Ontario City Council
October 17, 2023

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Site Description
The project site is a rectangular parcel of land, approximately 10.6-acres in size, located at the northwest corner of Walnut Street and Euclid Avenue in the city of Ontario, California. The site consists of the properties located at the street addresses of 112 W. Walnut Street, and 2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue. The site is bordered by Euclid Avenue on the east, Walnut Street to the south, and residential development on the west and north. The southeastern region of the property is occupied by an existing Carl’s Jr. restaurant. The site location (latitude

34.0275°, longitude -117.6524°) and immediate vicinity are shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map.

Based on visual site reconnaissance and review of the Alta/NSPS Land Title Survey prepared by Hillwig-Goodrow Inc., the site is currently occupied by a large rectangular-shaped structure formerly used as a K-Mart store located in the western portion of the site, and a strip mall retail development in the northeast region. The remainder of the site was generally paved with asphalt concrete and served as the parking lot for the development. The property is relatively flat, generally level with the adjacent roadways with site elevations (EL.) ranging from approximately EL. +823 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the northeastern region to approximately EL. +812 feet msl in the southwest region.

Based on review of historic aerial photographs (NETR, 2021), the project site appears to have a similar configuration dating back to at least 1985. The strip mall located in the northeast corner of the site was constructed between 1980 and 1985 and the K-Mart and Carl’s Jr. structures were constructed at some point between 1966 and 1980. Prior to at least 1966, the site seems to have been used for agricultural purposes.

1.2 Proposed Development
Our understanding of the proposed development is based on review of the Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use Site Plan Options A and B, Scale 1” = 100’, dated March 10, 2022, prepared by AO Architects (AOA, 2022). The development conceptually consists of two options for a proposed mixed-use development with 3- to 4-story residential and commercial structures:
1024
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

• Option A includes a total of 346 residential units in 8 structures with 5,000 square feet of commercial development. In the Option A development scheme it appears the existing Carl’s Jr. restaurant in the southeast corner of the site will remain.
• Option B consists of full-site development with 376 residential units in 10 structures with 11,400 square feet of commercial development.

We understand the current preferred option for development is Option A and, therefore, is the development scheme that serves as the basis for the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report. Ancillary improvements will include pavement for vehicle access and parking, landscaping, utility infrastructure, and flatwork.

1.2.1 Structural Loads
Information regarding total building height, finish floor elevations, and proposed loading conditions were not readily available at the time of this report. However, we understand that subterranean levels are not currently planned. Based upon the type of development planned for project site and our experience with similar developments, the buildings have been assumed to consist of wood frame structures supported by load bearing wall and isolated columns. Structural loads have been assumed to be a maximum of 3 kips per lineal foot for bearing walls and 40 kips for columns, Should additional design information become available, it should be provided to Leighton for review.

1.2.2 Finish Floor Elevations
The finish first floor elevations of the proposed structures have been assumed to be within 1 to 2 feet of existing grade with floor elevations established or minimize cut and fill required on site. The actual quantity of cut and fill will be dependent upon the actual floor elevations determined by the project civil engineer and the quantity of overexcavation required to prepare building pad areas.

1.2.3 Pavement
Pavements proposed for the development are expected to be primarily subjected to automobiles and occasional heavy truck traffic. Pavement 1025
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

recommendations have been based upon a Traffic Index of 4.0 for automobile parking stalls; 5.0 for general purpose drive aisles; and 6.0 for areas subject to heavy trucks. Pavement recommendations have been based upon a twenty-year design life.

1.2.4 Ancillary Improvements
Based on email correspondence with Mr. Steve Ellis with Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., we understand preliminary infiltration system design is considering an invert depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) along the southern property line.

