitz Freeway was densely developed with single family residential development at this time (UCSB Library Geospatial Collection). The population of Washington Township as a whole grew from about 20,000 in 1950 to 100,000 in 1970 (Washington Township Museum of Local History). The Newark City Hall was built in 1966 and the city continued to attract residential growth in the 1960s and 1970s. Technology companies are also part of the city’s employment base today, including Sun Microsystems (now known as the Pacific Research Center) and Logitech (Addiego, 2015:8). Today the population of Newark is 47,529 people.

Packet Page 573
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Figure 8: Portion of Newark in 1965, showing subject site in red Source: UCSB Library Geospatial Collection
Packet Page 574
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

THE BUSINESSES
International Harvester
The site at 38600 Cedar Blvd. was an International Harvester dealer since 1963 that dealt in construction equipment sales and service, parts support, and rentals. Ads from the early 1970s show that they also handled International Harvester Scouts and Travelalls (like Sports Utility Vehicles), pickups, and dump trucks. John R. Horton managed the business in its early years. He bought the company, which was called the International Construction Equipment Sales and Service branch, in 1975 and renamed it Horton Equipment, Inc. (“IH Branch Sold To Ex-Manager,” June 25, 1975:46). At the time he purchased the business, it had about 35 employees.

Figure 9: Advertisement for International Harvester at the site from 1973 Source: The Argus Sun, November 4, 1973
Packet Page 575
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Horton Equipment and Empire Tractor
Horton opened a second facility in Reno, Nevada in 1980, prompted by the growth in construction and mining there. In 1981 Horton changed the name of the business to Empire Tractor and Equipment Company. A fictitious business statement showed that he had three additional partners at that time, one in Castro Valley and two in Louisiana, under a general partnership. Empire Tractor was sold by Horton to Pape Machinery in 1983-84. At the time his business handled Michigan and Hough loaders, neither of which are manufactured today, according to the utilities manager Manny Quintalla at Pape Machinery (personal communication, November 3, 2022).

Pape Machinery Construction & Forestry
Pape Machinery moved to 38600 Cedar Blvd. in 1983-84 from their previous site on Meekland Avenue in Hayward. The Pape Group, whose formal name is Pape Machinery Construction & Forestry, was formed in 1938 by E.C. Pape in the Willamette Valley when he bought Slate Tractor, an Allis-Chalmers dealer.

When E.C. Pape died in 1945, his wife Hazel took over the business until his two sons Dean and Ed returned from service in World War II and took over the company. In 1952 they had stores in Roseburg and Coos Bay and renamed the company Pape Bros Inc. In 1956 they bought a Caterpillar dealership. In the 1960s and 1970s the company continued to expand, buying additional businesses and specializing in service to the timber and agricultural industries.

In 1981 Randy Pape, representing the third generation of the family, took over as president of the business. In 1986 they bought Flightcraft and became a Beechcraft airplane dealer. In 1990 they renamed the company The Pape Group and acquired Hyster Forklift. In the 1990s they would expand to include divisions in northern California, as well as Washington and Oregon. In the 2000s they became Pape Machinery. They also acquired their first Kenworth dealership. The company has continued to expand, acquiring companies and capabilities and today have six divisions. The company has branches throughout the west, including Alaska and Hawaii, in more than 140 locations and is managed by the fourth generation of the family. The various companies under the umbrella of the Pape Group specialize in construction, logging, material handling, landscaping, trenching, farm equipment, semi-trucks and warehouses. While they sell and service a number of equipment lines, they specialize in John Deere (https://www.papemachinery.com/).

Packet Page 576
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Figure 10: Advertisement for Horton Equipment from 1980 Source: The Reno Gazette Journal, March 17, 1980
Packet Page 577
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
Corrugated metal buildings
Corrugated metal buildings have a long history in California. Prefabricated buildings, including metal-clad buildings, were shipped to California as early as the early nineteenth century (adapted from Painter, 2004). The Gold Rush created a huge demand for prefabricated buildings. Corrugated iron structures were prefabricated in Europe – including England, Belgium and France - and Asia and shipped to San Francisco to serve a variety of purposes in the booming community. In San Francisco, even the 1849 Trinity Episcopal Church and the 1852 Methodist-Episcopal Church were clad in corrugated iron (Kirker, 1986:Plate 16).

E. T. Bellhouse of Manchester and John Walker of London represented two of the English companies that supplied corrugated iron buildings to San Francisco. In 1849 it was estimated that there were forty imported sheet-metal buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area from England and seventy-five from Canton (Kirker, 1986:38). Initially, it was thought that the iron-clad buildings would be fireproof. This was proven a false assumption, as noted below:
. . . . British speculators who created them thought that such shelters were the perfect solution for an incendiary Gold-Rush town. They were wrong. During the fire of May 1850, the owner of one of the buildings took refuge with some friends in his iron warehouse. The poor, doomed souls discovered that the increasing heat had stuck the iron doors together, and the ‘fire-proof’ building melted like chocolate around them (Alexander, 2002:30).

Once local sawmills and planing mills were developed in the Bay Area the need to import prefabricated buildings was reduced. By the end of the 1860s, it was estimated that 90 percent of the buildings in San Francisco and almost all buildings in rural areas were wood-frame construction, much of it redwood (Kirker, 1986:59). One of the earliest planing mills in the Bay Area was constructed in Corte Madera in 1851, although California’s first steam-powered sawmill was constructed by John Cooper near the Russian River in 1834, and John Reed’s water-powered sawmill was established in Mill Valley in 1836 (Alexander, 2002:30).

In general, both corrugated iron and steel became increasingly popular for agricultural, light industrial and warehouse buildings in the twentieth century (Kidder, 1921). The Architects & Builders Handbook of 1921 noted that iron and galvanized steel were both used extensively in building. Builders and suppliers, plan books, and organizations such as the United States Department of Agriculture and University of California Experimental Station promoted the use of corrugated metal. Through the 1930s and 1940s however, both wood (usually board-and-batten) and metal cladding continued to be used.

Corrugated metal rather than wood became the favored material for industrial buildings because the buildings were expedient, flexible and practical. There was no illusion that they were fireproof by this time.

In World War II great advances were made in the fabrication and use of manufactured buildings and corrugated metal buildings in particular. The most widely-known corrugated metal building developed during World War II was the Quonset hut. It is estimated that 170,000 of these structures were constructed for the war effort by 1946, and many of them returned to the United States afterward, to be re-used for a variety of purposes (Upton, 1998:155). By the 1960s and 1970s, corrugated metal was used exclusively for agricultural, light industrial and warehouse buildings, although the design characteristics of the sheathing have changed over time. This is consistent with the garage and warehouse at 38600 Cedar Blvd., as well as other light industrial buildings in the area (Painter, 2004:1).

Packet Page 578
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

The Ranch House
The Ranch house that is on the grounds of the property at 38600 Cedar Blvd. is so-called because it is in the Ranch house style, although it housed an office for Horton Equipment (later Empire Tractor) when it was actively used. Architectural historian Alan Hess defines the character-defining features of the Ranch house in general as follows. It is a one-story house with a low-pitched, gabled or hipped roof, with wide eaves (this building has both hipped and gabled roofs); of general asymmetry with a horizontal emphasis; an open-interior plan blending functional spaces; strong connections to the outside; with informal or rustic materials or details (Hess, 2006:17).

A Ranch house may also have a long shallow at-grade entry porch, redolent of the corredor of the traditional Ranch home which inspired it (Hess, 2007:17). In place of this design feature, the building at 38600 Cedar Blvd. has incorporated a long, low planter on the front façade that carries the horizontal line of the building and connection to the outdoors. The deep eaves of the building with the pronounced fascia and horizontal orientation of the windows also reinforces the horizontal lines of the building.

Ranch houses are regarded as emerging from a design aesthetic pioneered in California and the west, inspired by traditional vernacular structures and the design influences of the Bay Area Regional Style architects. Ranch houses became the house style of choice in the post-World War II building boom, and proliferated throughout the United States. Their ubiquity was in part due to the standardized and streamlined building methods that were developed at the same time that the house style was popularized.

These methods were developed in the course of providing defense housing and mobilizing for the war, and refined after the war as merchant builders built entire neighborhoods and communities to meet the pent-up housing demand after the war (Painter, 2007:Section 7, Page 8).

Ranch houses can be Contemporary Ranch houses, Rustic Ranch houses, or Character Ranch houses that adopt stylistic characteristics of other styles, such as Spanish Colonial Revival. This building is most closely characterized as a Rustic Ranch due to its use of fieldstone cladding in neutral tones in a mosaic pattern. While the Ranch house at 38600 Cedar Blvd. is not a residence, it may have been built here to blend in with the mid-century residential neighborhoods that were developing around it. This is repeated in the office building at 38370 Cedar Blvd. within the industrial complex to the northwest of this site (TreanorHL, 2002).

Packet Page 579
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

REGULATORY CONTEXT AND EVALUATION
The National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources The following is an evaluation of the historic significance of the garage and former office at 38600 Cedar Blvd., with respect to the National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation for listing in the National Register and the California Register of Historical Resources Eligibility Criteria for listing on the California Register. A resource must meet one or more of the following criteria to be considered a historic resource for purposes of CEQA. It must also be over 50 years of age and retain integrity. Built in 1962, both resources at 38600 Cedar Blvd. are over 50 years of age.

Criteria A & 1:

A: Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; The garage and former office at 38600 Cedar Blvd. have been associated with Newark’s industrial history since their construction in 1962. Throughout the history of the buildings they have serviced, sold, rented, and handled parts for heavy construction equipment. The names of the companies that have operated out of the buildings include International Harvester, Horton Equipment, later re-named Empire Tractor, and Pape Machinery at present, that handles John Deere equipment, among others. While significant companies, research did not reveal that any were strongly associated with Newark’s history or were foundational industries in Newark. With the exception of Horton Equipment, they are national chains with many dealers at the state and national level. The buildings are not significant for their association with patterns of national, state or local history in Newark. The buildings are not significant under Criteria A/1.

Criteria B & 2:

B. Properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; Research revealed only one individual directly associated with the buildings at 38600 Cedar Blvd., which was John R. Horton. While clearly a successful businessman, research did not confirm that he was important to local, California or national history. The buildings are not significant under Criteria B/2.

Criteria C & 3:

C. Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; The two buildings at 38600 Cedar Blvd. are both very typical buildings and do not represent the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction. The garage is a steel-frame building with corrugated steel cladding, which is a very common building type for light industrial uses. The office building, which is in the Ranch house style, is also a very common style and is seen throughout the county, state and city. While less commonly used for an office (although there is another Ranch building used as an office to the northwest) a Ranch house style building must be outstanding in design and integrity to meet this criteria. The buildings also do not represent the work of a master or have high artistic value. The buildings are not significant under Criteria C/3.

Packet Page 580
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Criteria D & 4:

D. Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

This criteria typically applies to archaeological sites or sites important for their information potential. This criteria is not applicable to this property.

City of Newark Municipal Code
The City of Newark Municipal Code has a number of guidelines for evaluating and designating historical resources in Chapter 17.20 - Historical Resources of their municipal code Historical resources shall meet one or more of the following criteria:

A. Historical and cultural considerations:

1. One associated with the life or activities of a person significant in the development of institutions, activities or industries of Newark or Washington Township; The property is not associated with any person significant in the development of institutions, activities or industries of Newark or Washington Township.

2. One associated with a major group or organization in the history of Newark or Washington Township;
The property is not associated with any major groups or organizations in the history of Newark or Washington Township.

3. One associated with a significant historic event of Newark or Washington Township; The property is not associated with a significant historic event in Newark or Washington Township.

4. One associated with a major recurring event in the history of Newark or Washington Township such as an annual celebration;
The property is not associated with any major recurring events in the history of Newark or Washington Township.

5. One associated with a past or continuing institution which has contributed substantially to the life of the city;
The property is not associated with any past or continuing institutions that have contributed substantially to the life of the city.

B. Architectural and aesthetic considerations:

1. One of the few of its decade remaining in the city (one of six) and is unique or one of a few remaining examples in the city of a particular architectural style or period; Packet Page 581
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Constructed in 1962, the utilitarian garage and Ranch house style building are commonly found in Newark and Washington Township. They are not unique.

2. The work of a regionally or nationally famous architect; Not applicable. No architect was identified for the building.

3. An architectural curiosity or picturesque work of particular artistic merit; The buildings are very ordinary buildings. They do not represent an architectural curiosity or a picturesque work. Of particular artistic merit.

4. Contains original materials and/or workmanship of merit. Has architectural, structural, or artistic merit. An important or scarce example associated with the architectural and aesthetic character of Newark or of an architecturally and aesthetically distinct or unique neighborhood; The buildings are not constructed of unique materials or workmanship of merit. They are not important or scarce examples of the architectural or aesthetic character of Newark or in this neighborhood.

In summary, the buildings do not meet any of the provisions provided by the City of Newark to identify and designate local historic resources.

Packet Page 582
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

*B12. References, continued from sheet 2
“80 Years: More than a Number,” (blogpost), March 4, 2019, https://www.pape.com/our-company/blog/80- years-more-than-a-number, accessed November 2022.
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA Historic Resource Assessment. Prepared for Robson Homes. Prepared by TreanorHL, June 17, 2022.

Addiego, Frank, Images of America: Newark. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2015.

Alameda County Assessor’s Office, “Industrial Building Record, 38600 Cedar Blvd.,” accessed November 2022.

Andrus, Patrick W., National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington DC: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, 1995.

Alexander, James Beach and James Lee Heig, San Francisco, Building the Dream City. San Francisco:

Scottwall Associates, 2002:65.

City of Newark Building Permits for 38600 Cedar Blvd., accessed November 2022.

City of Newark New Zoning Ordinance, https://www.newark.org/home/showdocument?id=4251, adopted January 25, 2018, accessed November 2022.

County of Alameda, CA, acgov.org, accessed November 2022. “Fictitious Business Name Statement File No. 880305,” The Press Democrat, February 15, 1988:12.

Haynes, M.B. (drafter), County of Alameda (map). Oakland, CA: Thompson & West, 1878.

Helfman, Bill, “’Sun Rising in an Eastern Sky’: Japanese Americans in Washington township, 1920-1942,” California History, Spring, 1994:54-71.

Hess, Alan, The Ranch House. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers, 2004.

Holmes, Phil, “A Brief History of Washington Township,” Washington County Museum of Local History, https://museumoflocalhistory.org/tri-city-towns-then-and-now/then-and-now-newark/, accessed November 2022.
“Horton Equipment opens,” Reno Gazette-Journal, March 11, 1980:41. “If Strength is Determination We’re Comin’ On Strong” (ad), Reno Gazette Journal, March 17, 1980. “IH Branch Sold To Ex-Manager,” Oakland Tribune, June 25, 1975:46. “International,” (ad), The Argus (Fremont, CA), November 4, 1973:37.

Kidder, Frank E. and Thomas Noland, The Architects & Builders Handbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1921 (17th Edition).

Packet Page 583
age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Recorded by: *Date  Continuation
 Update
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38600 Cedar Blvd.

Kirker, Harold, California’s Architectural Frontier, Style and Tradition in the Nineteenth Century. Salt Lake City, UT: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc., 1986 (1960): Plate 16.

Kyle, Douglas E., Historic Spots in California (Fifth Edition). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.

Metroline, Historical Aerials, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed November 2022.

National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Washington DC: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, 1997 (1977).

Newark, CA, https://www.newark.org/businesses/about-newark, accessed November 2022. “Newark, California,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark,_California, accessed November 2022.

Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Sacramento, CA: Office of Historic Preservation, March 1995.

Painter, Diana J., Berkley Square Historic District National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, August 2007.
_____, Historic Context Report, M. Vonsen Company & the First Street Warehouses. Prepared for Montoya and Associates and Basin Street Properties. Prepared by Diana J. Painter, Painter Preservation & Planning, September 2004.

Pape Machinery, https://construction.papemachinery.com/, accessed November 2022.

Shumway, Burgess McK., California Ranchos (Second Edition). The Borgo Press, 2007 (1988). “South Pacific Coast Railroad,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_Coast_Railroad, accessed November 2022.

UCSB Library Geospatial Collection, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/apcatalog/report/report.php?filed_by=C5750 (1939 map), https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/apcatalog/report/report.php?filed_by=CAS-65-130 (1965 map), accessed November 2022.

Upton, Dell, Architecture in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998:155.

Packet Page 584
Copyright © 2023 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document
may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means
whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated.
.
38600 CEDAR BOULEVARD

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

SUBMITTED TO
Mr. Caden Proctor
Waymark Development
2801 West Coast Highway, Suite 270
Newport Beach, CA 92663

PREPARED BY
ENGEO Incorporated
January 31, 2023
PROJECT NO.
15799.004.000
APPENDIX C-1
Packet Page 585

GEOTECHNICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER RESOURCES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS
2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250  San Ramon, CA 94583  (925) 866-9000  Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com
Project No.
15799.004.000
January 31, 2023
Mr. Caden Proctor
Waymark Development
2801 West Coast Highway, Suite 270
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: 38600 Cedar Boulevard
Newark, California

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Dear Mr. Proctor:

We prepared this geotechnical report for Waymark Development as outlined in our agreement dated August 12, 2022. We characterized the subsurface conditions at the site to provide the enclosed geotechnical recommendations for design.

From a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, in our opinion, the site is suitable for the proposed residential development, provided the geotechnical recommendations in this report are properly incorporated into the design plans and specifications. The primary geotechnical concerns that could affect development on the site are slope stability, existing fill, groundwater, expansive soil, and liquefaction potential of the site soil.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
Jerry Chen Macy Tong, GE
jc/mt/ar
Packet Page 586
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
i of ii January 31, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION........................................................................................................ 1

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................. 1

2.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 2

2.1 SITE HISTORY ................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY............................................................................................ 2

2.2.1 Geology.................................................................................................................. 2

2.2.2 Seismicity ............................................................................................................... 2

2.3 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATION.................................................................................... 3

2.4 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................................................................................... 3

2.4.1 Borings ................................................................................................................... 3

2.4.2 Test Pits ................................................................................................................. 4

2.4.3 Cone Penetration Tests ......................................................................................... 4

2.5 SURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 4

2.6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................................ 5

2.7 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 5

2.8 LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................... 6

3.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 6

3.1 EXISTING FILL ................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL............................................................................................................... 6

3.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS ........................................................................................................... 7

3.3.1 Ground Rupture ..................................................................................................... 7

3.3.2 Ground Shaking ..................................................................................................... 7

3.3.3 Liquefaction............................................................................................................ 8

3.3.4 Lateral Spreading................................................................................................... 9

3.3.5 Ground Lurching .................................................................................................... 9

3.3.6 Flooding ................................................................................................................. 9

3.4 COMPRESSIBLE SOIL ...................................................................................................... 9

3.5 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES....................................................................................... 10

3.6 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL...................................................................................... 11

3.7 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .......... 12

4.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ...................................................................... 13

5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 13

5.1 GENERAL SITE CLEARING ............................................................................................ 13

5.2 EXISTING NON-ENGINEERED FILL REMOVAL ............................................................ 14

5.3 FOUNDATION SUBGRADE REINFORCEMENT ............................................................ 14

5.4 OVER-OPTIMUM SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS......................................................... 14

5.5 ACCEPTABLE FILL .......................................................................................................... 15

5.6 REUSE OF ON-SITE RECYCLED MATERIALS.............................................................. 15

5.7 FILL COMPACTION.......................................................................................................... 15

5.7.1 Underground Utility Backfill.................................................................................. 16 Packet Page 587
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
ii of ii January 31, 2023

5.7.1.1 General................................................................................................. 16

5.7.2 Landscape Fill...................................................................................................... 16

5.8 SITE DRAINAGE .............................................................................................................. 16

5.8.1 Surface Drainage ................................................................................................. 16

5.8.2 Subsurface Drainage ........................................................................................... 16

5.9 STORMWATER BIORETENTION AREAS....................................................................... 17

5.10 LANDSCAPING CONSIDERATION ................................................................................. 18

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 18

6.1 POST-TENSIONED MAT FOUNDATIONS ...................................................................... 18

6.1.1 Slab Moisture Vapor Reduction ........................................................................... 19

6.2 EXTERIOR FLATWORK................................................................................................... 19

7.0 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ............................................................... 20

7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT .................................................................................................... 20

7.2 RIGID PAVEMENT ........................................................................................................... 20

7.3 SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTION ................................................. 20

7.4 CUTOFF CURBS.............................................................................................................. 21

7.5 RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS/GARAGE SLABS............................................................... 21

8.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ....................................... 21

SELECTED REFERENCES

FIGURES
APPENDIX A – Exploration Logs
APPENDIX B – Laboratory Test Data
APPENDIX C – Liquefaction Analyses
APPENDIX D – Slope Stability Analyses
Packet Page 588
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 1 January 31, 2023

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
We prepared this geotechnical exploration report for the multi-family residential development at 38600 Cedar Boulevard in Newark, California. We prepared this report as outlined in our proposal revised July 27, 2022. Waymark Development authorized us to conduct the following scope of services.
• Review of existing published documents
• Subsurface field exploration
• Data analysis and conclusions
• Report preparation
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Waymark Development and their consultants for design of this project. In the event that any changes are made in the character, design or layout of the development, we must be contacted to review the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to evaluate whether modifications are recommended.

This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without our express written consent.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The subject site is located in Newark, California and is bounded by the Interstate 880 (Nimitz Freeway) to the northeast, Cedar Boulevard to the southeast, and commercial/industrial developments to the northwest and southeast as shown on Figure 1, the Vicinity Map. The

3.5-acre site consists of two parcels with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 92A-2585-12-1 and 92A-2585-31, and is currently occupied by a construction and forestry equipment rental company.

Current improvements include three separate single-story structures and pavements that are being used for machinery storage. Figure 2 shows site boundaries, proposed building and pavement areas, and our exploratory locations. An Alameda County drainage channel is located along the western property line of the project site.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the preliminary site plan provided by William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. (WHA) dated October 25, 2022, we understand that the new development of the project will consist of the following.