1.3 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of our geotechnical exploration was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site relative to the proposed development concept and provide geotechnical recommendations to aid in the design and construction for the project as currently planned. The scope of this geotechnical exploration included the following tasks:
• Background Review – We reviewed readily available in-house geotechnical reports, literature, aerial photographs, and maps relevant to the site. We evaluated geological hazards and potential geotechnical issues that may significantly impact the site. The documents reviewed are listed in Section 7.0. • Pre-Field Exploration Activities – A site visit was performed by a member of our technical staff to mark the proposed exploration locations. Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified to identify and mark the locations of existing underground utilities prior to our subsurface exploration. • Field Exploration – Our subsurface exploration was performed on April 6, 2022 and included drilling, logging, and sampling of five (5) hollow-stem auger borings (designated LB-1 through LB-5) to approximate depths ranging from 25 to 51½ feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). One (1) additional boring (designated LP-2) was drilled to an approximate depth of 20 feet bgs for subsequent percolation testing. To supplement the hollow-stem auger borings, four (4) Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings (designated CPT-1 through CPT-4) were advanced to depths of approximately 50 feet bgs. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2, Geotechnical Map. The boring and CPT logs are presented in Appendix A, Exploration Logs. 1026
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

During drilling of the hollow-stem auger borings both bulk and drive samples were obtained from the borings for geotechnical laboratory testing. Driven ring samples were collected from the borings using a Modified California ring-lined sampler conducted in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550.

Representative samples were also collected by conducting the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) within the borings in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586. Samples were collected at 5-foot intervals throughout the depth of exploration. In both test methods, the sampler is driven below the bottom of the borehole by a 140-pound weight (hammer) free-falling 30 inches.

The drilling rig was equipped with an automatic hammer to provide greater consistency in the drop height and striking frequency. The number of blows to drive the sampler the final 12-inches of the 18-inch drive interval is termed the “blowcount” or SPT N-value. The N-values provide a measure of relative density in granular (non-cohesive) soils and comparative consistency in cohesive soils. The number of blows per 6 inches of penetration was recorded on the boring logs included in Appendix A, Exploration Logs.

The borings were logged in the field by a geologist from our firm. Each soil sample collected was reviewed and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The samples were sealed and packaged for transportation to our laboratory. After completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete at the surface.
• Percolation Testing – Boring LB-4 /LP-1 and LP-2 were converted to temporary percolation test wells upon completion of drilling and sampling. The test wells consisted of 2-inch diameter slotted (0.020”) PVC well casing surrounded by #3 Monterey Sand placed in the annulus of the borehole within the test zone.

In-situ percolation testing was performed in general accordance with the County of San Bernardino guidelines. The results of the percolation testing are presented in Appendix B, Percolation Test Data. Additional details regarding the field percolation tests and results are presented in Section 2.4.1, Infiltration.

Upon completion of the percolation testing, the well casing was removed from each boring and the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings and patched at the surface with cold-mix asphalt concrete to match existing site conditions. • Laboratory Testing – Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained from the borings during our field exploration. The laboratory testing 1027
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

program was designed to evaluate the physical and engineering characteristics of the onsite soil. Tests performed during this exploration included:
˗ In- situ Moisture Content and Dry Density (ASTM D2216 and ASTM D2937); ˗ Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
˗ Direct Shear (ASTM D 3080)
˗ Consolidation (ASTM D 2435);
˗ One Dimensional Swell or Settlement (ASTM D 4546)
˗ Maximum Dry Density (ASTM D 1557);
˗ Particle Size Distribution (ASTM D 6913);
˗ Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829);
˗ R-value (DOT CA Test 301)
˗ Sand Equivalent Test (DOT CA Test 217); and
˗ Corrosivity Suite – pH, Sulfate, Chloride, and Resistivity (California Test Methods 417, 422, and 532/643).

Results of the in-situ moisture content and dry density testing are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. Other laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C, Laboratory Test Results
• Engineering Analysis – The data obtained from our background review and field exploration were evaluated and analyzed to develop recommendations for the proposed development.
• Report Preparation – This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed development.
1028
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS

2.1 Regional Geologic Setting
The project site is located in the Chino Basin in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. Major structural features surround this region, including the Cucamonga fault and the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the Chino fault and Puente/Chino Hills to the west, and the San Jacinto fault to the east. This is an area of large-scale crustal disturbance as the relatively northwestward moving Peninsular Ranges province collides with the Transverse Ranges province (San Gabriel Mountains) to the north. Several active and potentially active faults have been mapped in the region and are believed to accommodate compression associated with this collision. The Sierra Madre fault, a major structural feature along the southern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains, is located approximately 8.3 miles north of the site. This fault, as well as other faults in the region, has the potential for generating strong ground motions at the project site. Further discussion of faulting relative to the site is provided in Section

3.0, Seismic and Geologic Hazards.

The site is located in an area underlain by thick accumulations of alluvial sand, silt, gravel, cobbles, and boulders eroded from the mountains and deposited in the site vicinity by the Santa Ana River and smaller tributaries such as the San Antonio Creek and Cucamonga Creek (Morton and Miller, 2006; Dibblee, 2002).

2.2 Surficial Geology
The Quaternary age deposits that cover the floor and margins of the Chino Basin are composed primarily of unconsolidated recent (Holocene) young alluvial fan deposits consisting predominately of sands and gravels derived from the surrounding mountains and hills with finer clays and silts deposited into the basin over the broad floodplain. The surficial geologic units mapped in the vicinity of the project site are shown on Figure 3, Regional Geology Map.

2.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions
Based on our subsurface explorations, the site is underlain by a relatively thin mantle of undocumented artificial fill materials (Afu) overlying Quaternary-aged (Holocene) young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf).
1029
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

A general description of the encountered soils is presented as follows:

2.3.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
The artificial fill encountered in our borings extended to a depth of approximately 5 feet below grade and likely associated with the existing site improvements. In general, the encountered fill soils consist primarily of sandy silt and silty sand. Localized thicker accumulations of fill materials may be present between explored locations, particularly beneath the existing buildings.

2.3.2 Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf) Below the mantle of artificial fill material, Quaternary-aged young alluvial fan deposits were encountered in the borings to the maximum depth explored (approximately 51½ feet). As encountered, this younger alluvial unit consists of stiff to very stiff sandy silt, silty clay, and clay; interbedded with medium dense to dense silty sand, sand with silt, and sand with gravel.

Although relatively variable across the site, in general, fine-grained material is more prevalent in the upper 15 to 25 feet with coarser grained material becoming more frequent at depths of 25 feet or greater.

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface soils encountered in the borings are presented on the logs included in Appendix A. The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2, Geotechnical Location Map.

2.4 Engineering Properties
The results of laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C of this report.

Discussion regarding select engineering properties of these soils are described in the following sections based upon the results of the laboratory testing program.

2.4.1 Expansive Soil Characteristics
Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wetted and which shrink when dried. Foundations constructed on these soils are subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling. Without proper mitigation measures, heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade could result.
1030
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

One (1) near-surface bulk soil sample collected from Boring LB-1 was tested for expansion potential. The test results indicate an Expansion Index (EI) value of 18, corresponding to a “Very Low” expansion potential. The Expansion Index laboratory test results are included in Appendix C of this report.

Variance in expansion potential of onsite soil is anticipated; therefore, additional testing is recommended upon completion of site grading and excavation to confirm the expansion potential presented in this report. For purposes of this report and based upon visual characterization of alluvial materials at approximate foundation depth, low expansion potential of site materials may be considered to support design and verified upon completion of earthwork grading.

2.4.2 Soil Corrosivity
One (1) near-surface bulk soil sample collected from Boring LB-3 was tested for corrosivity to assess corrosion potential to buried concrete. The chemical analysis test results for the onsite soil from our geotechnical exploration are included in Appendix C of this report.

The test results indicate a soluble sulfate concentration of 266 parts per million (ppm), chloride content of 40 ppm, pH 7.92, and a minimum resistivity value of 1,335 ohm-cm.

The results of the resistivity tests indicate the underlying soil is severely corrosive to buried ferrous metals per ASTM STP 1013. Based on the measured water-soluble sulfate contents from the soil samples, concrete in contact with the soil is expected to have negligible exposure to sulfate attack per ACI 318 (ACI, 2014). The samples tested for water-soluble chloride content indicate a low potential for corrosion of steel in concrete due to the chloride content of the soil.