1. Fourteen (14) wood-frame townhome structures with up to three stories in height and contain 76 residential units.

2. Paved streets, parking, and drive lanes.

3. Underground utilities and other infrastructure improvements.

4. Concrete flatwork.

Our report will provide recommendations relating to the above-stated items.

Packet Page 589
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 2 January 31, 2023

2.0 FINDINGS

2.1 SITE HISTORY
Based on the 1939 aerial photograph, the subject site was originally an agricultural land. Review of historical records indicate that the project site was used for dry farming until the early 1960s.

The two existing structures, a warehouse and an office, at the eastern portion of the site were observed in the 1965 aerial photograph. The warehouse near the northwestern property line was shown in the 1979 photograph.

In addition, as shown on a historical topography map (Figure 4) dated 1947 (USGS), a creek, approximately 6 feet deep, was located within the western portion of the project site and ran in a northeast to southwest direction. According to a topography map dated 1959 (USGS), the creek was no longer shown but a creek channel was depicted along the western property line of the site.

2.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY

2.2.1 Geology
As depicted in Figure 5, regional geologic mapping by Graymer et al. (2006) characterizes the site as underlain by undivided, Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits (Qpa). These deposits are characterized by sand, silt, and gravel deposited in fan, valley fill, terrace or basin environments.

Based on the historical topography maps and aerial photographs, the drainage creek once located along the western portion of the site as shown on Figure 3 was backfilled to create a relatively level area. The fill material within the former drainage course is estimated to be approximately 6 feet thick. The approximately extents and thicknesses of the fill material (Qaf) are estimated based on our field exploration and are shown on Figure 3.

2.2.2 Seismicity
The San Francisco Bay area contains numerous active earthquake faults. Nearby active faults include the (mention the distances to the two closest active faults as a minimum and distances to other major active faults if desired according to the table below). An active fault is defined by the California Geologic Survey as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years) (Bryant and Hart, 2007).

The site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known surface expression of active faults is believed to exist within the site. Fault rupture through the site; therefore, is not anticipated.

Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the San Francisco Bay Region, and larger earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected to occur in the future. Figure 6 shows the approximate locations of these faults and significant historic earthquakes recorded within the San Francisco Bay Region. The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) (Field et al., 2015) estimates the 30-year probability for a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in the San Francisco region at approximately 72 percent, considering the known active seismic sources in the region.

Packet Page 590
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 3 January 31, 2023
To determine nearby active faults that are capable of generating strong seismic ground shaking at the site, we utilized the USGS Unified Hazard Tool* and deaggregated the hazard at a spectral period of 0.3 second for a 2475-year return period, with the resulting faults listed below in Table 2.2.2-1.

TABLE 2.2.2-1: Active Faults Capable of Producing Significant Ground Shaking at the Site (Latitude: 37.5321 Longitude: -122.0081) SOURCE

RRUP MOMENT MAGNITUDE
(KM) (miles) MW
Hayward (So) [3] 5.93 3.68 6.94
Calaveras (No) [5] 13.16 8.18 7.17
Mission (connected) [4] 6.53 4.06 6.82
San Andreas (Peninsula) [5] 25.57 15.89 7.95
Hayward (So) [2] 6.31 3.92 6.64
*USGS Unified Hazard Tool - Edition: Dynamic Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update) (v4.2.0)

2.3 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATION
In 2020, we conducted a preliminary geotechnical exploration by advancing five cone penetration test (CPT) soundings, 1-CPT1 through 1-CPT5 (ENGEO, 2020). The exploration concluded primary concerns at the site included seismically induced settlement and slope stability.

2.4 FIELD EXPLORATION
Our field exploration included drilling three borings (Borings 2-B1 through 2-B3), excavating six test pits (Test Pits 2-TP1 through 2-TP6), and advancing seven cone penetration test (CPT) soundings (3-CPT1 through 3-CPT7) at various locations throughout the site. We performed our field exploration on between August 22 and October 18, 2022.

The location and elevations of our explorations are approximate and were estimated by pacing from features shown on handheld global positioning system (GPS) devices; they should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.

2.4.1 Borings
We observed the drilling of three borings on August 22 and August 23, 2022, at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. An ENGEO representative observed the drilling and logged the subsurface conditions at each location. We retained a truck-mounted drill rig and crew to advance the borings using 4-inch-diameter solid-flight augers and using mud rotary method in depth. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 26½ to 115 feet below existing grade. We permitted and backfilled the borings in accordance with the requirements of Alameda County Water District
We obtained bulk soil samples from drill cuttings and retrieved both disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples at various intervals in the borings using a 3-inch outside diameter (O.D.) split-spoon sampler and a 2½-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler.

Packet Page 591
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 4 January 31, 2023
The standard penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall. The split-spoon sampler was driven 18 inches and the number of blows was recorded for each 6 inches of penetration. In addition, 2.5-inch inside diameter (I.D.) samples were obtained using a Modified California Sampler driven into the soil with the 140-pound hammer previously described. Unless otherwise indicated, the blows per foot recorded on the boring log represent the accumulated number of blows to drive the last 1 foot of penetration; the blow counts have not been converted using any correction factors.

When sampler driving was difficult, penetration was recorded only as inches penetrated for 50 hammer blows.

The logs depict subsurface conditions at the exploration locations during the exploration; however, subsurface conditions may vary with time. The exploration logs are included in Appendix A.

2.4.2 Test Pits
We observed excavation of six test pits on September 8, 2022, at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. An ENGEO representative observed the test pit excavation and logged the subsurface conditions at each location. We retained a rubber-tire backhoe to excavate the test pits using a 2-foot-wide bucket and logged the type, location, and uniformity of the underlying soil/rock. The maximum depth penetrated by the test pits was 11½ feet below existing grades.

We obtained bulk soil samples from the test pits using hand sampling techniques. The test pit logs present descriptions and graphically depict the subsurface conditions encountered.

All test pits were backfilled with minimum compaction effort at the completion of the field exploration. As a result, the test pit backfill should be removed and recompacted during site grading.

The logs depict subsurface conditions at the exploration locations during the exploration; however, subsurface conditions may vary with time. The exploration logs are included in Appendix A.

2.4.3 Cone Penetration Tests
We retained a CPT rig to perform seven soundings on October 18, 2022, to a maximum depth of about 50 feet at the locations as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The CPT has a 20-ton compression-type cone with a 15-square-centimeter (cm2) base area, an apex angle of 60 degrees, and a friction sleeve with a surface area of 225 cm2. The cone, connected with a series of rods, is pushed into the ground at a constant rate. Cone readings are taken at approximately 5-cm intervals with a penetration rate of 2 cm per second in accordance with ASTM D-5778. Measurements include the tip resistance to penetration of the cone (Qc), the resistance of the surface sleeve (Fs), and pore pressure (U) (Robertson and Campanella, 1988). CPT logs are presented in Appendix A.

2.5 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is relatively flat to slightly sloping ranging from Elevation 31 feet in the southwestern portion of the site to Elevation 34 feet in the northeastern portion of the site (WGS84). As stated previously, the site is currently occupied by three single-story structures and paved areas, which are used for parking and storage of machinery. A 10-foot-high open channel within the Alameda County Flood Control District easement is located along the northwestern portion of the site.

Packet Page 592
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 5 January 31, 2023

2.6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
In our explorations, we encountered fill material consisting of lean clay to sandy lean clay within the upper 2 to 8 feet below grade. In general, the native soil below the existing fill consists of interbedded layers of medium stiff lean clay and sandy silt, and sand to clayey sand down to a depth of approximately 50 feet below ground surface (bgs). These layers vary across the site and range from approximately 5 to 15 feet thick, with the sand layers generally being thickest at the eastern and western ends of the site and become thinner or diminished at the middle of the site. We encountered very dense sand and gravel at between approximately 50 to 105 feet bgs.

The granular deposit was underlain by lean clay with sand down to maximum exploration depth of 115 feet bgs.

The southeastern corner of the site is generally underlain by a thick, loose to medium dense sand layer from below the existing fill to a maximum depth of approximately 35 feet bgs. The approximate lateral extent of this thick sand layer is shown on Figure 2.

Based on the laboratory test results, the near-surface soil has a plasticity index (PI) of 18 and 20, which is an indication that the site soil has a moderate to high expansion potential.

2.7 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Static groundwater is found in our previous and current subsurface explorations. We summarize our findings in the table below.

TABLE 2.7-1: Groundwater Level

EXPLORATION LOCATION
(date of exploration)
APPROX. DEPTH

TO GROUNDWATER
(feet)
1-CPT1 (8/4/2020) 5.2
1-CPT2 (8/4/2020) 12.0
1-SCPT3 (8/4/2020) 11.2
1-CPT4 (8/4/2020) 13.0
1-CPT5 (8/4/2020) 13.3
2-B1 (8/23/2022) 16.0
3-CPT1 (10/18/2022) 12.6
3-CPT2 (10/18/2022) 11.5
3-CPT3 (10/18/2022) 15.1
3-CPT5 (10/18/2022) 14.9
3-CPT6 (10/18/2022) 14.4
3-CPT7 (10/18/2022) 13.8
As required, these exploratory probes were backfilled with approved material from Alameda County Water District on the day of drilling. Some of the field exploration points may not have been left open a sufficient amount of time to allow water levels to stabilize. The groundwater reported for cone penetration test probes is estimated using pore pressure dissipation tests.

Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation practice, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made.

Packet Page 593
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 6 January 31, 2023

2.8 LABORATORY TESTING
We performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples to evaluate their engineering properties.

For this project, we performed moisture content, dry density, unconfined compression, plasticity index, and hydrometer. Moisture contents and dry densities are recorded on the boring logs in Appendix A; other laboratory data are included in Appendix B.

In addition, corrosivity testing and analysis of near-surface soil samples collected during boring drilling was performed by CERCO Analytical. The results are presented in Appendix B.

3.0 CONCLUSIONS
From a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, in our opinion, the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the geotechnical recommendations in this report are properly incorporated into the design plans and specifications.

The primary geotechnical concerns that could affect development on the site are existing fill, groundwater, slope stability, and seismically induced settlement. We summarize our conclusions below.

3.1 EXISTING FILL
Based on the data from our borings and test pits, the site is underlain by fill. Since the placement of the existing fill is unknown, the fill will be considered as non-engineered. As described previously, the fill depth encountered ranged from 2 feet to 8 feet. The approximate depth of this non-engineered fill is shown in Figure 3.

In addition, as discussed in our Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ENGEO, 2022), several former underground storage tanks (USTs) were located at the eastern side of the site.

The locations of these USTs are approximately shown on Figure 3. These former USTs were removed, and the excavations were backfilled with soil. We provide grading recommendations for the backfill of these former USTs in Section 5.1.

Non-engineered fill can undergo excessive settlement, especially under new fill or building loads.

Without proper documentation of existing fill placed on the site, we recommend complete removal and recompaction of the existing fill. We present fill removal recommendations in Section 5.2.

3.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL
We observed potentially expansive clay near the surface of the site. Our laboratory testing indicates that this soil exhibits moderate to high shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content.

Expansive soil changes in volume with changes in moisture. They can shrink or swell and cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be reduced by: (1) using a rigid mat foundation that is designed to resist the settlement and heave of expansive soil, (2) deepening the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation, i.e. by using deep footings or drilled piers, and/or (3) using footings at normal shallow depths but bottomed on a layer of select fill having a low expansion potential.

Packet Page 594
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 7 January 31, 2023
Post-tensioned mat foundations are the preferred foundation system for the residential structures. Design criteria for this foundation type are presented in Section 6.1.

Successful performance of structures on expansive soil requires special attention during construction. It is imperative that exposed soil be kept moist prior to placement of concrete for foundation construction. It can be difficult to remoisturize clayey soil without excavation, moisture conditioning, and recompaction.

3.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS
Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. The common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking and ground lurching. The following sections present a discussion of these hazards as they apply to the site.

Based on topographic and lithologic data, the risk of regional subsidence or uplift, landslides, tsunamis or seiches is considered low to negligible at the site. Seismic hazards include ground rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and lateral spreading are discussed in the following sections.

3.3.1 Ground Rupture
Since there are no known active faults crossing the property and the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Special Study Zone, it is our opinion that ground rupture is unlikely at the subject property.

3.3.2 Ground Shaking
An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay region could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the shaking effects, structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) requirements, as a minimum. Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead and live loads. The code prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures should be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage.

Conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake; however, it is reasonable to expect that a well-designed and well-constructed structure will not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake (SEAOC, 1996).

Packet Page 595
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 8 January 31, 2023

3.3.3 Liquefaction
The site is located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone (CGS, 2006) for areas that may be susceptible to liquefaction (Figure 7). Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained sand. Empirical evidence indicates that loose to medium-dense gravel, silty sand, low-plasticity silt, and some low-plasticity clay are also potentially liquefiable. When seismic ground shaking occurs, the soil is subjected to cyclic shear stresses that can cause excess hydrostatic pressures to develop. If excess hydrostatic pressures exceed the effective confining stress from the overlying soil, it is said to have liquefied, and if the sand consolidates or vents to the surface during and following liquefaction, ground settlement and surface deformation may occur. In addition to liquefaction of sandy materials, clayey soil can also undergo “cyclic softening” or strength loss as a result of cyclic loading. Since the site is composed of many thick clay layers, we considered this effect in our analyses.

We performed an evaluation of liquefaction potential for the project site based on our CPT data using the computer software CLiq (Version 3.4.1.4) developed by GeoLogismiki. The software incorporates the procedure introduced by the 1996 National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) workshop and the 1998 NCEER/National Science Foundation (NSF) workshop. The workshops are summarized by Youd et al. (2001) and updated by Robertson (2009). This software also incorporates the method introduced by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) and updated by Boulanger and Idriss (2014).

As discussed earlier, groundwater found at the site ranges from 5.2 to 16 feet bgs. We used an assumed groundwater depth of 5 feet in our analysis. We estimated the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) for a peak ground acceleration (PGAM) value of 0.85g with an earthquake magnitude of 7.01 based on our deaggregation of the hazard at a spectral period of the peak ground acceleration for a 2475-year return period (Table 3.6-1). To consider the reduction in induced shear stresses and number of shear stress cycles transmitted to deeper soil layers as a result of the initial liquefaction of surficial layers, we also implemented a depth weighting factor in accordance with Cetin (2009), which applies weighting of volumetric strain with depth and is appropriate to utilize when calculating surface settlements in accordance with the methodology presented by Zhang et al. (2002). As a result, the contribution of settlement of deeper soil layers to ground surface settlement is reduced.

To assess liquefaction-induced settlement, we considered the methodology presented by Zhang et al. (2002). We performed our liquefaction assessment based on the methodology by Boulanger and Idriss (2014). Our analysis results indicate that the layers of sand and silty/clayey sand from 5 to 35 feet bgs are susceptible to liquefaction. In general, based on analysis results, we estimated a total liquefaction-induced settlement of up to approximately 2½ inches, with a differential settlement of 1¼ inches over a span of 50 feet for the majority areas of the site. As described in Section 2.6, the thickness of sand layers was notably thicker towards the southeastern portion of the site. We estimated a total liquefaction-induced settlement of up to approximately 5 inches, with a differential settlement of up to 2½ inches over 50 feet for the southeastern corner of the site. The approximate delineation of the area with higher liquefaction-induced settlement is shown in Figure 2. The results of our analyses are included in Appendix C.

Packet Page 596
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 9 January 31, 2023
Our exploration data and analysis results indicate that there is a layer of non-liquefiable material at least 5 to 10 feet thick above the sandy materials that are considered to have a liquefaction potential. Towards the center and western side of the site, the thickness of the liquefiable material ranges from approximately 3 to 5 feet thick. Therefore, the risk of sand boils is considered low. On the eastern side of the property, the layer of liquefiable sand is thicker, ranging from 5 to 7 feet thick. Therefore, some surface manifestation, such as sand boil, is possible at these locations.

3.3.4 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading involves lateral ground movements caused by seismic shaking. These lateral ground movements are often associated with a weakening or failure of an embankment or soil mass overlying a layer of liquefied sand or weak soil. As discussed in Section 2.6, the sand layers vary across the site and range from approximately 5 feet to 15 feet thick, with the sand layers generally being thickest at the east and west of the site and become thinner or diminished at the middle of the site. As a result, some of the sand layers are isolated and not continuous. We conducted slope stability analyses of the open channel northwest of the property for lateral spreading risk, which are discussed in the later section.

3.3.5 Ground Lurching
Ground lurching is a result of the rolling motion imparted to the ground surface during energy released by an earthquake. Such rolling motion can cause ground cracks to form in weaker soil.

The potential for the formation of these cracks is considered greater at contacts between deep alluvium and bedrock. Such an occurrence is possible at the site as in other locations in the Bay Area region, but based on the site location, it is our opinion that the offset is expected to be minor. We provide recommendations for foundation and pavement design in this report that are intended to reduce the potential for adverse impacts from lurch cracking.

3.3.6 Flooding
According to the flood map by FEMA (2009), the area along the channel is mapped within a special flood hazard area (Zone AE) with a flood elevation of 31 feet, and the remainder of the project site is mapped within an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X). The civil engineer should review pertinent information relating to possible flood levels for the subject site based on final pad elevations and provide appropriate design measures for development of the project, if recommended.

3.4 COMPRESSIBLE SOIL
Based on the existing grades near to the street elevation, additional fill will not be anticipated during site grading. In our exploration, we generally encountered stiff to very stiff clay that is considered unlikely to undergo consolidation settlement due to the types of loads imposed from the proposed townhome structures. We encountered one approximately 3-foot-thick layer of soft, elastic silt at approximately 35 feet bgs. However, this layer is located relatively deep and appears to be discontinuous in our exploration. The effect of the building load to this soft silt layer is minimal. Therefore, the risk of post-construction consolidation settlement is considered low. Once we receive the final site grading concept and building load, we can re-evaluate the consolidation settlement.

Packet Page 597
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 10 January 31, 2023

3.5 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
We conducted slope stability analyses for static and pseudo-static conditions using the computer program Slide2 (Build 9.020). Slide2 is a limit equilibrium program that allows the user various search routines to locate the minimum factor of safety and critical slip surface. For our analyses, we used the Spencer’s Method.

Prior to performing slope stability analyses, we developed a subsurface profile and assigned soil strengths based on our data from explorations and laboratory tests. The shear strengths used in the slope stability analyses are based on the test data and empirical correlations of blow counts, plasticity index (PI), and soil type. For pseudo-static conditions, the sand layers as described in Section 2.6 are considered liquefiable. Two layers of sand with liquefaction potential are included in the slope stability model. We considered one 4-foot layer of liquefiable material below the fill and another 8-foot layer of liquefiable sand at 19 feet below ground surface. For the seismic slope stability analysis, we estimated the residual strength of the liquefied soil based on the correlation of blow counts to residual strength from “SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation and undrained residual strength” (Seed and Harder, 1990). The lower bound estimate of the residual strength of the liquefied soil was used. Based on the current site plan provided (WHA, 2022), the townhomes will be located 5½ feet away from the top of slope.

We assumed an average load of 450 psf for these townhomes.

In performing our slope stability analyses for seismic condition, we used an acceleration of two-thirds of the Geometric Mean Maximum Considered Earthquake peak ground acceleration (PGAM) of 0.85g, corresponding to the estimated 2022 CBC seismic design parameters. In addition, we performed a “pseudo-static” screening analysis, as recommended in “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California” (SP117A) by California Geological Survey (CGS). For this screening analysis, we selected a seismic coefficient of 0.22g for an assumed displacement threshold of about 15 centimeters (approximately 6 inches). It is important to note that developers of this simplified approach to estimating displacement consider the results of these analyses to be indices of expected seismic performance and not predictions of actual slope displacement amount or location of displacement.

We performed slope stability analyses for static and pseudo-static conditions. For static conditions, we considered slopes with a factor of safety of greater than 1.5 to be considered stable. Slopes that have a factor of safety greater than 1.0 using a seismic coefficient derived from the screening analysis procedure of Stewart and others (2003) can be considered stable.

To arrive with the adequate factors of safety under static and seismic conditions, two layers of geogrids of 15 feet long, Tensar UX1400MSE, placed at depths of 2 feet and 3 feet bgs are required. We modeled the geogrid with the strength data acquired from the manufacturer’s website. Further discussion of geogrid reinforcement is included in Section 5.3. Provided that geogrid reinforced subgrade is installed below the buildings along the western property line, the proposed building setback distance from the western channel is considered adequate.

Based on the results of our analysis, the creek bank should remain stable under seismic condition. However, it should be noted that for areas not mitigated with geogrid reinforcement, long-term creep/sloughing of the creek bank is possible and should be expected. Graphical results of our slope stability analysis are presented in Appendix D.

Packet Page 598
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 11 January 31, 2023

3.6 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL
As part of this study, we obtained representative near-surface soil samples during drilling and submitted to a qualified analytical lab for determination of pH, resistivity, sulfate, and chloride.

The results are included in Appendix B and summarized in the table below.

TABLE 3.6-1: Corrosivity Test Results
SAMPLE

LOCATION DEPTH PH RESISTIVITY (OHMS-CM)

CHLORIDE
(MG/KG)

SULFATE
(MG/KG)
2-B1 2.5’ 7.00 4,200 N.D. N.D.
2-B3 2.5’ 9.15 1,400 85 N.D.
* ASTM D4327
The 2022 CBC references the 2019 American Concrete Institute Manual, ACI 318-19, Section 19.3.1 for concrete durability requirements. ACI Table 19.3.1.1 provides the following exposure categories and classes, and Table 19.3.2.1 provides requirements for concrete in contact with soil based upon the exposure class.

TABLE 3.6-2: ACI Table 19.3.1.1: Sulfate Exposure Category and Classes

CATEGORY CLASS

CONDITION

WATER- SOLUBLE SULFATE IN
SOIL
% BY WEIGHT*

DISSOLVED SULFATE IN
WATER
MG/KG (PPM)**
S
Sulfate
S0 SO4 < 0.10 SO4 < 150
S1 0.10 ≤ SO4< 0.20 150 ≤ SO4 ≤ 1,500
seawater
S2 0.20 ≤ SO4 ≤ 2.00 1,500 ≤ SO4 ≤ 10,000
S3 SO4 > 2.00 SO4 > 10,000
* Percent sulfate by mass in soil determined by ASTM C1580 **Concentration of dissolved sulfates in water in ppm determined by ASTM D516 or ASTM D4130 Based on the test results, the site soil can be classified as S0. Considering sulfate exposure of S0, there is no requirement for cement type or water-cement ratio; however, a minimum concrete compressive strength of 2,500 psi is specified by the building code. For this sulfate range, we recommend Type II cement and a concrete mix design for building foundations that incorporates a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.50. However, it should be noted that the structural engineering design requirements for concrete may result in more stringent concrete specifications.