2.4.3 Soil Compressibility
Three (3) samples of the onsite soils recovered from the borings were subjected to consolidation testing to evaluate the compressibility of these materials under assumed loads representative of anticipated structural bearing stresses. The results of testing indicate these soils exhibit a low 1031
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

compressibility potential. The results of testing are presented in Appendix C.

2.4.4 Shear Strength
Evaluation of the shear strength characteristics of the soils included laboratory direct shear testing. The results of testing are included in Appendix C that provide values of angle of internal friction (ø) and cohesion (c) for use in geotechnical analysis.

2.4.5 Excavation Characteristics
Based on our subsurface explorations performed at the site and our experience from grading jobs in the vicinity of the site, we anticipate the onsite artificial fill and alluvial materials can generally be excavated using conventional excavation equipment in good operating condition.

The soils within the planned excavation depths are variable, and locally consist of layers that contain granular, unconsolidated soils with little or no cementation and few fines. These materials are prone to cave in or collapse in unshored excavations. See Section 5.4, Temporary Excavations for additional information on soil type and excavation characteristics.

2.5 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration to the maximum depth of 51.5 feet bgs. Based on review of the Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Plan 2008 State of the Basin Report (Wildermuth, 2009), groundwater depth at the site is anticipated to be on the order of approximately 225 feet bgs. Review of available information from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2022) for a nearby groundwater monitoring well located approximately 1.8 miles northwest of the project site (State Well # 01S07W29A001S) indicates the shallowest groundwater level measured for a monitoring period between October 1959 and September 2021 was approximately 214 feet bgs in 1959; with the most recent groundwater levels documented to be on the order of 250 feet bgs.

Based on these findings, groundwater is not expected to pose a constraint during or after construction. Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and an increase in soil moisture, should be anticipated during and 1032
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

following the rainy seasons or periods of locally intense rainfall or storm water runoff, or from stormwater infiltration.

2.6 Infiltration
Percolation testing was performed in temporary wells installed within borings LB4/LP-1 and LP-2 located in the southern region of the site with test zone at depths of 17 to 22 feet bgs and 15 to 20 feet bgs, respectively. The percolation tests were conducted in general accordance with the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for Water Quality Management Plans (2013). Results of the percolation testing are presented in Appendix B. The test locations and tested depth intervals are shown on Figure 2.

A boring percolation test is useful for field measurements of the infiltration rate of soils, and is suited for testing when the design depth of the infiltration device is deeper than current existing grades, especially in areas where it is difficult to dig test pits, or where the depths of these test pits would be considerably deep. At the subject site, testing consisted of advancing the borings to the anticipated depth for the invert of the proposed infiltration devices.

The Percolation Test Procedure (falling-head test method) as outlined in the County Guidelines was implemented at each percolation test well location. The infiltration rate was calculated by dividing the rate of discharge by the infiltration surface area, or flow area. The volume of discharge was calculated by adding the total volume of water that dropped within the PVC pipe and within the annulus, and incorporating a porosity reduction factor to account for the porosity of the annulus material. The flow area was based on the average water height within the test well.

Detailed results of the field testing data and measured infiltration rate for the test well are presented in Appendix B. The test results are summarized in the table below:

Table 1 – Measured (Unfactored) Infiltration Rate
Test Well
Designation
Approximate Depth of
Test Zone (feet bgs)
Measured
Infiltration Rate
(inches per hour)
LB-4/LP-1 17 to 22 0.32
LP-2 15 to 20 0.69
1033
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

Based on the results of our field percolation testing that was performed at the site, the measured (unfactored) infiltration rates for the two (2) tests performed were

0.32 inches per hour (LB-4/LP-1) and 0.69 inches per hour (LP-2), respectively.

According to the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for Water Quality Management Plans (2013), the measured infiltration rate at both test well locations technically exceeds the minimum feasibility criteria of 0.3 inch per hour. However, implementation of a minimum factor of safety of 2.0 as required for the design infiltration rate indicates the depth and location tested for LB-4/LP-1 is considered infeasible for infiltration.