Brief corrosivity evaluation of the near-surface soil is presented by CERCO in Appendix B. If desired to investigate this further, we recommend a corrosion consultant be retained to evaluate if specific corrosion recommendations are advised for the project.

Packet Page 599
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 12 January 31, 2023

3.7 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS The 2020 CBC utilizes seismic design criteria established in the ASCE/SEI Standard “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures,” (ASCE 7-16). Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and shear wave measurements, we characterized the site as Site Class D.

ASCE 7-16 requires a site-specific ground-motion hazard analysis for Site Class D sites with a mapped S1 value greater than or equal to 0.2. However, Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 and Supplement No. 3 provide an exception to this requirement. A site-specific ground-motion hazard analysis is not required where the value of the parameter SM1 determined by Equation 11.4-2 and shown in Table 1 is increased by 50 percent for developing the mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response, calculating SD1, and evaluating Cs in accordance with Chapter 12 of ASCE 7-16.

In Table 3.7-1 below, we provide the CBC seismic parameters based on the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS’) Seismic Design Maps for your use. When using this table, considerations should be given to exceptions in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, as described in this report.

TABLE 3.7-1: 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters, Latitude: 37.532129 Longitude: -122.008132

PARAMETER VALUE
Site Class D
Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SS (g) 1.83 Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, S1 (g) 0.70 Site Coefficient, Fa 1.00
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.70*
MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SMS (g) 1.82 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SM1 (g) 1.19* Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SDS (g) 1.22 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SD1 (g) 0.79* Mapped MCE Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA (g) 0.77 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.1
MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM (g) 0.85 Long period transition-period, TL (sec) 12
*The parameters above should only be used for calculation of Ts, determination of Seismic Design Category, and, when taking the exceptions under Items 1 and 2 of ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8. (Supplement Number 3 https://ascelibrary.org/doi/epdf/10.1061/9780784414248.sup3).

We recommend that we collaborate with the structural engineer of record to further evaluate the effects of taking the exception on the structural design and identify the need for performing a site-specific ground-motion hazard analysis. We can prepare a proposal for a site-specific ground-motion hazard analysis, if requested.

Packet Page 600
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 13 January 31, 2023

4.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicate that the risk of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the design geotechnical engineering firm to:

1. Review the final grading and foundation plans, and specifications prior to construction to evaluate whether our recommendations have been implemented, and to provide additional or modified recommendations, as needed. This also allows us to check if any changes have occurred in the nature, design or location of the proposed improvements and provides the opportunity to prepare a written response with updated recommendations.

2. Perform construction monitoring to check the validity of the assumptions we made to prepare this report. Earthwork operations should be performed under the observation of our representative to check that the site is properly prepared, the selected fill materials are satisfactory, and that placement and compaction of the fill has been performed in accordance with our recommendations and the project specifications. Sufficient notification to us prior to earthwork is important.

If we are not retained to perform the services described above, then we are not responsible for any party’s interpretation of our report (and subsequent addenda, letters, and verbal discussions).

5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
As used in this report, relative compaction refers to the in-place dry unit weight of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry unit weight of the same soil, as determined by the ASTM D1557 laboratory compaction test procedure, latest edition. Compacted soil is not acceptable if it is unstable; it should exhibit only minimal flexing or pumping, as observed by an ENGEO representative. The term “moisture condition” refers to adjusting the moisture content of the soil by either drying if too wet or adding water if too dry.

We define “structural areas” as any area sensitive to settlement of compacted soil. These areas include, but are not limited to building pads, sidewalks, pavement areas, and retaining walls.

5.1 GENERAL SITE CLEARING
Areas to be developed should be cleared of surface and subsurface deleterious materials, including existing building foundations, slabs, buried utility and irrigation lines, pavements, debris, and designated trees, shrubs, and associated roots. According to the existing conditions as shown on the Tentative Map by cbg and dated November 2, 2022, underground utilities exist between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of the site. If any of these utilities will be abandoned from the site, the utility pipe and its backfill should be removed entirely and the ends of the pipeline should be properly capped. Test pit backfill below finished grades should be removed and recompacted as engineered fill.

As discussed in our Phase II Environmental Assessment report (ENGEO, 2022), several monitoring wells, and former USTs existed on the eastern portion of the site. We understand that the monitoring wells will be properly demolished and removed prior to grading activities on site. The former USTs were removed, and the excavations were backfilled with soil. The backfill for the former USTs will need to be removed and recompacted as engineered fill. The approximate locations of these former USTs are shown in Figure 3.

Packet Page 601
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 14 January 31, 2023
Following clearing, the site should be stripped to remove surface organic materials. Strip organics from the ground surface to a depth of at least 2 to 3 inches below the surface. Tree roots should be removed down to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade. Remove stripping’s from the site or, if considered suitable by the landscape architect and owner, use them in landscape fill. Any surficial soil that will be retained for future use in landscape areas should be stockpiled in areas where it will not interfere with grading operations.

Within the development areas, excavations resulting from demolition, stripping, and tree root removal, which extend below final grades, should be cleaned to firm undisturbed soil as determined by our field representative. No loose or uncontrolled backfilling of depressions resulting from demolition and stripping is permitted. The surface should then be scarified, moisture conditioned, and backfilled with compacted engineered fill. The requirements for backfill materials and placement operations are the same as for engineered fill.

5.2 EXISTING NON-ENGINEERED FILL REMOVAL
Existing fill should be removed to competent native soil, as evaluated by ENGEO. Figure 3 displays the approximate extent and thickness of existing fill at the site and the location of former USTs. For areas of UST backfill removal that are within the proposed structure footprint, the building pad may contain a differential fill thickness. If a differential fill thickness is more than 10 feet within the building footprint, local subexcavation and replacement by engineered fill will be necessary to maintain a differential fill thickness of 10 feet.

5.3 FOUNDATION SUBGRADE REINFORCEMENT
As discussed previously, we recommended the subgrade of the townhome structures be overexcavated and replaced with geogrid-reinforced backfill along the western limit of the buildings.

We recommend two layers of geogrid, Tensar UX1400MSE or approved equivalent, be placed underneath the western side of the structures; the geogrid should be placed 2 feet and 3 feet bgs, respectively. The geogrid should be at least 15 feet long and extend 2 feet laterally beyond the western edge of the proposed structure footprints.

5.4 OVER-OPTIMUM SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS
The contractor should anticipate encountering excessively over-optimum (wet) soil moisture conditions during winter or spring grading, or during or following periods of rain. Wet soil can make proper compaction difficult or impossible. Wet soil conditions can be mitigated by:

1. Frequent spreading and mixing during warm dry weather,

2. Mixing with drier materials,

3. Mixing with a lime, lime-flyash, or cement product, or

4. Stabilizing with aggregate or geotextile stabilization fabric, or both.

Options 3 and 4 should be evaluated by ENGEO prior to implementation.

Packet Page 602
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 15 January 31, 2023

5.5 ACCEPTABLE FILL
On-site soil material is suitable as fill material provided it is processed to remove concentrations of organic material (soil which contains more than 3 percent organic content by weight), debris, and particles greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension.

Imported fill materials should meet the above requirements and have a plasticity index less than 12, and at least 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Allow ENGEO to sample and test proposed imported fill materials at least 5 days prior to delivery to the site.

5.6 REUSE OF ON-SITE RECYCLED MATERIALS
If desired to reuse Portland Cement concrete as engineered fill, we recommend that it should be grounded up and thoroughly mixed with on-site or import soil. In general, recycled concrete should be grounded down to less than 4 inches in greatest dimension, with no more than 25 percent larger than 2½ inches. Recycled material should be thoroughly mixed with a sufficient amount of soil, such that there is no more than 40 percent by weight of recycled material in the final mix.

We recommend that fill containing recycled concrete be placed near the bottom of proposed fill underneath proposed roadways and parking.

The existing Portland Cement concrete can be considered as recycle aggregate base for pavements. The material will need to be broken down, but not pulverized and conform with the Caltrans gradations of aggregate base if used to substitute for roadway base.

5.7 FILL COMPACTION
The contractor should perform subgrade compaction prior to fill placement to provide adequate bonding with the initial lift of fill. The contractor should first scarify the exposed soil to a depth of at least 12 inches then moisture condition and compact the subgrade in accordance with the requirements listed in the table below. The lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches or the depth of penetration of the compaction equipment used, whichever is less. The following compaction recommendations should be used for the placement and compaction of subgrade and fill:

TABLE 5.7-1: Subgrade and Engineered Fill Compaction and Moisture Content Requirements

FILL DEPTH MATERIALS

MINIMUM

RELATIVE

COMPACTION
(%)

MINIMUM MOISTURE

CONTENT
(percentage points above
optimum)**
Within the upper 5 feet of finished
grade On-site Soil 87 to 92 4
From 5 feet below finished grade On-site Soil 90 4
Pavement, Upper 1 foot Subgrade On-site Soil 90 4
Pavement Class 2
Aggregate Base 95 0
The relative compaction and optimum moisture content of soil and aggregate base referred to in this report are based on the most recent ASTM D1557 test method.

Packet Page 603
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 16 January 31, 2023

5.7.1 Underground Utility Backfill

5.7.1.1 General
The contractor is responsible for conducting trenching and shoring in accordance with Cal/OSHA requirements. Project consultants involved in utility design should specify pipe bedding materials.

Where utility trenches cross underneath buildings, we recommend that a plug be placed within the trench backfill to help prevent the normally granular bedding materials from acting as a conduit for water to enter beneath the building. The plug should be constructed using a sand cement slurry (minimum 28-day compressive strength of 500 psi) or relatively impermeable native soil for pipe bedding and backfill. We recommend that the plug extend for a distance of at least 3 feet in each direction from the point where the utility enters the building perimeter.

Jetting of backfill is not an acceptable means of compaction. We may allow thicker loose lift thicknesses based on acceptable density test results, where increased effort is applied to rocky fill, or for the first lift of fill over pipe bedding.

5.7.2 Landscape Fill
Process, place, and compact fill in accordance with Section 5.7, except compact to at least 85 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).

5.8 SITE DRAINAGE

5.8.1 Surface Drainage
The project civil engineer is responsible for designing surface drainage improvements. With regard to geotechnical engineering issues, we recommend that finish grades be sloped away from buildings and pavements to the maximum extent practical to reduce the potentially damaging effects of expansive soil. The latest California Building Code Section 1804.4 specifies minimum slopes of 5 percent within 10 feet away from foundations. Where lot lines or surface improvements restrict meeting this slope requirement, we recommend that specific drainage requirements be developed. As a minimum, we recommend the following.

1. Discharge roof downspouts into closed conduits and direct away from foundations to appropriate drainage devices.

2. Consider the use of rear lot surface drainage collection systems to reduce overland surface drainage from back to front of lot.

3. Do not allow water to pond near foundations, pavements, or exterior flatwork.

4. Maintain uniform moisture around the buildings.

5.8.2 Subsurface Drainage
Based on our site exploration and current grading concepts for the site, we do not anticipate that subdrainage systems will be recommended. We recommend that we review the site grading plans to further evaluate the need for subdrainage systems as well as observe the earthwork operations during site grading.

Packet Page 604
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 17 January 31, 2023

5.9 STORMWATER BIORETENTION AREAS
If bioretention areas are implemented, we recommend that, when practical, they be planned a minimum of 5 feet away from structural site improvements, such as buildings, streets, retaining walls, and sidewalks/driveways. When this is not practical, bioretention areas located within 5 feet of structural site improvements can either:

1. Be constructed with structural side walls capable of withstanding the loads from the adjacent improvements, or

2. Incorporate filter material compacted to between 85 and 90~percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557, latest edition) and a waterproofing system designed to reduce the potential for moisture transmission into the subgrade soil beneath the adjacent improvement.

In addition, one of the following options should be followed.

1. We recommend that bioretention design incorporate a waterproofing system lining the bioswale excavation and a subdrain, or other storm drain system, to collect and convey water to an approved outlet. The waterproofing system should cover the bioretention area excavation in such a manner as to reduce the potential for moisture transmission beneath the adjacent improvements.

2. Alternatively, and with some risk of movement of adjacent improvements, if infiltration is desired, we recommend the perimeter of the bioretention areas be lined with an HDPE tree root barrier that extends at least 1 foot below the bottom of the bioretention areas/infiltration trenches.

Site improvements located adjacent to bioretention areas that are underlain by base rock, sand, or other imported granular materials, should be designed with a deepened edge that extends to the bottom of the imported material underlying the improvement.

Where adjacent site improvements include buildings greater than three stories, streets steeper than 3 percent, or design elements subject to lateral loads (such as from impact or traffic patterns), additional design considerations may be recommended. If the surface of the bioretention area is depressed, the slope gradient should follow the slope guidelines described in earlier section(s) of this document. In addition, although not recommended, if trees are to be planted within bioretention areas, HDPE Tree Boxes that extend below the bottom of the bioretention system should be installed to reduce potential impact to subdrain systems that may be part of the bioretention area design. For this condition, the waterproofing system should be connected to the HPDE Tree Box with a waterproof seal.

Given the nature of bioretention systems and possible proximity to improvements, we recommend ENGEO be retained to review design plans and provide testing and observation services during the installation of linings, compaction of the filter material, and connection of designed drains.

It should be noted that the contractor is responsible for conducting all excavation and shoring in a manner that does not cause damage to adjacent improvements during construction and future maintenance of the bioretention areas. As with any excavation adjacent to improvements, the contractor should reduce the exposure time such that the improvements are not detrimentally impacted.

Packet Page 605
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 18 January 31, 2023

5.10 LANDSCAPING CONSIDERATION
As the near-surface soil is moderately to highly expansive, we recommend greatly restricting the amount of surface water infiltration near structures, pavements, flatwork, and slabs-on-grade.

This may be accomplished by:
• Selecting landscaping that requires little or no watering, especially within 3 feet of structures, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.
• Using low precipitation sprinkler heads.
• Regulating the amount of water distributed to lawn or planter areas by installing timers on the sprinkler system.
• Providing surface grades to drain rainfall or landscape watering to appropriate collection systems and away from structures, slabs-on-grade, or pavements. • Preventing water from draining toward or ponding near building foundations, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.
• Avoiding open planting areas within 3 feet of the building perimeter.

We recommend that these items be incorporated into the landscaping plans.

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
We developed foundation recommendations using data obtained from our field exploration, laboratory test results, and engineering analysis. As previously mentioned, the alternatives proposed for addressing the effects of the native expansive soil on building foundations include post-tensioned mat foundations or conventional footings with slabs-on-grade and pre-saturation.

6.1 POST-TENSIONED MAT FOUNDATIONS
Based on our discussions with you and the structural engineer, we understand that the proposed townhomes will be supported on post-tensioned (PT) mat foundations bearing on prepared engineered fill. The PT mat foundation will be thickened to accommodate the anticipated liquefaction-induced settlement. We estimated a total liquefaction-induced settlement of up to approximately 2½ inches, with a differential settlement of 1¼ inches over a span of 50 feet for the majority areas of the site. A total liquefaction-induced settlement of up to approximately 5 inches, with a differential settlement of up to 2½ inches over 50 feet are estimated for the southwestern area of the site. The approximate delineation of the area with higher liquefaction-induced settlement is shown in Figure 2. In addition, the structural engineer should confirm that the superstructures of the buildings can be able to tolerate the movement associated with the liquefaction-inducted settlement.

The post-tensioned mats should be at least 10 inches thick. The structural engineer should determine the actual PT mat thickness using the geotechnical recommendations in this report; we defer to the professional judgment of the structural engineer on the necessary mat thickness. ENGEO should be retained to review the PT mat foundation design. We recommend that the thickened edge be at least 12 inches wide.

Packet Page 606
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 19 January 31, 2023
PT mats may be designed for an average allowable bearing pressure of up to 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead-plus-live loads with maximum localized bearing pressures of 1,500 psf at column or wall loads. Allowable bearing pressures can be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loads. Design PT mats using the criteria presented in Table 6.1-1 below.

TABLE 6.1-1: Post-Tensioned Mat Design Recommendations

CONDITION CENTER LIFT EDGE LIFT
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em (feet) 8.7 4.4
Differential Soil Movement, ym (inches) 0.7 1.1
The above values are based on the procedure presented in “Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive and Stable Soil” (PTI DC10.5-19, 2019) by the Post-Tensioning Institute.

Underlay PT mats with a moisture reduction system as recommended below. In addition, moisture conditioning of the building foundation subgrade should be to a moisture content at least 4 percentage points above optimum immediately prior to foundation construction. The subgrade should not be allowed to dry prior to concrete placement. We also recommend that ENGEO be retained to observe the pre-pour moisture conditions to check that our report recommendations have been followed.

6.1.1 Slab Moisture Vapor Reduction
When buildings are constructed with concrete slab-on-grade, such as post-tensioned mats, water vapor from beneath the slab will migrate through the slab and into the building. This water vapor can be reduced but not stopped. Vapor transmission can negatively affect floor coverings and lead to increased moisture within a building. When water vapor migrating through the slab would be undesirable, we recommend the following to reduce, but not stop, water vapor transmission upward through the slab-on-grade.

1. Install a vapor retarder membrane directly beneath the slab. Seal the vapor retarder at all seams and pipe penetrations. Vapor retarders shall conform to Class A vapor retarder in accordance with ASTM E1745, latest edition, “Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs.”

2. Concrete shall have a concrete water-cement ratio of no more than 0.50.

3. Provide inspection and testing during concrete placement to check that the proper concrete and water cement ratio are used.

6.2 EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Exterior flatwork includes items such as concrete sidewalks, steps, and outdoor courtyards exposed to foot traffic only. Provide a minimum section of 4 inches of concrete over 4 inches of aggregate base. Compact the aggregate base to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). Thicken flatwork edges to at least 8 inches to help control moisture variations in the subgrade and place wire mesh or rebar within the middle third of the slab to help control the width and offset of cracks. Construct control and construction joints in accordance with current Portland Cement Association Guidelines.

Packet Page 607
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 20 January 31, 2023

7.0 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN

7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
Based on the site soil conditions, the following preliminary pavement sections are determined for an assumed resistance value (R-value) of 5 and in accordance with the design methods contained in Chapter 630 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

TABLE 7.1-1: Recommended Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections

TRAFFIC INDEX

SECTION

ASPHALT CONCRETE
(Inches)
CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE
(Inches)

5.0 3 10

6.0 3½ 13

7.0 4 16
The above preliminary pavement sections are provided for estimating only. We recommend actual subgrade material be tested for R-value, and the traffic index and minimum pavement section(s) should be confirmed by the civil engineer and the City of Newark.

7.2 RIGID PAVEMENT
We anticipate that concrete pavement sections may be used in areas such as fire lanes or trash enclosure aprons. Final design of rigid pavement sections, and accompanying reinforcement, should be performed based on estimated traffic loads and frequencies. We recommend the following minimum design sections for rigid pavements.
• Use a minimum section of 7½ inches of Portland Cement concrete over 12 inches of Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base.
• Reinforce with No. 4 bars at 12 inches on center each way. • Have a minimum 28-day concrete compressive strength of 3,500 psi. • Provide minimum control joint spacing in accordance with Portland Cement Association guidelines.

7.3 SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTION
Compact finish subgrade and aggregate base in accordance with Section 5.7. Aggregate Base (AB) should meet the requirements for Class 2 AB in accordance with Section 26-1.02B of the latest Caltrans Standard Specifications.

Packet Page 608
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 21 January 31, 2023

7.4 CUTOFF CURBS
Saturated pavement subgrade or aggregate base can cause premature failure or increased maintenance of asphalt concrete pavements. This condition often occurs where landscape areas directly abut and drain toward pavements. If desired to install pavement cutoff barriers, they should be considered where pavement areas lie downslope of any landscape areas that are to be sprinklered or irrigated and should extend to a depth of at least 4 inches below the base rock layer. Cutoff barriers may consist of deepened concrete curbs or deep-root moisture barriers.

If reduced pavement life and greater than normal pavement maintenance are acceptable to the owner, then the cutoff barrier may be eliminated.

7.5 RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS/GARAGE SLABS
We were not retained to provide design recommendations for residential driveways or garage slabs. They should be designed to resist the anticipated traffic and structural loads, (and the effects of expansive soil movement.

8.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
This report presents geotechnical recommendations for design of the improvements discussed in Section 1.3 for the 38600 Cedar Boulevard project. If changes occur in the nature or design of the project, we should be allowed to review this report and provide additional recommendations, if any. It is the responsibility of the owner to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to the appropriate organizations or people involved in design of the project, including but not limited to developers, owners, buyers, architects, engineers, and designers. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions and are valid for a period of no more than 2 years from the date of report issuance.

We strived to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices currently employed in the area; there is no warranty, express or implied.

There are risks of earth movement and property damages inherent in building on or with earth materials. We are unable to eliminate all risks; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our services.

This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of report preparation.

We developed this report with limited subsurface exploration data. We assumed that our subsurface exploration data are representative of the actual subsurface conditions across the site. Considering possible underground variability of soil and groundwater, additional costs may be required to complete the project. We recommend that the owner establish a contingency fund to cover such costs. If unexpected conditions are encountered, ENGEO must be notified immediately to review these conditions and provide additional and/or modified recommendations, as necessary.

Our services did not include excavation sloping or shoring, soil volume change factors, flood potential, or a geohazard exploration. In addition, our geotechnical exploration did not include work to determine the existence of possible hazardous materials. If any hazardous materials are encountered during construction, the proper regulatory officials must be notified immediately.

Packet Page 609
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 22 January 31, 2023
This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse, that is, reusing without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires ENGEO to evaluate the document’s applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time.

Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes to ENGEO’s documents. Therefore, ENGEO must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If ENGEO’s scope of services does not include on-site construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services, ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any or all claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and from any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions.

We determined the lines designating the interface between layers on the exploration logs using visual observations. The transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. The exploration logs contain information concerning samples recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as clay, sand, silt, rock, existing fill, etc., and observations of groundwater encountered. The field logs also contain our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between sample locations. Therefore, the logs contain both factual and interpretative information. Our recommendations are based on the contents of the final logs, which represent our interpretation of the field logs.

Packet Page 610
Waymark Development 38600 Cedar Boulevard
15799.004.000 Geotechnical Exploration
January 31, 2023

SELECTED REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute. 2019. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-19).

Bray, J. D., and Sancio, R. B. 2006. “Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.

Bryant, W. and Hart, E.2007). Special Publication 42, “Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California”, Interim Revision 2007, California Department of Conservation.

California Building Code. 2022.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). “Highway Design Manual – Seventh Edition” California Geologic Survey. 2008. Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.

ENGEO. 2020. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, 38600 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California. September 3, 2020. Project No. 15799.001.000.

ENGEO. 2022. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 38600 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California. July 12, 2021; Revised October 21, 2022. Project No. 15799.004.000.

FEMA. 2009. Flood Map, Panel No. 06001C0442G, Effective August 3.

Historic Aerials by NETROnline (https://www.historicaerials.com) Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. 2008. “Soil Liquefaction during Earthquake”, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W. 2014. “CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures,” Report No. UCD/CGM-14/101, University of California, Davis.

Post-Tensioning Institute. 2019. Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive and Stable Soils, PTI DC10.5-19.

Robertson, P. K. 2009. “Evaluation of Flow Liquefaction and Liquefied Strength Using the Cone Penetration Test,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.

USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer
(https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html) Youd, T.L. et al. 2001. “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.

Zhang, G., Roberton P.K., Brachman, R. 2002. Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-118.

Packet Page 611

FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2: Site Plan
FIGURE 3: Fill Contour
FIGURE 4: Historical Topography
FIGURE 5: Regional Geologic Map
FIGURE 6: Regional Faulting and Seismicity Map
FIGURE 7: Seismic Hazards Zone Map
Packet Page 612
0 1,000 2,000
FEET
BASEMAP SOURCE: ESRI MAPPING SERVICE 2017
COPYRIGHT @ 2022 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED. PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_14000 TO 15999\15799\15799001000\GEOTECH\GEX\15799_GEX.APRX ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR LAYOUT: VICINITY USER: QLIANG
1 FIGURE NO.

DRAWN BY: JV CHECKED BY:MT
SCALE: AS SHOWN
PROJECT NO. : 15799.004.000

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
38600 CEDAR BOULEVARD

VICINITY MAP
Mattos Dr
Edgewater
Dr
Glenmoor Dr
Eggers Dr
Per alta Blvd
Hansen
Ave
Kimbro St
Central Ave
Cedar Blvd
Thornton
Ave
Nimitz Fwy
Nimitz Fwy
Centerville
District
Gertrud
Gl
e Dr
enview Dr
Robertson Ave
Smith
Ave
Mowry Ave
Moores Ave
Alta Dr
Granville Dr
Rusch in Dr
Central Ave
Central Ave
Blacow Rd
Cherry St
Cherry St
M
owry
Ave
Cedar Blvd
Nimitz Fwy
Mowry East
Shopping
Center
Newpark Mall
Newark
Hastings St Mowry Ave
Gatewa
Fremont Hub
Shopping
Center
Fremont
Sundale Dr
Blacow Rd
Logan Dr
Stewart Ave
Christy St
Stevenson Blvd
Nimitz Fwy
SITE
Packet Page 613
Packet Page 614
Packet Page 615
38600 CEDAR BOULEVARD
0 500 1,000
FEET
15799.004.000
SPM
BASEMAP SOURCE:USGS 1947
COPYRIGHT @ 2022 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED. PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_14000 TO 15999\15799\15799001000\GEOTECH\GEX\15799_GEX.APRX ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR LAYOUT: TOPO USER: QLIANG
4 FIGURE NO.

DRAWN BY: JV CHECKED BY:

SCALE: AS SHOWN
PROJECT NO. :

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA

HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHY
SITE

CEDAR ROAD WAS SHIFTED SOUTHWEST TO THE
LOCATION OF PRESENT DAY CEDAR BLVD. DURING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE I-880 FREEWAY
Packet Page 616

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

EXPLANATION
COPYRIGHT @ 2022 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED. 0 2,000 4,000
FEET
SITE
Qpa ALLUVIUM (PLEISTOCENE)
BASEMAP SOURCE: GRAYMER, 2006
PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_14000 TO 15999\15799\15799001000\GEOTECH\GEX\15799_GEX.APRX ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR LAYOUT: GEOLOGIC USER: QLIANG
5 FIGURE NO.

DRAWN BY: JV CHECKED BY:MT
SCALE: AS SHOWN
PROJECT NO. : 15799.004.000

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
38600 CEDAR BOULEVARD

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
Qha ALLUVIAL (HOLOCENE)
Qhym
Qhym MUD DEPOSITS (LATE HOLOCENE)
Packet Page 617

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

EXPLANATION
0 7.5 15
Miles
COPYRIGHT @ 2022 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

BASE MAP SOURCE
PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_14000 TO 15999\15799\15799001000\GEOTECH\GEX\15799_GEX.APRX LAYOUT: FAULT&SEISMICITY1 USER: QLIANG

ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR
6 FIGURE NO.

DRAWN BY: SPPE CHECKED BY:SPM
SCALE: AS SHOWN
PROJECT NO. : 15799.004.000

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
38600 CEDAR BOULEVARD

REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY

ESRI, GEBCO, DELORME, NATURALVUE
COLOR HILLSHADE IMAGE BASED ON THE NATIONAL ELEVATION DATA SET (NED) AT 30 METER RESOLUTION U.S.G.S. QUATERNARY FAULT DATABASE, 2020
U.S.G.S. HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE DATABASE (1800-PRESENT)
U.S.G.S OPEN-FILE REPORT 96-705

GREAT VALLEY FAULT ZONE
MAGNITUDE 5-6
MAGNITUDE 6-7
MAGNITUDE 7+

EARTHQUAKE
QUATERNARY FAULTS 2020

BASED ON TIME OF MOST RECENT SURFACE

DEFORMATION
HISTORICAL (<150 YEARS), WELL

CONSTRAINED LOCATION
HISTORICAL (<150 YEARS), MODERATELY

CONSTRAINED LOCATION
HISTORICAL (<150 YEARS), INFERRED

LOCATION
LATEST QUATERNARY (<15,000 YEARS),

WELL CONSTRAINED LOCATION
LATEST QUATERNARY (<15,000 YEARS),

MODERATELY CONSTRAINED LOCATION
LATEST QUATERNARY (<15,000 YEARS),

INFERRED LOCATION
LATE QUATERNARY (<130,000 YEARS),

WELL CONSTRAINED LOCATION
LATE QUATERNARY (<130,000 YEARS),

MODERATELY CONSTRAINED LOCATION
LATE QUATERNARY (<130,000 YEARS),

INFERRED LOCATION
UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY(<1.6

MILLION YEARS), WELL CONSTRAINED

LOCATION
UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY(<1.6

MILLION YEARS), MODERATELY

CONSTRAINED LOCATION
UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY(<1.6

MILLION YEARS), INFERRED LOCATION
SITE

SACRAMENTO

CALAVERAS
SONOMA
SAN

FRANCISCO
MARIN

MARIPOSA
NAPA

MONTEREY

TUOLUMNE
SOLANO

CONTRA COSTA

EL DORADO
YOLO

SAN BENITO FRESNO
MADERA

SANTA CLARA

SAN JOAQUIN

ALAMEDA
MERCED

STANISLAUS
AMADOR

SAN MATEO

SANTA CRUZ
Packet Page 618
0 1,000 2,000
FEET

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

EXPLANATION

LIQUEFACTION ZONE

AREAS WHERE HISTORICAL OCCURENCE OF LIQUEFACTION, OR LOCAL

GEOLOGICAL, GEOTEHNICAL AND GROUND WATER CONDITIONS

INDICATE A POTENTIAL L FOR PERMANENT GROUND DISPLACEMENTS

SUCH THAT MITIGATION AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 2693(C) WOULD BE REQUIRED
COPYRIGHT @ 2022 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

SITE
BASEMAP SOURCE: ESRI MAPPING SERVICE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_14000 TO 15999\15799\15799001000\GEOTECH\GEX\15799_GEX.APRX ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR LAYOUT: SEISMIC HAZARD USER: QLIANG
7 FIGURE NO.

DRAWN BY: JV CHECKED BY:MT
SCALE: AS SHOWN
PROJECT NO. : 15799.004.000

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
38600 CEDAR BOULEVARD

SEISMIC HAZARDS ZONE MAP
Packet Page 619

APPENDIX A

KEY TO BORING LOGS

EXPLORATION LOGS
Packet Page 620


%25,1*


 
Ȁ !"!#!$Ā%&' ()*Ā+,Ā(-+./Ā+,Ā012Ā-(!Ā34'') *Ā,4--567Ā829Ā:+Ā;*5<) Ā4Ā=>56?3Ā@!A!ĀĀȀ0>8BCĀ56?3ĀD!A!$Ā/4'E-)* FĀĀG6?+6,56);Ā?+'E*)//5< ) Ā/:*)67:3Ā56Ā:+6/B/H!Ā,:!IĀ4/:)*5/JĀ+6Ā-+7Ā')46/Ā;):)*' 56);Ā(KĀE+?J):ĀE)6):*+'):)* L@D #GMNĀO@%AD#D@%
AMP
L@D # A4'EĀ(&:Ā6+Ā<5/5(-)Ā.4:)* RN# Q5/5(-)Ā,*)). 4:)*
SD%NĀ#P"N
+-5;ĀĀ>ĀĀS4K)*ĀT*)4J
UĀUĀUĀUĀUĀU A4/3);ĀĀ>ĀĀV*4;4:5+64-Ā+*Ā4EE*+W5'4:)Ā-4K)*Ā(*)4J V*+&6;.4:)*Ā-)<)-Ā;&*567Ā;*5--567
:4(5-5X);Ā7*+&6;. 4:)*Ā-)<)-
YL"S NMĀ PLT@S
O4-5,+*654ĀȀ=!Z9Ā@!A!$Ā/4'E-)*
VM@G%ARY#NMĀ PLT @S
L+;5,5);ĀO4-5,+*654ĀȀ89Ā@!A!$Ā/4'E-)*



 










A4')/Ā46;ĀL++* )Ā"5/:+6
    

L@MNĀ#[Y%Ā[YS\
O@YM NĀ\MYO#D@%
D ĀSYMVNMĀ#[Y%
%@!Ā1Ā DNQNĀ D]N
V"Ā>Ā"++*-KĀ7*4;);Ā7*4< )-/Ā+*Ā7*4<)->/46;Ā'5W:&*)/
OĀ>ĀO-4K)Ā/46;I Ā/46;>?-4KĀ' 5W:&*)/
O[Ā>Ā\4:Ā?-4KĀ.5:3Ā3573ĀE-4/:5?5:K
@[Ā>Ā[573-KĀE-4/:5?Ā+*7465?Ā/5-:/Ā46;Ā?-4K/
"#Ā>Ā")4:Ā46;Ā+:3)*Ā3573-KĀ+*7465?Ā/+5-/
A&/:KIĀ;*KĀ:+Ā:+&?3
DS# ĀY%AĀOSYP ĀSD^GDAĀSDLD#ĀVMNY#NMĀ#[Y%ĀZ2Ā_







DS# ĀY%AĀOSYP ĀSD^GDAĀSDLD#ĀZ2Ā_Ā@MĀSN
O@YM N>VMYD%NAĀ @DS ĀL@MNĀ#[Y%
[YS\Ā@\ĀLY#`SĀSYMVNMĀ#[Y%Āa=22
DNQN
O+6:56&+&/ĀO+*)
T47Ā 4'E-)/
\D%N>VMYD%NAĀ @DS ĀL@MN
#[Y%Ā[ YS\Ā@\ĀLY#`SĀ LYSSNM
#[Y%Āa=22Ā DNQN
\+*Ā,56)>7*456);Ā/+5-/Ā.5:3Ā0ZĀ:+Ā=b_Ā*):456);Ā+6Ā:3)Āa=22Ā/5)<)IĀ:3)Ā.+*;/Ā9. 5:3Ā/46;9Ā+*Ā9.5:3Ā7*4<)-9ĀȀ.35?3)<)*Ā5/ĀE*);+'5646:$Ā4*)Ā4;;);Ā:+Ā:3)Ā7*+&EĀ64')! \+*Ā,56)>7*456);Ā/+5-Ā.5:3Āc82_Ā*):456);Ā+6Ā:3)Āa=22Ā/5)<)IĀ:3) Ā.+*;/Ā9/46;K9Ā+*Ā97*4<)--K9ĀȀ.35?3)<) *Ā5/ĀE*);+'5646:$Ā4*)Ā4;;);Ā:+Ā:3)Ā7*+&EĀ64')! OSNY%ĀVMYQNS ĀRD#[
SN Ā #[Y%ĀZ_Ā\D%N
VMYQNS
VMYQNS ĀRD#[Ā@QNM
ĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀĀ0=Ā_Ā\D%N
[DV[SP Ā@MVY%DOĀ @DS
Y%A ĀRD#[Ā@QNM
ĀĀĀĀĀĀ0=Ā_Ā\D%N
Y%A
VLĀ>Ā 5-:KĀ7*4<)-/IĀ7*4<)->/46;Ā46;Ā/5-:Ā' 5W:&*)/
VOĀ>ĀO-4K)KĀ7*4<)-/IĀ7*4<)->/46;Ā46;Ā?-4KĀ'5W:&*)/
RĀ>ĀR)--Ā7*4;);Ā/46; /IĀ+*Ā7*4<)--KĀ/ 46;Ā'5W:&*)/
"Ā>Ā"++*-KĀ7*4;);Ā/46; /Ā+*Ā7*4<)--KĀ/46;Ā'5W:&*)/
LĀ>Ā 5-:KĀ/46;IĀ/46; >/5-:Ā'5W:&*)/
LSĀ>ĀD6+*7465?Ā/5-:Ā.5:3Ā-+.Ā:+Ā') ;5&'ĀE-4/:5?5:K
OSĀ>ĀD6+*7465?Ā?-4KĀ.5:3Ā-+.Ā:+Ā') ;5&'ĀE-4/:5?5:K
L@MNĀ#[Y%Ā[YS\
O@YM NĀ\MYO#D@%
D Ā LYSSNMĀ#[Y%
%@!Ā1Ā DNQNĀ D]N
OSNY%Ā Y%A ĀRD#[
SN Ā #[Y%ĀZ_Ā\D%N
MNSY#DQNĀAN% D#P O@% D #N%OP
\D%N
#MN%V#[F
@QNMĀ1
0B=>0
2>0B1
0B1>0B=
0>=
=>1
DS#
Y%A
OSYP
QNMPĀ #D\\
[YMA
#D\\
QNMPĀ @\#
@\#
DS# ĀY%AĀOSYP TS@R B\@@#
2>1
LNADGL O@YM N
LNADGLĀ #D\\
02>82
82>Z2
@QNMĀZ2
1>02
QNMPĀS@@ N
O@TTSN T@GSANM \D%N O@YM N
Y%A VMYQNS
Ȁ !"!#!$
LNADGLĀAN% N
AN% N
S@@ N
Y%A ĀY%AĀVMYQNS
QNMPĀAN% N
VRĀ>ĀR)--Ā7*4;);Ā7*4< )-/Ā+*Ā7*4<)->/46;Ā'5W:&*)/
@SĀ>ĀS+.ĀE-4/:5?5:KĀ+*7465?Ā/5-:Ā46;Ā?-4K/
L[Ā>ĀN-4/:5?Ā/5-:Ā.5:3Ā3573ĀE-4/:5?5:K

!"! #!ĀĀĀ>ĀĀĀ E-5:Ā/E++6Ā/4'E-)*
3)-(K Ā#&()
V*4(Ā 4'E-)/
%M %+ĀM)?+<)*K
Packet Page 621
3 inches of Asphalt
5 inches of Aggregate Base
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), dark brown mottled
with black, very stiff, moist, high plasticity, contains coarse-grained sand and fine gravel [FILL]
CLAY (CL), dark brown, hard, moist, [Qal]
Some fine-grained sand
CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, medium dense, moist,
fine-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC), dark
yellowish brown, loose to medium dense, moist,
fine-grained sand
SILTY SAND (SM), dark yellowish brown, loose, moist,
fine-grained sand
Dark olive brown, wet, fine- to medium-grained sand
26 17
10 8
12 33 15 18 74
19 7.1

21.2 4.5* PP
K. Krisan / MT
Geo-Ex Subsurface
Solid Flight Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
38600 Cedar Blvd.

Newark, CA
15799.004.000
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (WGS84):
8/23/2022
Approx. 26½ ft.

5.0 in.

Approx. 34 ft.

Depth in Feet
5 10
15 20
Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

DESCRIPTION Water Level Blow Count/Foot Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fines Content (% passing #200 sieve) Moisture Content (% dry weight) Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Shear Strength (psf)*field approximation Atterberg Limits
Log SymbolUnconfined Strength (tsf)*field approximationStrength Test Type LATITUDE: 37.53128 LONGITUDE: -122.00717 Elevation in Feet 30 25
20 15
LOG OF BORING 2-B1
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL_SU+QU W/ ELEV BORING GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 1/31/23 Packet Page 622
SILTY SAND (SM), dark olive brown, loose to medium
dense, wet, fine- to medium-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), dark
yellowish brown, medium dense, moist, fine- to
medium-grained sand
SILTY SAND (SM), olive brown, medium dense, moist,
fine-grained sand, contains iron-oxide staining
Boring terminated at 26½ feet below ground surface
(bgs). Groundwater encountered at 16 feet bgs at time
of drilling.
6 26
17 17.7
K. Krisan / MT
Geo-Ex Subsurface
Solid Flight Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
38600 Cedar Blvd.

Newark, CA
15799.004.000
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (WGS84):
8/23/2022
Approx. 26½ ft.

5.0 in.

Approx. 34 ft.

Depth in Feet
25 Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

DESCRIPTION Water Level Blow Count/Foot Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fines Content (% passing #200 sieve) Moisture Content (% dry weight) Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Shear Strength (psf)*field approximation Atterberg Limits
Log SymbolUnconfined Strength (tsf)*field approximationStrength Test Type LATITUDE: 37.53128 LONGITUDE: -122.00717 Elevation in Feet 10 LOG OF BORING 2-B1
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL_SU+QU W/ ELEV BORING GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 1/31/23 Packet Page 623
4 inches of Aggregate Base
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), very dark grayish
brown mottled with reddish brown, medium stiff, moist,
medium plasticity, fine-grained sand, contains fine
gravel [FILL]
Black mottled with reddish brown
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), very dark grayish brown
mottled with reddish brown, very stiff, moist, medium
plasticity, fine-grained sand [Qal]
FAT CLAY (CH), olive with light gray, hard, moist, high plasticity
SILTY SAND (SM), very dark grayish brown mottled
with dark olive, loose, wet, fine-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC), very
dark grayish brown, very loose, wet, fine- to
medium-grained sand, gradational contact with
overlying unit
CLAYEY SAND (SC), olive, medium dense, moist,
fine-grained sand, interlayered with sandy lean clay
(CL), contains iron-oxide staining
11 28
21 8
11 17 16 1
91 27

18.8 18.8
106.4
106.3

0.83 1.5*

3.5*

4.25*
UC
PP
PP
PP
K. Krisan / MT
Geo-Ex Subsurface
Solid Flight Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
38600 Cedar Blvd.

Newark, CA
15799.004.000
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (WGS84):
8/23/2022
Approx. 30 ft.

5.0 in.

Approx. 32 ft.

Depth in Feet
5 10
15 20
Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

DESCRIPTION Water Level Blow Count/Foot Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fines Content (% passing #200 sieve) Moisture Content (% dry weight) Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Shear Strength (psf)*field approximation Atterberg Limits
Log SymbolUnconfined Strength (tsf)*field approximationStrength Test Type LATITUDE: 37.53207 LONGITUDE: -122.00792 Elevation in Feet 30 25
20 15
LOG OF BORING 2-B2
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL_SU+QU W/ ELEV BORING GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 1/31/23 Packet Page 624
CLAYEY SAND (SC), olive, medium dense, moist,
fine-grained sand, interlayered with sandy lean clay
(CL), contains iron-oxide staining
Medium- to coarse-grained, fines content decreases,
trace fine gravel
4 inch interlayer of sandy silt to silty sand
SILTY SAND (SM), olive, medium dense, moist,
fine-grained sand, grades to elastic silt with sand (MH), bluish gray, stiff, moist, low plasticity
Boring terminated at 30 feet below ground surface
(bgs). Groundwater encountered at 14½ feet bgs at
time of drilling.
30 22
28 26
33 19 14 29 18.3
K. Krisan / MT
Geo-Ex Subsurface
Solid Flight Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
38600 Cedar Blvd.

Newark, CA
15799.004.000
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (WGS84):
8/23/2022
Approx. 30 ft.

5.0 in.

Approx. 32 ft.

Depth in Feet
25 30
Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

DESCRIPTION Water Level Blow Count/Foot Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fines Content (% passing #200 sieve) Moisture Content (% dry weight) Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Shear Strength (psf)*field approximation Atterberg Limits
Log SymbolUnconfined Strength (tsf)*field approximationStrength Test Type LATITUDE: 37.53207 LONGITUDE: -122.00792 Elevation in Feet 10 5
LOG OF BORING 2-B2
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL_SU+QU W/ ELEV BORING GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 1/31/23 Packet Page 625
4 inches of Aggregate Base
LEAN CLAY (CL), grayish green mottled with black,
hard, moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained sand [FILL] brown with very dark brown
LEAN CLAY (CL), dark grayish brown, moist,
fine-grained sand, contains organics [Qal]
bluish gray
LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL (CL), dark brown, stiff,
moist, medium plasticity, coarse gravel
LEAN CLAY (CL), light greenish gray mottled with
yellowish brown, hard, moist, medium plasticity,
fine-grained, contains decomposed rootlets and
iron-oxide staining
ELASTIC SILT WITH SAND (MH), light greenish gray
mottled with yellowish brown, very stiff to hard, moist, low plasticity, fine-grained sand
sand content increases
LEAN CLAY (CL), olive mottled with greenish gray,
stiff, moist, medium plasticity, trace fine-grained sand SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark olive, stiff to very stiff,
moist, fine-grained sand
34 14
14 29
15 35 15 20 91
91 19.6 94.8
>4.5*

1.27 >4.5*

1.25*
PP
UC
PP
PP
K. Krisan / MT
Geo-Ex Subsurface
Mud Rotary
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
38600 Cedar Blvd.