In consideration of the general greater prevalence of coarse-grained material at the site below depths of 25 feet or deeper, a more feasible infiltration rate may be achieved in percolation testing performed at depths greater than those tested during this exploration.
1034
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

3.0 SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Depending upon the geographic location and geologic setting of a particular site in southern California, seismic-related hazards can include surface fault rupture; strong ground shaking; seismically-induced landslides; liquefaction and associated effects such as settlement and/or lateral spreading; and seiches, tsunamis and/or flooding depending upon the proximity of bodies of water. The following sections discuss each of these hazards and potential effect upon this site.

3.1 Surface Fault Rupture
Known surface faults in the region are mapped on Figure 4, Regional Surface Fault and Historical Seismicity Map. Review of available literature indicates that no known active faults have been mapped across the site, and the site is not located within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). Therefore, a surface fault rupture hazard evaluation is not mandated for this site. Given an absence of known faults, potential risk for surface fault rupture at this site is low.

3.2 Regional Faulting
The location of the closest active faults to the site was evaluated using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program National Seismic Hazard Maps (USGS, 2008b). The closest active faults to the site with the potential for surface fault rupture are the Chino fault, San Jose fault, Cucamonga fault and Sierra Madre fault, located approximately 4.7 miles, 6.0 miles, 7.9 miles and 8.3 miles from the site, respectively. The San Andreas fault, which is the largest active fault in California, is approximately 20.3 miles northeast of the site on the north side of the San Gabriel Mountains. As discussed, major regional faults with surface expression in proximity to the site are shown on Figure 4, Regional Fault and Historic Seismicity Map.

3.3 Strong Ground Shaking
The principal seismic hazard to the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along any of several major active and potentially active faults in southern California (Figure 4). The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the source, and the site response characteristics. Accordingly, design of the project should be performed in accordance with all applicable current codes and standards 1035
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

utilizing the appropriate seismic design parameters to reduce seismic risk as defined by California Geological Survey (CGS) Chapter 2 of Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008). The 2019 edition of the California Building Code (CBC) is the current edition of the code. Through compliance with these regulatory requirements and the utilization of appropriate seismic design parameters selected by the design professionals, potential effects relating to seismic shaking can be reduced.

The following code-based seismic parameters should be considered for design under the 2019 CBC:

Table 2 – 2019 CBC Based Ground Motion Parameters (Mapped Values) Categorization/Coefficient Code-Based
Site Latitude 34.0275°
Site Longitude -117.6523°
Site Class D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), SS 1.5 g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), S1 0.579 g Short Period (0.2 sec) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0
Long Period (1 sec) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.72*
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), SMS 1.5 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), SM1 0.996* Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), SDS 1.0 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), SD1 0.664* Site Coefficient for Peak Ground Acceleration, FPGA 1.1 Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM 0.644 g

1. All were derived from the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool web page: https://asce7hazardtool.online/

2. All coefficients in units of g (spectral acceleration)

3. *Requires Cs calculation, see Note below.

Based on Table 1613.2.3(2) of the 2019 CBC, the long period site coefficient (Fv) should be determined in accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 since the mapped spectral response acceleration at 1 second is greater than 0.2g for Site Class D. In accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, a site-specific seismic analysis is required; however, the values provided herein may be utilized if design 1036
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

is performed in accordance with exception (2) in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, with special requirements for the seismic response coefficient (Cs) as noted below.

The project structural engineer should review the seismic parameters.

Note: Long period coefficient (Fv) of 1.7 may be utilized for calculation of Ts, provided that the value of the Seismic Response Coefficient (Cs) is determined by Equation 12.8- 2 for values of the fundamental period of the building (T) less than or equal to 1.5Ts, and taken as 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either equation 12.8-3 for T greater than 1.5 Ts and less than or equal to TL or equation 12.8-4 for T greater than TL.

3.4 Liquefaction Potential
The term liquefaction is generally referenced to loss of strength and stiffness in soils due to build-up of pore water pressure when subject to cyclic or monotonic loading.

Both sandy and clayey soils are susceptible to loss of strength and stiffness.

Because of the difference in strength characteristic and methods for evaluating strength loss potential for granular and clayey soils, the term liquefaction is used for granular soils while cyclic softening is used for fine-grained soils (i.e. clays and plastic