Newark, CA
15799.004.000
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (WGS84):
8/22/2022
Approx. 115 ft.

5.0 in.

Approx. 34 ft.

Depth in Feet
5 10
15 20
Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

DESCRIPTION Water Level Blow Count/Foot Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fines Content (% passing #200 sieve) Moisture Content (% dry weight) Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Shear Strength (psf)*field approximation Atterberg Limits
Log SymbolUnconfined Strength (tsf)*field approximationStrength Test Type LATITUDE: 37.53178 LONGITUDE: -122.00733 Elevation in Feet 30 25
20 15
LOG OF BORING 2-B3
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL_SU+QU W/ ELEV BORING GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 1/31/23 Packet Page 626
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark olive, stiff to very stiff,
moist, fine-grained sand
interlayer of sandy lean clay (CL)
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC), dark
olive gray, medium dense, moist, fine- to
medium-grained sand
medium dense, trace fine gravel, sub-rounded
dark olive with dark bluish gray
ELASTIC SILT (MH), bluish gray, soft to stiff, moist,
low plasticity, trace fine-grained sand and decomposed
woody debris
LEAN CLAY (CL), bluish gray, stiff, moist, medium
plasticity, trace fine-grained sand, contains peat
21 19
17 16
8 61
12 2*

0.30*
PP
TV
K. Krisan / MT
Geo-Ex Subsurface
Mud Rotary
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
38600 Cedar Blvd.

Newark, CA
15799.004.000
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (WGS84):
8/22/2022
Approx. 115 ft.

5.0 in.

Approx. 34 ft.

Depth in Feet
25 30
35 40
Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

DESCRIPTION Water Level Blow Count/Foot Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fines Content (% passing #200 sieve) Moisture Content (% dry weight) Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Shear Strength (psf)*field approximation Atterberg Limits
Log SymbolUnconfined Strength (tsf)*field approximationStrength Test Type LATITUDE: 37.53178 LONGITUDE: -122.00733 Elevation in Feet 10 5
0 -5
LOG OF BORING 2-B3
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL_SU+QU W/ ELEV BORING GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 1/31/23 Packet Page 627
LEAN CLAY (CL), bluish gray, stiff, moist, medium
plasticity, trace fine-grained sand, contains peat
sand content increases
FAT CLAY (CH), bluish gray, very stiff, moist, high
plasticity, contains iron-oxide staining
contains gravel
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), dark
yellowish brown, medium dense, moist, fine- to
coarse-grained sand
contains fine gravel, sub-angular to sub-rounded,
coarsening downwards
interlayer of fine gravel, sub-angular to sub-rounded
11 38
59 23

1.75*

3.5*
PP
PP
K. Krisan / MT
Geo-Ex Subsurface
Mud Rotary
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
38600 Cedar Blvd.

Newark, CA
15799.004.000
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (WGS84):
8/22/2022
Approx. 115 ft.

5.0 in.

Approx. 34 ft.

Depth in Feet
45 50
55 60
Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

DESCRIPTION Water Level Blow Count/Foot Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fines Content (% passing #200 sieve) Moisture Content (% dry weight) Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Shear Strength (psf)*field approximation Atterberg Limits
Log SymbolUnconfined Strength (tsf)*field approximationStrength Test Type LATITUDE: 37.53178 LONGITUDE: -122.00733 Elevation in Feet -10
-15
-20
-25
LOG OF BORING 2-B3
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL_SU+QU W/ ELEV BORING GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 1/31/23 Packet Page 628

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND CLAY
(GW-GC), yellowish brown, dense, wet, fine to coarse,
sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel, fine- to
coarse-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), olive gray, very dense,
wet, fine- to coarse-grained sand

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND
(GP-GC), yellowish brown, very dense, moist, fine,
sub-angular to rounded gravel, fine- to coarse-grained
sand
49 35
59 K. Krisan / MT
Geo-Ex Subsurface
Mud Rotary
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
38600 Cedar Blvd.

Newark, CA
15799.004.000
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (WGS84):
8/22/2022
Approx. 115 ft.

5.0 in.

Approx. 34 ft.

Depth in Feet
65 70
75 80
Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

DESCRIPTION Water Level Blow Count/Foot Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fines Content (% passing #200 sieve) Moisture Content (% dry weight) Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Shear Strength (psf)*field approximation Atterberg Limits
Log SymbolUnconfined Strength (tsf)*field approximationStrength Test Type LATITUDE: 37.53178 LONGITUDE: -122.00733 Elevation in Feet -30
-35
-40
-45
LOG OF BORING 2-B3
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL_SU+QU W/ ELEV BORING GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 1/31/23 Packet Page 629

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND SILT
(GP-GM), olive, very dense, moist, fine to coarse,
sub-angular to rounded gravel, fine- to coarse-grained
sand

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL
(SP-SM), olive, very dense, moist, fine to coarse,
sub-angular to rounded gravel, fine- to coarse-grained
sand
67 85
K. Krisan / MT
Geo-Ex Subsurface
Mud Rotary
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
38600 Cedar Blvd.

Newark, CA
15799.004.000
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (WGS84):
8/22/2022
Approx. 115 ft.

5.0 in.

Approx. 34 ft.

Depth in Feet
85 90
95 100
Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

DESCRIPTION Water Level Blow Count/Foot Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fines Content (% passing #200 sieve) Moisture Content (% dry weight) Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Shear Strength (psf)*field approximation Atterberg Limits
Log SymbolUnconfined Strength (tsf)*field approximationStrength Test Type LATITUDE: 37.53178 LONGITUDE: -122.00733 Elevation in Feet -50
-55
-60
-65
LOG OF BORING 2-B3
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL_SU+QU W/ ELEV BORING GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 1/31/23 Packet Page 630

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL
(SP-SM), olive, very dense, moist, fine to coarse,
sub-angular to rounded gravel, fine- to coarse-grained
sand
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), olive gray, moist,
medium plasticity, fine-grained sand
Boring terminated at 115 feet below ground surface.

Groundwater depth not determined due to drilling
method.

K. Krisan / MT
Geo-Ex Subsurface
Mud Rotary
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
38600 Cedar Blvd.

Newark, CA
15799.004.000
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (WGS84):
8/22/2022
Approx. 115 ft.

5.0 in.

Approx. 34 ft.

Depth in Feet
105
110
115
Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

DESCRIPTION Water Level Blow Count/Foot Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Fines Content (% passing #200 sieve) Moisture Content (% dry weight) Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Shear Strength (psf)*field approximation Atterberg Limits
Log SymbolUnconfined Strength (tsf)*field approximationStrength Test Type LATITUDE: 37.53178 LONGITUDE: -122.00733 Elevation in Feet -70
-75
-80
LOG OF BORING 2-B3
LOG - GEOTECHNICAL_SU+QU W/ ELEV BORING GINT LOGS.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 1/31/23 Packet Page 631

PRESENTATION OF SITE

INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Prepared for:

ConeTec Job No:

Project Start Date:

Project End Date:

Report Date:

Prepared by:
www.conetec.com
www.conetecdataservices.com
‹&RQH7HF*URXSRI&RPSDQLHV$OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG Cedar Blvd
ENGEO Incorporated
22-56-24946
18-Oct-2022
18-Oct-2022
19-Oct-2022
ConeTec Inc.
820 Aladdin Avenue, San Leandro, CA 94577
Tel: (510) 357-3677
[email protected]
Packet Page 632
Project Information
Client
Project
ConeTec Project Number
Rig Description
Please refer to the list of attached documents following the text of this report. A test summary, location map, and plots are included. Thank you for the opportunity to work on this project.

ABOUT THIS REPORT
The enclosed report presents the results of the site investigation program conducted by ConeTec Inc. The program consisted of Piezocone Penetration Testing and Pore Pressure Dissipation Testing. Please note that this report, which also includes all accompanying data, are subject to the 3rd Party Disclaimer and Client Disclaimer that follow in the ‘Limitations’ section of this report.

Coordinates
Collection Method
EPSG Number
Cone Penetration Test (CPTu)
Depth Reference Existing ground surface at the time of the investigation Sleeve data offset 0.1 Meters
Consumer Grade GPS
32610 (WGS 84 / UTM 10S)
Calculated Geotechnical Parameters Tables
Additional Information The Normalized Soil Behaviour Type Chart based on Qtn (SBT Qtn) (Robertson, 2009) was used to classify the soil for this project. A detailed set of calculated CPTu parameters have been generated and are provided in Excel format files in the release folder. The CPTu parameter calculations are based on values of corrected tip resistance (qt) sleeve friction (fs) and pore pressure (u2).

Effective stresses are calculated based on unit weights that have been assigned to the individual soil behaviour type zones and the assumed equilibrium pore pressure profile.

Soils were classified as either drained or undrained based on the Qtn Normalized Soil Behaviour Type Chart (Robertson, 2009). Calculations for both drained and undrained parameters were included for materials that classified as silt mixtures (zone 4).

ENGEO Incorporated
Cedar Blvd
22-56-24946
30-ton Truck CPT Rig (C-17)
Packet Page 633
3rd Party Disclaimer
• The “Report” refers to this report titled
• The Report was prepared by ConeTec for
The Report is confidential and may not be distributed to or relied upon by any third parties without the express written consent of ConeTec. Any third parties gaining access to the Report do not acquire any rights as a result of such access. Any use which a third party makes of the Report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. ConeTec accepts no responsibility for loss, damage and/or expense, if any, suffered by any third parties as a result of decisions made, or actions taken or not taken, which are in any way based on, or related to, the Report or any portion(s) thereof.

Client Disclaimer
• ConeTec was retained by
• The “Report” refers to this report titled
• ConeTec was retained to collect and provide the raw data (“Data”) which is included in the Report.

LIMITATIONS
- Site Map
- Cone Penetration Test Summary and Standard Cone Penetration Test Plots - Advanced Cone Penetration Test Plots
- Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Scatter Plots
- Pore Pressure Dissipation Summary and Pore Pressure Dissipation (PPD) Test Plots - Methodology Statements
- Data File Formats
- Description for Methods for Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters ConeTec has collected and reported the Data in accordance with current industry standards. No other warranty, express or implied, with respect to the Data is made by ConeTec. In order to properly understand the Data included in the Report, reference must be made to the documents accompanying and other sources referenced in the Report in their entirety. Other than the Data, the contents of the Report (including any Interpretations) should not be relied upon in any fashion without independent verification and ConeTec is in no way responsible for any loss, damage or expense resulting from the use of, and/or reliance on, such material by any party.

CONTENTS
The following listed below are included in the report:

Cedar Blvd
ENGEO Incorporated
ENGEO Incorporated
Cedar Blvd
Packet Page 634

SITE MAP
ConeTec Job Number:

Client:

Project:

Report Date:

Sounding Location
All sounding locations are approximate

  





 




22-56-24946
ENGEO Incorporated
Cedar Blvd
19-Oct-2022
Packet Page 635
Cone Penetration Test Summary and Standard Cone Penetration Test Plots
Packet Page 636
Job No: 22-56-24946
Client: ENGEO Incorporated
Project: Cedar Blvd
Start Date: 18-Oct-2022
End Date: 18-Oct-2022

CONE PENETRATION TEST SUMMARY
Sounding ID File Name Date Cone
Cone Area
(cm2)
Assumed Phreatic
Surface1
(ft)
Final
Depth
(ft)
Northing2
(m)
Easting2
(m)
Elevation3
(ft)
Refer to
Notation
Number
3-CPT1 22-56-24946_CP01 18-Oct-2022 813:T1500F15U35 15 12.6 50.85 4154279 587730 34 3-CPT2 22-56-24946_CP02 18-Oct-2022 813:T1500F15U35 15 11.5 50.93 4154292 587734 34 3-CPT3 22-56-24946_CP03 18-Oct-2022 813:T1500F15U35 15 15.1 50.93 4154303 587739 33 3-CPT4 22-56-24946_CP04 18-Oct-2022 813:T1500F15U35 15 15.0 32.32 4154280 587711 34 4 3-CPT5 22-56-24946_CP05 18-Oct-2022 813:T1500F15U35 15 14.9 50.85 4154288 587698 34 3-CPT6 22-56-24946_CP06 18-Oct-2022 813:T1500F15U35 15 14.4 50.85 4154293 587682 33 3-CPT7 22-56-24946_CP07 18-Oct-2022 813:T1500F15U35 15 13.8 50.93 4154330 587703 34

1. The assumed phreatic surface was based on pore pressure dissipation tests, unless otherwise noted. Hydrostatic conditions were assumed for the calculated parameters.

2. The coordinates were collected using consumer grade GPS equipment. EPSG number: 32610 (WGS84 / UTM Zone 10S).

3. Elevations are referenced to the ground surface and were acquired from the Google Earth Elevation for the recorded coordinates.

4. The assumed phreatic surface was based on the dynamic pore pressure response.

Sheet 1 of 1
Packet Page 637
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 2.5 5.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 5.0 10.0
Rf (%)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 12:29
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT1
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.500 m / 50.85 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP01.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154279m E: 587730m
Undefined Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sands Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays
Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands

16.5 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out
Packet Page 638
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 2.5 5.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 5.0 10.0
Rf (%)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 11:15
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT2
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.525 m / 50.93 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP02.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154292m E: 587734m
Undefined Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays
Silt Mixtures Clays
Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Sands Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sands
Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays
Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Gravelly Sand to Sand Undefined

17.3 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out
Packet Page 639
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 2.5 5.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 5.0 10.0
Rf (%)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 10:18
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT3
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.525 m / 50.93 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP03.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154303m E: 587739m
Undefined Sand Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands Sand Mixtures Sands Silt Mixtures Sands Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands Sands Sand Mixtures Clays Sands Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays
Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays
Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands Sands

7.3 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out
Packet Page 640
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 2.5 5.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 5.0 10.0
Rf (%)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 15:53
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT4
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 9.850 m / 32.32 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP04.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154280m E: 587711m
Undefined Sands
Silt Mixtures
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays
Clays
Clays Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures Sands
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Sands
Sand Mixtures Sands
Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out
Packet Page 641
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 2.5 5.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 5.0 10.0
Rf (%)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 13:43
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT5
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.500 m / 50.85 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP05.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154288m E: 587698m
Undefined Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Sands Sands Sand Mixtures Sands
Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Clays
Clays Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Sands
Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays
Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Undefined

2.9 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out
Packet Page 642
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 2.5 5.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 5.0 10.0
Rf (%)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 14:55
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT6
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.500 m / 50.85 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP06.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154293m E: 587682m
Undefined Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures
Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands Sands Sand Mixtures Sands Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays
Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays
Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures Sands

13.5 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out
Packet Page 643
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 2.5 5.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 5.0 10.0
Rf (%)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 08:34
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT7
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.525 m / 50.93 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP07.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154330m E: 587703m
Undefined Gravelly Sand to Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays
Clays
Clays Silt Mixtures Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Silt Mixtures Sands
Sand Mixtures
Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays
Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures
Clays
Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Undefined

12.0 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out
Packet Page 644
Advanced Cone Penetration Test Plots
Packet Page 645
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
1 2 3 4
Ic (PKR 2009)

0.0 2.5 5.0
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
20 30 40 50
Phi (deg)
0 20 40 60
N60 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 12:29
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT1
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.500 m / 50.85 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP01.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt: 15.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154279m E: 587730m

16.5 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line N(60) (bpf)
The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Packet Page 646
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
1 2 3 4
Ic (PKR 2009)

0.0 2.5 5.0
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
20 30 40 50
Phi (deg)
0 20 40 60
N60 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 11:15
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT2
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.525 m / 50.93 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP02.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt: 15.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154292m E: 587734m

17.3 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line N(60) (bpf)
The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Packet Page 647
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
1 2 3 4
Ic (PKR 2009)

0.0 2.5 5.0
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
20 30 40 50
Phi (deg)
0 20 40 60
N60 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 10:18
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT3
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.525 m / 50.93 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP03.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt: 15.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154303m E: 587739m

7.3 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line N(60) (bpf)
The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Packet Page 648
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
1 2 3 4
Ic (PKR 2009)

0.0 2.5 5.0
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
20 30 40 50
Phi (deg)
0 20 40 60
N60 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 15:53
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT4
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 9.850 m / 32.32 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP04.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt: 15.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154280m E: 587711m
Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line N(60) (bpf)
The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Packet Page 649
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
1 2 3 4
Ic (PKR 2009)

0.0 2.5 5.0
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
20 30 40 50
Phi (deg)
0 20 40 60
N60 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 13:43
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT5
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.500 m / 50.85 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP05.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt: 15.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154288m E: 587698m

2.9 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line N(60) (bpf)
The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Packet Page 650
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
1 2 3 4
Ic (PKR 2009)

0.0 2.5 5.0
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
20 30 40 50
Phi (deg)
0 20 40 60
N60 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 14:55
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT6
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.500 m / 50.85 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP06.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt: 15.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154293m E: 587682m

13.5 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line N(60) (bpf)
The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Packet Page 651
0 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 100 200 300
u (ft)
1 2 3 4
Ic (PKR 2009)

0.0 2.5 5.0
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
20 30 40 50
Phi (deg)
0 20 40 60
N60 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 08:34
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT7
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 15.525 m / 50.93 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 22-56-24946_CP07.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt: 15.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: UTM 10S N: 4154330m E: 587703m

12.0 Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq) Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line N(60) (bpf)
The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Drill Out Packet Page 652
Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Scatter Plots
Packet Page 653
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 12:29
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT1
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Packet Page 654
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 11:15
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT2
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Packet Page 655
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 10:18
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT3
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Packet Page 656
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 15:53
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT4
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Packet Page 657
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 13:43
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT5
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Packet Page 658
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 14:55
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT6
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Packet Page 659
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 2022-10-18 08:34
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT7
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Packet Page 660
Pore Pressure Dissipation Summary and Pore Pressure Dissipation Plots Packet Page 661
Job No: 22-56-24946
Client: ENGEO Incorporated
Project: Cedar Blvd
Start Date: 18-Oct-2022
End Date: 18-Oct-2022
CPTu PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION SUMMARY
Sounding ID File Name
Cone Area
(cm2)
Duration
(s)
Test
Depth
(ft)
Equilibrium Pore
Pressure Ueq
(ft)
Calculated
Phreatic Surface
(ft)
3-CPT1 22-56-24946_CP01 15 420 29.12 16.5 12.6
3-CPT2 22-56-24946_CP02 15 320 28.79 17.3 11.5
3-CPT3 22-56-24946_CP03 15 560 22.31 7.3 15.1
3-CPT5 22-56-24946_CP05 15 555 17.88 3.0 14.9
3-CPT6 22-56-24946_CP06 15 420 27.89 13.5 14.4
3-CPT7 22-56-24946_CP07 15 405 25.84 12.0 13.8
Sheet 1 of 1
Packet Page 662
0 150 300 450 600
0 10
20 30
40 Time (s)
Pore Pressure (ft)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 10/18/2022 12:29
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT1
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm²
Trace Summary:

Filename: 22-56-24946_CP01.PPF
Depth: 8.875 m / 29.117 ft
Duration: 420.0 s
u Min: 1.0 ft
u Max: 21.1 ft
u Final: 16.4 ft
WT: 3.838 m / 12.592 ft
Ueq: 16.5 ft
Packet Page 663
0 100 200 300 400
0 10
20 30
40 Time (s)
Pore Pressure (ft)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 10/18/2022 11:15
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT2
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm²
Trace Summary:

Filename: 22-56-24946_CP02.PPF
Depth: 8.775 m / 28.789 ft
Duration: 320.0 s
u Min: 3.9 ft
u Max: 21.8 ft
u Final: 17.2 ft
WT: 3.513 m / 11.525 ft
Ueq: 17.3 ft
Packet Page 664
0 150 300 450 600
0 10
20 30
-10
Time (s)
Pore Pressure (ft)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 10/18/2022 10:18
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT3
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm²
Trace Summary:

Filename: 22-56-24946_CP03.PPF
Depth: 6.800 m / 22.309 ft
Duration: 560.0 s
u Min: -18.5 ft
u Max: 7.1 ft
u Final: 7.1 ft
WT: 4.586 m / 15.046 ft
Ueq: 7.3 ft
Packet Page 665
0 150 300 450 600
0 10
20 -10
-20
Time (s)
Pore Pressure (ft)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 10/18/2022 13:43
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT5
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm²
Trace Summary:

Filename: 22-56-24946_CP05.PPF
Depth: 5.450 m / 17.880 ft
Duration: 555.0 s
u Min: -26.6 ft
u Max: 2.9 ft
u Final: 2.8 ft
WT: 4.552 m / 14.934 ft
Ueq: 2.9 ft
Packet Page 666
0 150 300 450 600
0 10
20 30
-10
Time (s)
Pore Pressure (ft)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 10/18/2022 14:55
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT6
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm²
Trace Summary:

Filename: 22-56-24946_CP06.PPF
Depth: 8.500 m / 27.887 ft
Duration: 420.0 s
u Min: -26.5 ft
u Max: 13.5 ft
u Final: 13.4 ft
WT: 4.393 m / 14.413 ft
Ueq: 13.5 ft
Packet Page 667
0 150 300 450 600
0 10
20 30
40 Time (s)
Pore Pressure (ft)
ENGEO
Job No: 22-56-24946
Date: 10/18/2022 08:34
Site: Cedar Blvd, Newark
Sounding: 3-CPT7
Cone: 813:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm²
Trace Summary:

Filename: 22-56-24946_CP07.PPF
Depth: 7.875 m / 25.836 ft
Duration: 405.0 s
u Min: 7.5 ft
u Max: 17.0 ft
u Final: 11.9 ft
WT: 4.217 m / 13.835 ft
Ueq: 12.0 ft
Packet Page 668
Methodology Statements and Data File Formats
Packet Page 669
CONE PENETRATION TEST - eSeries
Cone penetration tests (CPTu) are conducted using an integrated electronic piezocone penetrometer and data acquisition system manufactured by Adara Systems Ltd., a subsidiary of ConeTec.

ConeTec’s piezocone penetrometers are compression type designs in which the tip and friction sleeve load cells are independent and have separate load capacities. The piezocones use strain gauged load cells for tip and sleeve friction and a strain gauged diaphragm type transducer for recording pore pressure.

The piezocones also have a platinum resistive temperature device (RTD) for monitoring the temperature of the sensors, an accelerometer type dual axis inclinometer and two geophone sensors for recording seismic signals. All signals are amplified and measured with minimum sixteen-bit resolution down hole within the cone body, and the signals are sent to the surface using a high bandwidth, error corrected digital interface through a shielded cable.

ConeTec penetrometers are manufactured with various tip, friction and pore pressure capacities in both 10 cm2and 15 cm2tip base area configurations in order to maximize signal resolution for various soil conditions. The specific piezocone used for each test is described in the CPT summary table presented in the first appendix. The 15 cm2 penetrometers do not require friction reducers as they have a diameter larger than the deployment rods. The 10 cm2 piezocones use a friction reducer consisting of a rod adapter extension behind the main cone body with an enlarged cross sectional area (typically 44 millimeters diameter over a length of 32 millimeters with tapered leading and trailing edges) located at a distance of 585 millimeters above the cone tip.

The penetrometers are designed with equal end area friction sleeves, a net end area ratio of 0.8 and cone tips with a 60 degree apex angle.

All ConeTec piezocones can record pore pressure at various locations. Unless otherwise noted, the pore pressure filter is located directly behind the cone tip in the “u2” position (ASTM Type 2). The filter is six millimeters thick, made of porous plastic (polyethylene) having an average pore size of 125 microns (90- 160 microns). The function of the filter is to allow rapid movements of extremely small volumes of water needed to activate the pressure transducer while preventing soil ingress or blockage.

The piezocone penetrometers are manufactured with dimensions, tolerances and sensor characteristics that are in general accordance with the current ASTM D5778 standard. ConeTec’s calibration criteria also meets or exceeds those of the current ASTM D5778 standard. An illustration of the piezocone penetrometer is presented in Figure CPTu.

Packet Page 670
CONE PENETRATION TEST - eSeries
Figure CPTu. Piezocone Penetrometer (15 cm2)
The ConeTec data acquisition systems consist of a Windows based computer and a signal interface box and power supply. The signal interface combines depth increment signals, seismic trigger signals and the downhole digital data. This combined data is then sent to the Windows based computer for collection and presentation. The data is recorded at fixed depth increments using a depth wheel attached to the push cylinders or by using a spring loaded rubber depth wheel that is held against the cone rods. The typical recording interval is 2.5 centimeters; custom recording intervals are possible.

The system displays the CPTu data in real time and records the following parameters to a storage media during penetration:
• Depth
• Uncorrected tip resistance (qc)
• Sleeve friction (fs)
• Dynamic pore pressure (u)
• Additional sensors such as resistivity, passive gamma, ultra violet induced fluorescence, if applicable
Packet Page 671
CONE PENETRATION TEST - eSeries
All testing is performed in accordance to ConeTec’s CPTu operating procedures which are in general accordance with the current ASTM D5778 standard.

Prior to the start of a CPTu sounding a suitable cone is selected, the cone and data acquisition system are powered on, the pore pressure system is saturated with silicone oil and the baseline readings are recorded with the cone hanging freely in a vertical position.

The CPTu is conducted at a steady rate of two centimeters per second, within acceptable tolerances.

Typically one meter length rods with an outer diameter of 1.5 inches (38.1 millimeters) are added to advance the cone to the sounding termination depth. After cone retraction final baselines are recorded.

Additional information pertaining to ConeTec’s cone penetration testing procedures:
• Each filter is saturated in silicone oil under vacuum pressure prior to use • Baseline readings are compared to previous readings
• Soundings are terminated at the client’s target depth or at a depth where an obstruction is encountered, excessive rod flex occurs, excessive inclination occurs, equipment damage is likely to take place, or a dangerous working environment arises • Differences between initial and final baselines are calculated to ensure zero load offsets have not occurred and to ensure compliance with ASTM standards
The interpretation of piezocone data for this report is based on the corrected tip resistance (qt), sleeve friction (fs) and pore water pressure (u). The interpretation of soil type is based on the correlations developed by Robertson et al. (1986) and Robertson (1990, 2009). It should be noted that it is not always possible to accurately identify a soil behavior type based on these parameters. In these situations, experience, judgment and an assessment of other parameters may be used to infer soil behavior type.

The recorded tip resistance (qc) is the total force acting on the piezocone tip divided by its base area. The tip resistance is corrected for pore pressure effects and termed corrected tip resistance (qt) according to the following expression presented in Robertson et al. (1986):
qt = qc + (1-a) • u2
where: qt is the corrected tip resistance
qc is the recorded tip resistance
u2 is the recorded dynamic pore pressure behind the tip (u2 position) a is the Net Area Ratio for the piezocone (0.8 for ConeTec probes) The sleeve friction (fs) is the frictional force on the sleeve divided by its surface area. As all ConeTec piezocones have equal end area friction sleeves, pore pressure corrections to the sleeve data are not required.

The dynamic pore pressure (u) is a measure of the pore pressures generated during cone penetration. To record equilibrium pore pressure, the penetration must be stopped to allow the dynamic pore pressures to stabilize. The rate at which this occurs is predominantly a function of the permeability of the soil and the diameter of the cone.

Packet Page 672
CONE PENETRATION TEST - eSeries
The friction ratio (Rf) is a calculated parameter. It is defined as the ratio of sleeve friction to the tip resistance expressed as a percentage. Generally, saturated cohesive soils have low tip resistance, high friction ratios and generate large excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils have higher tip resistances, lower friction ratios and do not generate significant excess pore water pressure.

A summary of the CPTu soundings along with test details and individual plots are provided in the appendices. A set of files with calculated geotechnical parameters were generated for each sounding based on published correlations and are provided in Excel format in the data release folder. Information regarding the methods used is also included in the data release folder.

For additional information on CPTu interpretations and calculated geotechnical parameters, refer to Robertson et al. (1986), Lunne et al. (1997), Robertson (2009), Mayne (2013, 2014) and Mayne and Peuchen (2012).

References
ASTM D5778-20, 2020, "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils", ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520/D5778-20.

Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J. J. M., 1997, “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice”, Blackie Academic and Professional.

Mayne, P.W., 2013, “Evaluating yield stress of soils from laboratory consolidation and in-situ cone penetration tests”, Sound Geotechnical Research to Practice (Holtz Volume) GSP 230, ASCE, Reston/VA:
406-420. DOI: 10.1061/9780784412770.027.

Mayne, P.W. and Peuchen, J., 2012, “Unit weight trends with cone resistance in soft to firm clays”, Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization 4, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISC-4, Pernambuco), CRC Press, London: 903-910.

Mayne, P.W., 2014, “Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests”, CPT’14 Keynote Address, Las Vegas, NV, May 2014.

Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 1986, “Use of Piezometer Cone Data”, Proceedings of InSitu 86, ASCE Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Robertson, P.K., 1990, “Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 27: 151-158. DOI: 10.1139/T90-014.

Robertson, P.K., 2009, “Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 46: 1337-1355. DOI: 10.1139/T09-065.

Packet Page 673

PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION TEST
The cone penetration test is halted at specific depths to carry out pore pressure dissipation (PPD) tests, shown in Figure PPD-1. For each dissipation test the cone and rods are decoupled from the rig and the data acquisition system measures and records the variation of the pore pressure (u) with time (t).

Figure PPD-1. Pore pressure dissipation test setup
Pore pressure dissipation data can be interpreted to provide estimates of ground water conditions, permeability, consolidation characteristics and soil behavior.

The typical shapes of dissipation curves shown in Figure PPD-2 are very useful in assessing soil type, drainage, in situ pore pressure and soil properties. A flat curve that stabilizes quickly is typical of a freely draining sand. Undrained soils such as clays will typically show positive excess pore pressure and have long dissipation times. Dilative soils will often exhibit dynamic pore pressures below equilibrium that then rise over time. Overconsolidated fine-grained soils will often exhibit an initial dilatory response where there is an initial rise in pore pressure before reaching a peak and dissipating.

Figure PPD-2. Pore pressure dissipation curve examples
Packet Page 674

PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION TEST
In order to interpret the equilibrium pore pressure (ueq) and the apparent phreatic surface, the pore pressure should be monitored until such time as there is no variation in pore pressure with time as shown for each curve in Figure PPD-2.

In fine grained deposits the point at which 100% of the excess pore pressure has dissipated is known as t100. In some cases this can take an excessive amount of time and it may be impractical to take the dissipation to t100. A theoretical analysis of pore pressure dissipations by Teh and Houlsby (1991) showed that a single curve relating degree of dissipation versus theoretical time factor (T*) may be used to calculate the coefficient of consolidation (ch) at various degrees of dissipation resulting in the expression for ch shown below.
ch=
T
*
∙a
2 ∙√I
r
t
Where:

T* is the dimensionless time factor (Table Time Factor) a is the radius of the cone
Ir is the rigidity index
t is the time at the degree of consolidation
Table Time Factor. T* versus degree of dissipation (Teh and Houlsby (1991)) Degree of
Dissipation (%) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
T* (u2) 0.038 0.078 0.142 0.245 0.439 0.804 1.60
The coefficient of consolidation is typically analyzed using the time (t50) corresponding to a degree of dissipation of 50% (u50). In order to determine t50, dissipation tests must be taken to a pressure less than u50. The u50 value is half way between the initial maximum pore pressure and the equilibrium pore pressure value, known as u100. To estimate u50, both the initial maximum pore pressure and u100 must be known or estimated. Other degrees of dissipations may be considered, particularly for extremely long dissipations.

At any specific degree of dissipation the equilibrium pore pressure (u at t100) must be estimated at the depth of interest. The equilibrium value may be determined from one or more sources such as measuring the value directly (u100), estimating it from other dissipations in the same profile, estimating the phreatic surface and assuming hydrostatic conditions, from nearby soundings, from client provided information, from site observations and/or past experience, or from other site instrumentation.

For calculations of ch (Teh and Houlsby (1991)), t50 values are estimated from the corresponding pore pressure dissipation curve and a rigidity index (Ir) is assumed. For curves having an initial dilatory response in which an initial rise in pore pressure occurs before reaching a peak, the relative time from the peak value is used in determining t50. In cases where the time to peak is excessive, t50 values are not calculated.

A summary of the pore pressure dissipation tests and dissipation plots are presented in the relevant appendix.

Packet Page 675

PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION TEST
References
Teh, C.I., and Houlsby, G.T., 1991, “An analytical study of the cone penetration test in clay”, Geotechnique, 41(1): 17-34. DOI: 10.1680/geot.1991.41.1.17.

Packet Page 676
CPT Data Files (COR Extension)
ConeTec CPT data files are stored in ASCII text files that are readable by almost any text editor. ConeTec file names start with the job number (which includes the two digit year number) an underscore as a separating character, followed by two letters based on the type of test and the sounding ID. The last character position is reserved for an identifier letter (such as b, c, d etc) used to uniquely distinguish multiple soundings at the same location. The CPT sounding file has the extension COR. As an example, for job number 21-02-00001 the first CPT sounding will have file name 21-02-00001_CP01.COR The sounding (COR) file consists of the following components:

1. Two lines of header information

2. Data records

3. End of data marker

4. Units information
Header Lines
Line 1: Columns 1-6 may be blank or may indicate the version number of the recording software Columns 7-21 contain the sounding Date and Time (Date is MM:DD:YY) Columns 23-38 contain the sounding Operator
Columns 51-100 contain extended Job Location information Line 2: Columns 1-16 contain the Job Location
Columns 17-32 contain the Cone ID
Columns 33-47 contain the sounding number
Columns 51-100 may contain extended sounding ID information Data Records
The data records contain 4 or more columns of data in floating point format. A comma and spaces separate each data item:

Column 1: Sounding Depth (meters)
Column 2: Tip (qc), recorded in units selected by the operator Column 3: Sleeve (fs), recorded in units selected by the operator Column 4: Dynamic pore pressure (u), recorded in units selected by the operator Column 5: Empty or may contain other requested data such as Gamma, Resistivity or UVIF data End of Data Marker
After the last line of data there is a line containing an ASCII 26 (CTL-Z) character (small rectangular shaped character) followed by a newline (carriage return / line feed). This is used to mark the end of data.

CONE PENETRATION DIGITAL
FILE FORMATS - eSeries
Packet Page 677
Units Information
The last section of the file contains information about the units that were selected for the sounding. A separator bar makes up the first line. The second line contains the type of units used for depth, qc, fs and u. The third line contains the conversion values required for ConeTec’s software to convert the recorded data to an internal set of base units (bar for qc, bar for fs and meters for u). Additional lines intended for internal ConeTec use may appear following the conversion values.

CPT Data Files (XLS Extension)
Excel format files of ConeTec CPT data are also generated from corresponding COR files. The XLS files have the same base file name as the COR file with a -BSC suffix. The information in the file is presented in table format and contains additional information about the sounding such as coordinate information, and tip net area ratio.

The BSCI suffix is given to XLS files which are enhanced versions of the BSC files and include the same data records in addition to inclination data collected for each sounding.

CPT Dissipation Files (XLS Extension)
Pore pressure dissipation files are provided in Excel format and contain each dissipation trace that exceeds a minimum duration (selected during post-processing) formatted column wise within the spreadsheet. The first column (Column A) contains the time in seconds and the second column (Column B) contains the time in minutes. Subsequent columns contain the dissipation trace data. The columns extend to the longest trace of the data set.

Detailed header information is provided at the top of the worksheet. The test depth in meters and feet, the number of points in the trace and the particular units are all presented at the top of each trace column.

CPT Dissipation files have the same naming convention as the CPT sounding files with a “–PPD” suffix.

Data Records
Each file will contain dissipation traces that exceed a minimum duration (selected during post-processing) in a particular column. The dissipation pore pressure values are typically recorded at varying time intervals throughout the trace; rapidly to start and increasing as the duration of the test lengthens. The test depth in meters and feet, the number of points in the trace and the trace number are identified at the top of each trace column.

Cone Type Designations
Cone ID Cone Description Tip Cross
Sect. Area (cm2
)
Tip Capacity
(bar)
Sleeve Area
(cm2)**
Sleeve
Capacity (bar)
Pore Pressure
Capacity (bar)
EC### A15T1500F15U35 15 1500 225 15 35
EC### A15T375F10U35 15 375 225 10 35
EC### A10T1000F10U35 10 1000 150 10 35
### refers to the Cone ID number
**Outer Cylindrical Area
Packet Page 678
Description of Methods for Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters Packet Page 679

CALCULATED CPT GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
A Detailed Description of the Methods Used in
ConeTec’s CPT Geotechnical Parameter
Calculation and Plotting Software
Revision SZW-Rev 14
Revised November 26, 2019
Prepared by Jim Greig, M.A.Sc, P.Eng (BC)
Limitations
The geotechnical parameter output was prepared specifically for the site and project named in the accompanying report subject to objectives, site conditions and criteria provided to ConeTec by the client. The output may not be relied upon by any other party or for any other site without the express written permission of ConeTec Group (ConeTec) or any of its affiliates. For this project, ConeTec has provided site investigation services, prepared factual data reporting and produced geotechnical parameter calculations consistent with current best practices.

No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

To understand the calculations that have been performed and to be able to reproduce the calculated parameters the user is directed to the basic descriptions for the methods in this document and the detailed descriptions and their associated limitations and appropriateness in the technical references cited for each parameter.

Packet Page 680
ConeTec’s Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters as of November 26, 2019 ConeTec’s CPT parameter calculation and plotting routine provides a tabular output of geotechnical parameters based on current published CPT correlations and is subject to change to reflect the current state of practice.

Due to drainage conditions and the basic assumptions and limitations of the correlations, not all geotechnical parameters provided are considered applicable for all soil types. The results are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully examined for consideration in any geotechnical design. Reference to current literature is strongly recommended. ConeTec does not warranty the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters calculated by the program and does not assume liability for any use of the results in any design or review. For verification purposes we recommend that representative hand calculations be done for any parameter that is critical for design purposes. The end user of the parameter output should also be fully aware of the techniques and the limitations of any method used by the program. The purpose of this document is to inform the user as to which methods were used and to direct the end user to the appropriate technical papers and/or publications for further reference.

The geotechnical parameter output was prepared specifically for the site and project named in the accompanying report subject to objectives, site conditions and criteria provided to ConeTec by the client. The output may not be relied upon by any other party or for any other site without the express written permission of ConeTec Group (ConeTec) or any of its affiliates.

The CPT calculations are based on values of tip resistance, sleeve friction and pore pressures considered at each data point or averaged over a user specified layer thickness (e.g. 0.20 m). Note that qt is the tip resistance corrected for pore pressure effects and qc is the recorded tip resistance. The corrected tip resistance (corrected using u2 pore pressure values) is used for all of the calculations. Since all ConeTec cones have equal end area friction sleeves pore pressure corrections to sleeve friction, fs, are not required.

The tip correction is: qt= qc+ (1-a) • u2 (consistent units are implied) where: qtis the corrected tip resistance
qcis the recorded tip resistance
u2is the recorded dynamic pore pressure behind the tip (u2position) a is the Net Area Ratio for the cone (typically 0.80 for ConeTec cones) The total stress calculations are based on soil unit weight values that have been assigned to the Soil Behavior Type (SBT) zones, from a user defined unit weight profile, by using a single uniform value throughout the profile, through unit weight estimation techniques described in various technical papers or from a combination of these methods.

The parameter output files indicate the method(s) used.

Effective vertical overburden stresses are calculated based on a hydrostatic distribution of equilibrium pore pressures below the water table or from a user defined equilibrium pore pressure profile (typically obtained from CPT dissipation tests) or a combination of the two. For over water projects the stress effects of the column of water above the mudline have been taken into account as has the appropriate unit weight of water. How this is done depends on where the instruments were zeroed (i.e. on deck or at the mudline). The parameter output files indicate the method(s) used.

A majority of parameter calculations are derived or driven by results based on material types as determined by the various soil behavior type charts depicted in Figures 1 through 5. The parameter output files indicate the method(s) used.

The Soil Behavior Type classification chart shown in Figure 1 is the classic non-normalized SBT Chart developed at the University of British Columbia and reported in Robertson, Campanella, Gillespie and Greig (1986). Figure 2 shows the original normalized (linear method) SBT chart developed by Robertson (1990). The Bq classification charts shown in Figures 3a and 3b incorporate pore pressures into the SBT classification and are based on the methods described in Robertson (1990). Many of these charts have been summarized in Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997). The Packet Page 681
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 2/15 Jefferies and Davies SBT chart shown in Figure 3c is based on the techniques discussed in Jefferies and Davies (1993) which introduced the concept of the Soil Behavior Type Index parameter, Ic. Please note that the Ic parameter developed by Robertson and Fear (1995) and Robertson and Wride (1998) is similar in concept but uses a slightly different calculation method than that used by Jefferies and Davies (1993) as the latter incorporates pore pressure in their technique through the use of the Bq parameter. The normalized Qtn SBT chart shown in Figure 4 is based on the work by Robertson (2009) utilizing a variable stress ratio exponent, n, for normalization based on a slightly modified redefinition and iterative approach for Ic. The boundary curves drawn on the chart are based on the work described in Robertson (2010).

Figure 5 shows a revised behavior based chart by Robertson (2016) depicting contractive-dilative zones. As the zones represent material behavior rather than soil gradation ConeTec has chosen a set of zone colors that are less likely to be confused with material type colors from previous SBT charts. These colors differ from those used by Dr.

Robertson.

𝑅𝑓 = (
𝑓𝑠
𝑞𝑡) ∙ 100%
Figure 1. Non-Normalized Soil Behavior Type Classification Chart (SBT) Figure 2. Normalized Soil Behavior Type Classification Chart (SBTn) Friction Ratio (%), Rf
Cone Bearing (bar), qt
1000
10 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
100
3 1
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 12
11 2
Zone qt / N Soil Behavior Type
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
sensitive fine grained
organic material
clay
silty clay to clay
clayey silt to silty clay
sandy silt to clayey silt
silty sand to sandy silt
sand to silty sand
sand
gravelly sand to sand
very stiff fine grained *
sand to clayey sand *
* overconsolidated or cemented
2 1
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 4
5 6
1 2
Normalized Cone Resistance q- t vo 
'vo

0.1 1
100
10 1000
1 10
Normalized Friction Ratio
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 fs
q- x 100% t vo
Zone Normalized Soil Behavior Type
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 sensitive fine grained
organic material
clay to silty clay
clayey silt to silty clay
silty sand to sandy silt
clean sands to silty sands
gravelly sand to sand
very stiff sand to clayey sand
very stiff fine grained
Fr =
Packet Page 682
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 3/15 3a
3b
3c
Figure 3. Alternate Soil Behavior Type Charts
Packet Page 683
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 4/15 Figure 4. Normalized Soil Behavior Type Chart using Qtn (SBT Qtn) Figure 5. Modified SBTn Behavior Based Chart
Details regarding the geotechnical parameter calculations are provided in Tables 1a and 1b. The appropriate references cited are listed in Table 2. Non-liquefaction specific parameters are detailed in Table 1a and liquefaction specific parameters are detailed in Table 1b.

Where methods are based on charts or techniques that are too complex to describe in this summary the user should refer to the cited material. Specific limitations for each method are described in the cited material.

Zone Normalized Soil Behavior Type
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 sensitive fine grained
organic material
clay to silty clay
clayey silt to silty clay
silty sand to sandy silt
clean sands to silty sands
gravelly sand to sand
very stiff sand to clayey sand
very stiff fine grained
Packet Page 684
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 5/15 Where the results of a calculation/correlation are deemed ‘invalid’ the value will be represented by the text strings “-9999”, “-9999.0”, the value 0.0 (Zero) or an empty cell. Invalid results will occur because of (and not limited to) one or a combination of:

1. Invalid or undefined CPT data (e.g. drilled out section or data gap).

2. Where the calculation method is inappropriate, for example, drained parameters in a material behaving as an undrained material (and vice versa).

3. Where input values are beyond the range of the referenced charts or specified limitations of the correlation method.

4. Where pre-requisite or intermediate parameter calculations are invalid.

The parameters selected for output from the program are often specific to a particular project. As such, not all of the calculated parameters listed in Table 1 may be included in the output files delivered with this report.

The output files are typically provided in Microsoft Excel XLS or XLSX format. The ConeTec software has several options for output depending on the number or types of calculated parameters desired or requested by the client.

Each output file is named using the original COR file base name followed by a three or four letter indicator of the output set selected (e.g. BSC, TBL, NLI, NL2, IFI, IFI2) and possibly followed by an operator selected suffix identifying the characteristics of the particular calculation run.

Table 1a. CPT Parameter Calculation Methods – Non liquefaction Parameters Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
Depth
Mid Layer Depth
(where calculations are done at each point then Mid Layer Depth = Recorded Depth)
[Depth (Layer Top) + Depth (Layer Bottom)]/ 2.0 CK*
Elevation Elevation of Mid Layer based on sounding collar elevation supplied by client or through site survey Elevation = Collar Elevation - Depth CK* Avg qc Averaged recorded tip value (qc)
=
=
n
i
c q
n
Avgqc
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg qt
Averaged corrected tip (qt) where:
2 ct )1( •−+= uaqq
=
=
n
i
qt
n
Avgqt
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
1 Avg fs Averaged sleeve friction (fs)
=
=
n
i
fs
n
Avgfs
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg Rf
Averaged friction ratio (Rf) where friction ratio is defined as:
qt
fs Rf 100%•=
Avgqt
Avgfs AvgRf =100% 
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg u Averaged dynamic pore pressure (u)
=
=
n
i
ui n
Avgu
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Packet Page 685
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 6/15 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
Avg Res Averaged Resistivity (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module)
=
=
n
i
i yResistivit n
sAvgR
1 1
e
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg UVIF
Averaged UVIF ultra-violet induced fluorescence (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module)
=
=
n
i
UVIFi n
AvgUVIF
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg Temp Averaged Temperature (this data is not always available since it requires specialized calibrations)
=
=
n
i
i Temperature
n
AvgTemp
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg Gamma Averaged Gamma Counts (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module) =
=
n
i
Gammai n
AvgGamma
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
SBT Soil Behavior Type as defined by Robertson et al 1986 (often referred to as Robertson and Campanella, 1986) See Figure 1 1, 5 SBTn Normalized Soil Behavior Type as defined by Robertson 1990 (linear normalization) See Figure 2 2, 5
SBT-Bq Non-normalized Soil Behavior type based on the Bq parameter See Figure 3 1, 2, 5 SBT-Bqn Normalized Soil Behavior based on the Bq parameter See Figure 3 2, 5 SBT-JandD Soil Behavior Type as defined by Jeffries and Davies See Figure 3 7 SBT Qtn Soil Behavior Type as defined by Robertson (2009) using a variable stress ratio exponent for normalization based on Ic See Figure 4 15
Modified SBTn
(contractive
/dilative)
Modified SBTn chart as defined by Robertson (2016) indicating zones of contractive/dilative behavior. See Figure 5 30 Unit Wt.

Unit Weight of soil determined from one of the following user selectable options:
1) uniform value
2) value assigned to each SBT zone
3) value assigned to each SBTn zone
4) value assigned to SBTn zone as determined from Robertson and
Wride (1998) based on qc1n
5) values assigned to SBT Qtn zones
6) Mayne fs (sleeve friction) method
7) Robertson 2010 method
8) user supplied unit weight profile
The last option may co-exist with any of the other options See references
3, 5, 15,
21, 24,
29 Packet Page 686
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 7/15 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
TStress
v
Total vertical overburden stress at Mid Layer Depth
A layer is defined as the averaging interval specified by the user where depths are reported at their respective mid-layer depth.

For data calculated at each point layers are defined using the recorded depth as the mid-point of the layer. Thus, a layer starts half-way between the previous depth and the current depth unless this is the first point in which case the layer start is at zero depth. The layer bottom is half-way from the current depth to the next depth unless it is the last data point.

Defining layers affects how stresses are calculated since the unit weight attributed to a data point is used throughout the entire layer. This means that to calculate the stresses the total stress at the top and bottom of a layer are required. The stress at mid layer is determined by adding the incremental stress from the layer top to the mid-layer depth. The stress at the layer bottom becomes the stress at the top of the subsequent layer. Stresses are NOT calculated from mid-point to mid-point.

For over-water work the total stress due to the column of water above the mud line is taken into account where appropriate. hi
n
i
i
TStress ==
1 
where I is layer unit weight
hi is layer thickness
CK*
EStress
v
’ Effective vertical overburden stress at mid-layer depth v’ = v - ueq CK* Equil u
ueq or u0
Equilibrium pore pressure determined from one of the following user selectable options:
1) hydrostatic below water table
2) user supplied profile
3) combination of those above
When a user supplied profile is used/provided a linear
interpolation is performed between equilibrium pore pressures defined at specific depths. If the profile values start below the water table then a linear transition from zero pressure at the water table to the first defined pointed is used.

Equilibrium pore pressures may come from dissipation tests, adjacent piezometers or other sources. Occasionally, an extra equilibrium point (“assumed value”) will be provided in the profile that does not come from a recorded value to smooth out any abrupt changes or to deal with material interfaces. These “assumed” values will be indicated on our plots and in tabular summaries.

For hydrostatic option:
( ) eq w − DDu wt
=  
where ueq is equilibrium pore pressure
w is unit weight of water
D is the current depth
Dwt is the depth to the water table
CK*
K0 Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0 Ko = (1 – sinΦ’) OCR sinΦ’ 17 Cn
Overburden stress correction factor
used for (N1)60 and older CPT parameters
Cn = (Pa/v’)0.5
where 0.0 < Cn < 2.0 (user adjustable, typically 1.7)
Pa is atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)
12 Cq Overburden stress normalizing factor
Cq = 1.8 / (0.8 + (v’/Pa))
where 0.0 < Cq < 2.0 (user adjustable)
Pa is atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)
3, 12
Packet Page 687
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 8/15 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
N60
SPT N value at 60% energy calculated from qt/N ratios assigned to each SBT zone. This method has abrupt N value changes at zone boundaries.

See Figure 1 5
(N1)60 SPT N60 value corrected for overburden pressure (N1)60 = Cn • N60 4 N60Ic
SPT N60 values based on the Ic parameter [as defined by Roberston and Wride 1998 (5), or by Robertson 2009 (15)]. (qt/Pa)/ N60 = 8.5 (1 – Ic/4.6)
(qt/Pa)/ N60 = 10 (1.1268 – 0.2817Ic)
Pa being atmospheric pressure
5 15, 31
(N1)60Ic SPT N60 value corrected for overburden pressure (using N60 Ic).

User has 3 options.
1) (N1)60Ic= Cn • (N60 Ic)
2) qc1n/ (N1)60Ic = 8.5 (1 – Ic/4.6)
3) (Qtn)/ (N1)60Ic = 10 (1.1268 – 0.2817Ic)
4 5
15, 31
Su
or Su (Nkt)
Undrained shear strength based on qt
Su factor Nkt is user selectable
N
qt Su
kt
− v
=
1, 5
Su
or Su (Ndu)
Undrained shear strength based on pore pressure
Su factor NΔu is user selectable
N
uu
Su
u
eq

−
=
2 1, 5
Dr
Relative Density determined from one of the following user selectable options:
a) Ticino Sand
b) Hokksund Sand
c) Schmertmann (1978)
d) Jamiolkowski (1985) - All Sands
e) Jamiolkowski et al (2003) (various compressibilities, Ko) See reference (methods a through d)
Jamiolkowski et al (2003) reference
5 14
PHI

Friction Angle determined from one of the following user selectable options (methods a through d are for sands and method e is for silts and clays):
a) Campanella and Robertson
b) Durgunoglu and Mitchel
c) Janbu
d) Kulhawy and Mayne
e) NTH method (clays and silts)
See appropriate reference
5 5
5 11
23 Delta U/qt Differential pore pressure ratio
(older parameter used before Bq was established)
qt
u
=
where:
 −= uuu eq
and u = dynamic pore pressure
ueq = equilibrium pore pressure
CK*
Bq Pore pressure parameter
qt  v
u Bq
−

=
 −= uuu eq :where
and u = dynamic pore pressure
ueq = equilibrium pore pressure
1, 2, 5
Net qt
or qtNet
Net tip resistance
(used in many subsequent correlations)
qt −v
CK*
qe
Effective tip resistance
(using the dynamic pore pressure u2 and not equilibrium pore pressure)
2 qt −u
CK*
Packet Page 688
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 9/15 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
qeNorm Normalized effective tip resistance

'
2 v
qt −u
CK*
Qt
or Norm: Qt
Normalized qt for Soil Behavior Type classification as defined by Robertson (1990) using a linear stress normalization. Note this is different from Qtn. 

'
v
qt v Qt −
=
2, 5
Fr
or Norm: Fr
Normalized Friction Ratio for Soil Behavior Type classification as defined by Robertson (1990)
qt  v
fs Fr
−
= %100  2, 5
Q(1-Bq) Q(1-Bq) grouping as suggested by Jefferies and Davies for their classification chart and the establishment of their Ic parameter Q  − Bq)1(
where Bq is defined as above and Q is the same as
the normalized tip resistance, Qt, defined above
6, 7
qc1
Normalized tip resistance, qc1, using a fixed stress ratio exponent, n
(this method has stress units)
qc1 = qt • (Pa/v’)0.5
where: Pa = atmospheric pressure 21
qc1 (0.5) Normalized tip resistance, qc1, using a fixed stress ratio exponent, n
(this method is unit-less)
qc1 (0.5)= (qt/Pa) • (Pa/v’)0.5
where: Pa = atmospheric pressure 5
qc1 (Cn)
Normalized tip resistance, qc1, based on Cn
(this method has stress units) qc1(Cn) = Cn * qt 5, 12
qc1 (Cq) Normalized tip resistance, qc1, based on Cq
(this method has stress units) qc1 (Cq)= Cq * qt (some papers use qc) 5, 12 qc1n
normalized tip resistance, qc1n, using a variable stress ratio exponent, n (where n=0.0, 0.70, 1.0)
(this method is unit-less)
qc1n = (qt / Pa)(Pa/v’)n
where: Pa = atm. Pressure and n varies as
described below
3, 5
Ic
or
Ic (RW1998)
Soil Behavior Type Index as defined by Robertson and Fear (1995) and Robertson and Wride (1998) for estimating grain size characteristics and providing smooth gradational changes across the SBTn chart
Ic = [(3.47 – log10Q)2 + (log10 Fr + 1.22)2]

0.5 Where:
n
v
a
a
v P
P
qt Q 














 −
= ' 

Or
n
v
a
a
nc
P
P
qt qQ 















== 1 ' 
depending on the iteration in determining Ic
And Fr is in percent
Pa = atmospheric pressure
n varies between 0.5, 0.70 and 1.0 and is selected
in an iterative manner based on the resulting Ic
3, 5, 21
Ic (PKR 2009)
Soil Behavior Type Index, Ic (PKR 2009) based on a variable stress ratio exponent n, which itself is based on Ic (PKR 2009).

An iterative calculation is required to determine Ic (PKR 2009) and its corresponding n (PKR 2009).

Ic (PKR 2009) =
[(3.47 – log10Qtn)
2 + (1.22 + log10Fr)2
]

0.5 15
Packet Page 689
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 10/15 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
n (PKR 2009)
Stress ratio exponent n, based on Ic (PKR 2009).

An iterative calculation is required to determine n (PKR 2009) and its corresponding Ic (PKR 2009).
n (PKR 2009) = 0.381 (Ic) + 0.05 (v’/Pa) – 0.15 15
Qtn (PKR 2009)
Normalized tip resistance using a variable stress ratio exponent based on Ic (PKR 2009) and n (PKR 2009). An iterative
calculation is required to determine Qtn (PKR 2009).

Qtn = [(qt - v)/Pa](Pa/v’)
n
where Pa = atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)
n = stress ratio exponent described above
15 FC Apparent fines content (%)
FC=1.75(Ic3.25) - 3.7
FC=100 for Ic > 3.5
FC=0 for Ic < 1.26
FC = 5% if 1.64 < Ic < 2.6 AND Fr<0.5
3 Ic Zone
This parameter is the Soil Behavior Type zone based on the Ic parameter (valid for zones 2 through 7 on SBTn or SBT Qtn charts)
Ic < 1.31 Zone = 7

1.31 < Ic < 2.05 Zone = 6

2.05 < Ic < 2.60 Zone = 5

2.60 < Ic < 2.95 Zone = 4

2.95 < Ic < 3.60 Zone = 3
Ic > 3.60 Zone = 2
3 State Param
or State
Parameter
or ψ
The state parameter index, ψ, is defined as the difference between the current void ratio, e, and the critical void ratio, ec.

Positive ψ - contractive soil
Negative ψ - dilative soil
This is based on the work by Been and Jefferies (1985) and Plewes, Davies and Jefferies (1992)
- vertical effective stress is used rather than a mean normal stress
See reference 6, 8
Yield Stress
σp’
Yield stress is calculated using the following methods
a) General method
b) 1st order approximation using qtNet (clays)
c) 1st order approximation using Δu2 (clays)
d) 1st order approximation using qe (clays)
All stresses in kPa
a) σp’= 0.33·(qt – σv)
m’ (σatm/100)1-m’

where
25 .2/(1 65)
.0 28 1'
c
I
m
+
−=
b) σp’ = 0.33·(qt – σv)
c) σp’ = 0.54· (Δu2) Δu2 = u2 – u0
d) σp’ = 0.60 · (qt – u2)

19 20
20 20
OCR
OCR(JS1978)
OCR(Mayne2014)
OCR (qtNet)
OCR (deltaU)
OCR (qe)
OCR (Vs)
OCR (PKR2015)
Over Consolidation Ratio based on
a) Schmertmann (1978) method involving a plot
plot of Su/v’ /( Su/v’)NC and OCR
b) based on Yield stresses described above
c) approximate version based on qtNet
d) approximate version based on Δu
e) approximate version based on effective tip, qe
f) approximate version based on shear wave velocity, Vs g) based on Qt
a) requires a user defined value for NC Su/Pc’ ratio
b through f) based on yield stresses
g) OCR = 0.25·(Qt)

1.25 9
19 20
20 20
18 32
Packet Page 690
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 11/15 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
Es/qt Intermediate parameter for calculating Young’s Modulus, E, in sands. It is the Y axis of the reference chart. Based on Figure 5.59 in the reference 5 Es
Young’s
Modulus E
Young’s Modulus based on the work done in Italy. There are three types of sands considered in this technique. The user selects the appropriate type for the site from:
a) OC Sands
b) Aged NC Sands
c) Recent NC Sands
Each sand type has a family of curves that depend on mean normal stress. The program calculates mean normal stress and linearly interpolates between the two extremes provided in the Es/qt chart. Es is evaluated for an axial strain of 0.1%.

Mean normal stress is evaluated from:
( )
3 '''
'
3 1

m  hhv ++=
where v’= vertical effective stress
h’= horizontal effective stress
and h = Ko • v
’
with Ko assumed to be 0.5
5 Delta U/TStress Differential pore pressure ratio with respect to total stress v
u


=
where:
 −= uuu eq
CK*
Delta U/Estress,
P Value,
Excess Pore
Pressure Ratio
Differential pore pressure ratio with respect to effective stress.

Key parameter (P, Normalized Pore Pressure Parameter, Excess Pore Pressure Ratio) in the Winckler et. al. static liquefaction method.
'
v
u


=
where:
 −= uuu eq
25, 25a,
CK*
Su/EStress Undrained shear strength ratio with respect to vertical effective overburden stress using the Su (Nkt) method
= Su (Nkt) / v’
CK*
Gmax Gmax determined from SCPT shear wave velocities (not estimated values)
Gmax = ρVs
2 where ρ is the mass density of the soil determined
from the estimated unit weights at each test depth
27 qtNet/Gmax
Net tip resistance ratio with respect to the small strain modulus Gmax determined from SCPT shear wave velocities (not
estimated values)
= (qt - v) / Gmax
where Gmax = ρVs
2 and ρ is the mass density of the soil determined
from the estimated unit weights at each test depth
15, 28,
30 *CK – common knowledge
Packet Page 691
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 12/15 Table 1b. CPT Parameter Calculation Methods – Liquefaction Parameters Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
KSPT Equivalent clean sand factor for (N1)60 KSPT = 1 + ((0.75/30) • (FC – 5)) 10 KCPT
or
KC (RW1998)
Equivalent clean sand correction for qc1N
Kcpt = 1.0 for Ic  1.64
Kcpt = f(Ic) for Ic > 1.64 (see reference)
Kc = – 0.403 Ic
4 + 5.581 Ic3 – 21.63Ic2 + 33.75 Ic – 17.88
3, 10
Kc (PKR 2010) Clean sand equivalent factor to be applied to Qtn Kc = 1.0 for Ic ≤ 1.64
Kc = – 0.403 Ic
4 + 5.581 Ic3 – 21.63Ic2 + 33.75 Ic – 17.88
for Ic > 1.64
16 (N1)60csIc Clean sand equivalent SPT (N1)60Ic. User has 3 options. 1) (N1)60csIc = α + β((N1)60Ic)
2) (N1)60csIc = KSPT * ((N1)60Ic)
3) (qc1ncs)/ (N1)60csIc = 8.5 (1 – Ic/4.6)
FC ≤ 5%: α = 0, β=1.0
FC ≥ 35% α = 5.0, β=1.2
5% < FC < 35% α = exp[1.76 – (190/FC2)]
β = [0.99 + (FC1.5/1000)]
10 10
5 qc1ncs Clean sand equivalent qc1n qc1ncs = qc1n • Kcpt 3 Qtn,cs (PKR
2010)
Clean sand equivalent for Qtn described above
- Qtn being the normalized tip resistance based on a variable stress exponent as defined by Robertson (2009)
Qtn,cs = Qtn · Kc (PKR 2016) 16
Su(Liq)/ESv Liquefied shear strength ratio as defined by Olson and Stark Su(Liq) = 0.03 + 0.0143(qc1)
v’
Note: v’ and sv’ are synonymous
13 Su(Liq)/ESv
(PKR 2010) Liquefied shear strength ratio as defined by Robertson (2010) Su(Liq)
v’
Based on a function involving Qtn,cs
16 Su (Liq)
(PKR 2010)
Liquefied shear strength derived from the liquefied shear strength ratio and effective overburden stress 16
Cont/Dilat Tip Contractive / Dilative qc1 Boundary based on (N1)60 (v’)boundary = 9.58 x 10-4[(N1)60]

4.79 qc1 is calculated from specified qt(MPa)/N ratio
13 CRR Cyclic Resistance Ratio (for Magnitude 7.5)
qc1ncs < 50:

CRR7.5 = 0.833 [qc1ncs/1000] + 0.05
50  qc1ncs < 160:

CRR7.5 = 93 [qc1ncs/1000]3 + 0.08
10 Kg Small strain Stiffness Ratio Factor, Kg [Gmax/qt]/[qc1n-m] m = empirical exponent, typically 0.75 26
Packet Page 692
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 13/15 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
SP Distance State Parameter Distance, Winckler static liquefaction method Perpendicular distance on Qtn chart from plotted point to state parameter Ψ = -0.05 curve
25 URS NP Fr Normalized friction ratio point on Ψ = -0.05 curve used in SP Distance calculation 25
URS NP Qtn Normalized tip resistance (Qtn) point on Ψ = -0.05 curve used in SP Distance calculation 25
Packet Page 693
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 14/15 Table 2. References
No. Reference
1 Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 1986, “Use of Piezometer Cone Data”, Proceedings of InSitu 86, ASCE Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia. 2 Robertson, P.K., 1990, “Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 27. This includes the discussions and replies.
3 Robertson, P.K. and Wride (Fear), C.E., 1998, “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35: 442-459. 4 Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 1997, “Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation Based on SPT and CPT”, NCEER Workshop Paper, January 22, 1997.
5 Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J. J. M., 1997, “ Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice,” Blackie Academic and Professional.
6 Plewes, H.D., Davies, M.P. and Jefferies, M.G., 1992, “CPT Based Screening Procedure for Evaluating Liquefaction Susceptibility”, 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, Ontario, October 1992.
7 Jefferies, M.G. and Davies, M.P., 1993, “Use of CPTu to Estimate equivalent N60”, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 16(4): 458-467.
8 Been, K. and Jefferies, M.P., 1985, “A state parameter for sands”, Geotechnique, 35(2), 99-112. 9 Schmertmann, 1978, “Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test Performance and Design”, Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-TS-78-209, U.S. Department of Transportation. 10 Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Salt Lake City, 1996, chaired by Leslie Youd.
11 Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W., 1990, “Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design, Report No. EL-6800”, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, August 1990, 306 p. 12 Olson, S.M. and Stark, T.D., 2002, “Liquefied strength ratio from liquefied flow failure case histories”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: 951-966.
13 Olson, Scott M. and Stark, Timothy D., 2003, “Yield Strength Ratio and Liquefaction Analysis of Slopes and Embankments”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, August 2003. 14 Jamiolkowski, M.B., Lo Presti, D.C.F. and Manassero, M., 2003, “Evaluation of Relative Density and Shear Strength of Sands from CPT and DMT”, Soil Behaviour and Soft Ground Construction, ASCE, GSP N0. 119, 201-238.
15 Robertson, P.K., 2009, “Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46: 1337-1355.
16 Robertson, P.K., 2010, “Evaluation of Flow Liquefaction and Liquefied Strength Using the Cone Penetration Test”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, June 2010. 17 Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1982, "Ko-OCR Relationships in Soil", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, GT6, pp. 851-872.
18 Mayne, P.W., Robertson P.K. and Lunne T., 1998, “Clay stress history evaluated from seismic piezocone tests”, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Site Characterization – ISC ’98, Atlanta Georgia, Volume 2, 1113-1118.

Packet Page 694
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 14 Page 15/15 No. Reference
19 Mayne, P.W., 2014, “Generalized CPT Method for Evaluating Yield Stress in Soils”, Geocharacterization for Modeling and Sustainability (GSP 235: Proc. GeoCongress 2014, Atlanta, GA), ASCE, Reston, Virginia:
1336-1346.
20 Mayne, P.W., 2015, “Geocharacterization by In-Situ Testing”, Continuing Education Course, Vancouver, BC, January 6-8, 2015.
21 Robertson, P.K. and Fear, C.E., 1995, “Liquefaction of sands and its evaluation”, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Keynote Lecture IS Tokyo ‘95, Tokyo Japan, 1995.
22 Mayne, P.W., Peuchen, J. and Boumeester, D., 2010, “Soil unit weight estimation from CPTs”, Proceeding of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT ’10), Vol 2, Huntington Beach, California; Omnipress: 169-176.
23 Mayne, P.W., 2007, “NCHRP Synthesis 368 on Cone Penetration Test”, Transportation Research Board, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 118 pages.
24 Mayne, P.W., 2014, “Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests.”, Key note address #2, proceedings, 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT’14, Las Vegas), ISSMGE Technical Committee TC102.
25 Winckler, Christina, Davidson, Richard, Yenne, Lisa, Pilz, Jorgen, 2014, “CPTu-Based State Characterization of Tailings Liquefaction Susceptibility”, Tailings and Mine Waste, 2014. 25a
Winckler, Christina, Davidson, Richard, Yenne, Lisa, Pilz, Jorgen, 2014, “CPTu-Based State Characterization of Tailings Liquefaction Susceptibility”, Powerpoint presentation, Tailings and Mine Waste, 2014. 26 Schneider, J.A. and Moss, R.E.S., 2011, “Linking cyclic stress and cyclic strain based methods for assessment of cyclic liquefaction triggering in sands”, Geotechnique Letters 1, 31-36. 27 Rice, A., 1984, “The Seismic Cone Penetrometer”, M.A.Sc. thesis submitted to the University of British Columbia, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 28 Gillespie, D.G., 1990, “Evaluating Shear Wave Velocity and Pore Pressure Data from the Seismic Cone Penetration Test”, Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of British Columbia, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
29 Robertson, P.K and Cabal, K.L., 2010, “Estimating soil unit weight from CPT”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT ’10), Huntington Beach, California. 30 Robertson, P.K., 2016, “Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system – an update”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, July 2016.
31 Robertson, P.K., 2012, “Interpretation of in-situ tests – some insights”, Mitchell Lecture, ISC’4, Recife, Brazil. 32 Robertson, P.K., Cabal, K.L. 2015, “Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering”, 6th Edition.

Packet Page 695
TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Number
2-TP1
Project Name: 38600 Cedar Boulevard Lat.: 37.53184°
Project Location: Newark, CA Long.: -122.00824°
Project No.: 15799.004.000 Logged By: K. Krisan Contr.: Central Pacific Services Equipment: Backhoe
Date Started: 09/08/22 Date Completed: 09/08/22 Total Depth: 11.5 feet Groundwater: N/A Depth (ft) Soil/Rock Descriptions
0 – 2
3” AC, 6” AB
Lean CLAY with sand (CL), black mottled with light gray, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained [FILL]
Pocket Penetrometer = 2.5 tsf
2 – 7
Lean CLAY (CL), black, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, finegrained [Qal] at 5 feet - greenish gray mottled with yellowish brown, blocky, iron-oxide staining
Pocket Penetrometer = 3 tsf
7 – 9.5
Clayey SAND (SC), dark gray, medium dense, moist, fine- to coarse-grained, angular to subrounded
at 8 feet – with gravel, fine, sub-angular to rounded

9.5 – 11.5 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), olive gray, stiff, moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained
Packet Page 696
TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Number
2-TP2
Project Name: 38600 Cedar Boulevard Lat.: 37.53230°
Project Location: Newark, CA Long.: -122.00781°
Project No.: 15799.004.000 Logged By: K. Krisan Contr.: Central Pacific Services Equipment: Backhoe
Date Started: 09/08/22 Date Completed: 09/08/22 Total Depth: 10 feet Groundwater: N/A Depth (ft) Soil/Rock Descriptions
0 – 2.5
Poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (GP), brown, medium dense, moist, fine to coarse, sub-angular to rounded, sand is fine- to coarse-grained [FILL]

2.5 – 7.5
Lean CLAY with sand (CL), very dark brown mottled with dark brown, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained [Qal] at 5.5 feet - olive brown, blocky
Pocket Penetrometer = 4 tsf

7.5 – 10
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), olive, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained
Pocket Penetrometer = 2.5 tsf
Packet Page 697
TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Number
2-TP3
Project Name: 38600 Cedar Boulevard Lat.: 37.53205°
Project Location: Newark, CA Long.: -122.00728°
Project No.: 15799.004.000 Logged By: K. Krisan Contr.: Central Pacific Services Equipment: Backhoe
Date Started: 09/08/22 Date Completed: 09/08/22 Total Depth: 5 feet Groundwater: N/A Depth (ft) Soil/Rock Descriptions
0 – 2
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with sand (GP), brown, medium dense, moist, fine to coarse, angular to rounded, sand is fine- to coarsegrained [FILL] 2 – 4
Gravelly Lean CLAY (CL), yellowish brown mottled with reddish yellow, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, fine to coarse gravel, angular to rounded [FILL]
4 – 8
Lean CLAY with sand (CL), yellowish brown mottled with dark brown and yellowish red, stiff to very stiff, medium plasticity, finegrained, intermixed with black clay, contains roots, bricks, and concrete [FILL]
Pocket Penetrometer = 2.5 tsf
8 – 9
Lean CLAY (CL), dark bluish gray, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained, blocky [Qal]
Pocket Penetrometer = 3.75 tsf
Packet Page 698
TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Number
2-TP4
Project Name: 38600 Cedar Boulevard Lat.: 37.53170°
Project Location: Newark, CA Long.: -122.00712°
Project No.: 15799.004.000 Logged By: K. Krisan Contr.: Central Pacific Services Equipment: Backhoe
Date Started: 09/08/22 Date Completed: 09/08/22 Total Depth: 5 feet Groundwater: N/A Depth (ft) Soil/Rock Descriptions
0 – 3.5
12” AB
Lean CLAY with sand (CL), yellowish brown mottled with brown, hard, moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained [FILL]
Pocket Penetrometer >4.5 tsf

3.5 – 5.5
Lean CLAY with sand (CL), brown, hard, slightly moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained, blocky [Qal]
Pocket Penetrometer = 4.25 tsf

5.5 – 7
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), olive brown, hard, moist, medium
plasticity, fine-grained, blocky
Packet Page 699
TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Number
2-TP5
Project Name: 38600 Cedar Boulevard Lat.: 37.53204°
Project Location: Newark, CA Long.: -122.00762°
Project No.: 15799.004.000 Logged By: K. Krisan Contr.: Central Pacific Services Equipment: Backhoe
Date Started: 09/08/22 Date Completed: 09/08/22 Total Depth: 5 feet Groundwater: N/A Depth (ft) Soil/Rock Descriptions
0 – 6
6” AC, 3” AB
Lean CLAY (CL), yellowish brown, hard, moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained, mottled with gray, pocket penetrometer > 4.5 tsf [FILL]
at 2.5 feet – dark brown mottled with olive brown, contains gravel, fine, pieces of asphaltic debris, pocket penetrometer = 0.5 tsf at 4 feet – bluish gray mottled with greenish gray and dark gray 6 – 7
Lean CLAY (CL), dark bluish gray, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, contains trace sand, fine-grained [Qal]
Pocket Penetrometer = 2 tsf
Packet Page 700
TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Number
2-TP6
Project Name: 38600 Cedar Boulevard Lat.: 37.53147°
Project Location: Newark, CA Long.: -122.00774°
Project No.: 15799.004.000 Logged By: K. Krisan Contr.: Central Pacific Services Equipment: Backhoe
Date Started: 09/08/22 Date Completed: 09/08/22 Total Depth: 5 feet Groundwater: N/A Depth (ft) Soil/Rock Descriptions
0 – 2
3” AC, 6” AB
Lean CLAY with sand (CL), black, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained [Qal]
Pocket Penetrometer = 4 tsf
2 – 3.5
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), dark gray, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, sharp contact with overlying unit
Pocket Penetrometer = 2.5 tsf

3.5 – 5
Lean CLAY (CL), olive brown, very stiff, moist, medium plasticity, fine-grained
Pocket Penetrometer = 4 tsf
Packet Page 701

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST DATA
Packet Page 702
===
===
===
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/15/2022
TESTED BY: K. Nguyen
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: Waymark Development
PROJECT NAME: 38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
PROJECT NO: 15799.400.000 PH002
PROJECT LOCATION: Newark, California

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 604.7 g
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30 D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 19.2
DEPTH (ft):

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:
10 2-B1@10
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

MEDIUM FINE

19.2 COARSE FINE COARSE
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 ½ in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#140
#200
Packet Page 703
===
===
===
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/15/2022
TESTED BY: K. Nguyen
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: Waymark Development
PROJECT NAME: 38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
PROJECT NO: 15799.400.000 PH002
PROJECT LOCATION: Newark, California

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 880.2 g
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30 D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 16.8
DEPTH (ft):

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:
20 2-B1@20
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

MEDIUM FINE

16.8 COARSE FINE COARSE
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 ½ in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#140
#200
Packet Page 704
===
===
===

MEDIUM FINE

27.0 COARSE FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL = 16
SAMPLE ID:
11 2-B2@11
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 27.0
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 254.5 g
* (no specification provided)
LL = 17 PI = 1

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/15/2022
TESTED BY: K. Nguyen
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: Waymark Development
PROJECT NAME: 38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
PROJECT NO: 15799.400.000 PH002
PROJECT LOCATION: Newark, California
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 ½ in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#140
#200
Packet Page 705
===
===
===
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/16/2022
TESTED BY: K. Nguyen
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: Waymark Development
PROJECT NAME: 38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
PROJECT NO: 15799.400.000 PH002
PROJECT LOCATION: Newark, California

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 357.9 g
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30 D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 29.0
DEPTH (ft):

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

21.5 [email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

MEDIUM FINE

29.0 COARSE FINE COARSE
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 ½ in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#140
#200
Packet Page 706
===
===
===
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/16/2022
TESTED BY: K. Nguyen
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: Waymark Development
PROJECT NAME: 38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
PROJECT NO: 15799.400.000 PH002
PROJECT LOCATION: Newark, California

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 491.6 g
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30 D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 91.0
DEPTH (ft):

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

5.5 [email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

MEDIUM FINE

91.0 COARSE FINE COARSE
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 ½ in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#140
#200
Packet Page 707
===
===
===
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/15/2022
TESTED BY: K. Nguyen
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: Waymark Development
PROJECT NAME: 38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
PROJECT NO: 15799.400.000 PH002
PROJECT LOCATION: Newark, California

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 371.4 g
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30 D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 60.5
DEPTH (ft):

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

20.5 [email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

MEDIUM FINE

60.5 COARSE FINE COARSE
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 ½ in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#140
#200
Packet Page 708
===
===
===

MEDIUM FINE

11.6 COARSE FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

25.5 [email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 11.6
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 473.2 g
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/15/2022
TESTED BY: K. Nguyen
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: Waymark Development
PROJECT NAME: 38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
PROJECT NO: 15799.400.000 PH002
PROJECT LOCATION: Newark, California
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 ½ in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#140
#200
Packet Page 709
===
===
===
DEPTH (ft):

MEDIUM FINE

42.5 31.5
SAMPLE ID:
3 2-B1@3

0.4 25.6
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

COARSE FINE COARSE
ASTM D422

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200

0.0296 mm.

0.0193 mm.

0.0114 mm.

0.0082 mm.

0.0059 mm.

0.0029 mm.

0.0013 mm.
100.0
100.0

99.9 99.6

97.1 86.9

79.2 74.0

65.7 58.6

51.6 46.6

41.7 35.5

26.6 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL = 15 LL = 33 PI = 18

COEFFICIENTS
D90 0.1752 mm D85 0.1374 mm D60 0.0210 mm
D50 0.0103 mm D30 0.0017 mm D15
* (no specification provided)
Newark, California

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS = CL
D10 Cu Cc
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
USCS: ASTM D2487
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/16/2022
TESTED BY: G. Criste
REVIEWED BY: D. Seibold
CLIENT: Waymark Development
PROJECT NAME: 38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
PROJECT NO: 15799.400.000 PH002
PROJECT LOCATION:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 ½ in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#140
#200
Packet Page 710
===
===
===
DEPTH (ft):

MEDIUM FINE

56.6 33.9
SAMPLE ID:
3 3-B3@3

1.7 7.8
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

COARSE FINE COARSE
ASTM D422

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200

0.0285 mm.

0.0186 mm.

0.0111 mm.

0.0080 mm.

0.0058 mm.

0.0029 mm.

0.0012 mm.
100.0
100.0

99.2 98.3

98.1 96.8

94.4 90.5

72.2 64.3

55.5 49.6

43.8 37.7

29.0 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL = 15 LL = 35 PI = 20

COEFFICIENTS
D90 0.0730 mm D85 0.0561 mm D60 0.0145 mm
D50 0.0082 mm D30 0.0014 mm D15
* (no specification provided)
Newark, California

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS = CL
D10 Cu Cc
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
USCS: ASTM D2487
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/16/2022
TESTED BY: G. Criste
REVIEWED BY: D. Seibold
CLIENT: Waymark Development
PROJECT NAME: 38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
PROJECT NO: 15799.400.000 PH002
PROJECT LOCATION:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 ½ in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60#100
#140
#200
Packet Page 711

BEFORE TEST

TEST DATA
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT NO: O. Espinoza
CLIENT:

LOCATION:
3420 Fostoria Way | Danville, CA 94526 | T (925) 355-9047 | www.engeo.com 38600 Cedar Boulevard-Env Services Test Date: 9/13/2022 Newark, CA
Waymark Development Reviewed By: G. Criste
2-B2@3'
2-B3@6'
See Exploration Logs
See Exploration Logs
15799.004.000 PH002 Tested By:

7.13 2.56
Strain Rate (in/min) 0.052 0.051
Strain at Failure(%)
Test Remarks

SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION
Specific Gravity (ASSUMED) 2.720 2.720
Undrained Shear Strength (psf) 832.47 1271.09
Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf) 1664.94 2542.17
Height-To-Diameter Ratio 2.17 2.15
Height (in) 5.190 5.088
Diameter (in) 2.389 2.371

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST REPORT
(ASTM D2166)

SPECIMEN
2-B2@3' 2-B3@6'

SPECIMEN
Test Moisture Content (%) 18.79 19.56
Saturation (%) 85.7 67.3
Dry Density (pcf) 106.4 94.8
Void Ratio 0.60 0.79
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Corrected Compressive Stress (psf)
Axial Strain (%)
Compressive Stress vs. Axial Strain Curve(s)
2-B2@3' 2-B3@6'
Packet Page 712
Packet Page 713
Packet Page 714
Packet Page 715

MOISTURE CONTENT REPORT
ASTM D2216
38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
Waymark Development

METHOD A OR B
DEPTH (ft.) 10

7.1 SAMPLE ID 2-B1@10 2-B1@15 2-B1@20 2-B2@20
15 20 20
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com TESTED BY:

REPORT DATE:

PROJECT LOCATION:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT NAME:

CLIENT:

O. Espinoza
9/15/2022
Newark, California
15799.400.000 PH002
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
BBBB

SAMPLE ID
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 21.2 17.7 18.3

METHOD A OR B
DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE ID
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

METHOD A OR B
DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE ID
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

METHOD A OR B
DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE ID
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

METHOD A OR B
DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE ID
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

METHOD A OR B
DEPTH (ft.)
Packet Page 716
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/15/2022
TESTED BY: O. Espinoza
CLIENT: Waymark Development
PROJECT NAME: 38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
PROJECT NO: 15799.400.000 PH002
PROJECT LOCATION: Newark, California
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

SAMPLE ID
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

SAMPLE ID

SAMPLE ID
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
DEPTH (ft.)
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
DRY DENSITY (pcf) 106.3
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 18.8

METHOD A OR B

MOISTURE-DENSITY DETERMINATION REPORT
ASTM D7263
SAMPLE ID 2-B2@9
DEPTH (ft.) 9
DEPTH (ft.)
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE ID
DEPTH (ft.)

METHOD A OR B

METHOD A OR B

METHOD A OR B

METHOD A OR B
B
Packet Page 717
2-B2@11
[email protected]

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
ASTM D4318
2-B1@3

SAMPLE ID TEST METHOD REMARKS
3420 Fostoria Way, Suite E | Danville, CA 94526 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com 2-B3@3
PROJECT LOCATION:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT NAME:

CLIENT:

REPORT DATE:

G. Criste
D. Seibold
TESTED BY:

REVIEWED BY:
38600 Cedar Boulevard - Env Services
[email protected] 21.5 See exploration logs 33 19
2-B3@3 3 See exploration logs 35 15
2-B1@3 3 See exploration logs 33 15
2-B2@11 11 See exploration logs 17 16
SAMPLE ID DEPTH (ft) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI
18 1
14 20
Waymark Development
15799.400.000 PH002
Newark, California
9/16/2022
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

PLASTICITY INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT
MH or OH
CH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
CL or OL
Dashed Line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
Packet Page 718

APPENDIX C

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES
Packet Page 719

L I Q U E F A C T I O N A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Location :

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
CPT file : 1-CPT1

5.00 ft

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
2000 400 600
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 CRR plot
During earthq.
qc1N,cs
100806040200 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)

0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety

21.510.50
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.

Zone A1 : Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:00 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq 5 Packet Page 720
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT1 Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 50
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
1817161514131211109876543210
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sensitive fine grained
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay Clay Clay
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:00 AM 6 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
SBT legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Packet Page 721
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT1 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 CRR plot
During earthq.

L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction potential
LPI
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)

0.50 1.51 2
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:00 AM 7 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
F.S. color scheme LPI color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Packet Page 722

L I Q U E F A C T I O N A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Location :

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
CPT file : 1-CPT2

5.00 ft

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
2000 400 600
Depth (ft)
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
qc1N,cs
100806040200 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)

0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety

21.510.50
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
FS Plot
During earthq.

Zone A1 : Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:01 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq 9 Packet Page 723
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT2 Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
Depth (ft)
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 50
Depth (ft)
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
1817161514131211109876543210
Depth (ft)
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:01 AM 10 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
SBT legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Packet Page 724
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT2 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
CRR plot
During earthq.

L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
FS Plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction potential
LPI
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (ft)
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)

21.510.50
Depth (ft)
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:01 AM 11 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
F.S. color scheme LPI color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Packet Page 725

L I Q U E F A C T I O N A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Location :

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
CPT file : 1-CPT3

5.00 ft

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
2000 400 600
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
qc1N,cs
100806040200 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)

0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety

21.510.50
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
FS Plot
During earthq.

Zone A1 : Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:15:59 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq 1 Packet Page 726
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT3 Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
6040200
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
1817161514131211109876543210
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay Clay
Clay Clay
Sand & silty sand Sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand Sand
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:15:59 AM 2 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
SBT legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Packet Page 727
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT3 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
CRR plot
During earthq.

L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
FS Plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction potential
LPI
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)

21.510.50
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:15:59 AM 3 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
F.S. color scheme LPI color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Packet Page 728

L I Q U E F A C T I O N A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Location :

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
CPT file : 1-CPT4

5.00 ft

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400
Depth (ft)
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
qc1N,cs
100806040200 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)

0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety

21.510.50
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
FS Plot
During earthq.

Zone A1 : Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:01 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq 13 Packet Page 729
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT4 Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400
Depth (ft)
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
Depth (ft)
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
500 100 150
Depth (ft)
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
1817161514131211109876543210
Depth (ft)
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sensitive fine grained Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:01 AM 14 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
SBT legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Packet Page 730
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT4 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 CRR plot
During earthq.

L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction potential
LPI
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (ft)
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)

21.510.50
Depth (ft)
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:01 AM 15 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
F.S. color scheme LPI color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Packet Page 731

L I Q U E F A C T I O N A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Location :

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
CPT file : 1-CPT5

5.00 ft

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
qc1N,cs
100806040200 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)

0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety

21.510.50
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
FS Plot
During earthq.

Zone A1 : Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:02 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq 17 Packet Page 732
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT5 Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
6040200
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
1817161514131211109876543210
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Sensitive fine grained
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:02 AM 18 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
SBT legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Packet Page 733
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 1-CPT5 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
CRR plot
During earthq.

L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
FS Plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction potential
LPI
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
43210
Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:02 AM 19 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
F.S. color scheme LPI color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Packet Page 734

L I Q U E F A C T I O N A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Location :

GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
CPT file : 3-CPT1

5.00 ft

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
No
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBTn Plot CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
CRR plot
During earthq.
qc1N,cs
100806040200 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)

0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety

21.510.50
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
FS Plot
During earthq.

Zone A1 : Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:03 AM Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq 21 Packet Page 735
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 3-CPT1 Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 100 200 300
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
6040200
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
1817161514131211109876543210
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Sensitive fine grained
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:03 AM 22 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
SBT legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Packet Page 736
This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: 3-CPT1 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
CRR plot
During earthq.

L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
FS Plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction potential
LPI
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)

21.510.50
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/20/2022, 11:16:03 AM 23 Project file: G:\Active Projects\_14000 to 15999\15799\15799004000 Cedar Boulevard\GEX\Analyses\cliq.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude M w:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

B&I (2014)
B&I (2014)
Based on Ic value

7.01 0.85

5.00 ft
Depth to GWT (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
No
Sands only
Yes

50.00 ft
F.S. color scheme LPI color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Packet Page 737

L I Q U E F A C T I O N A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method: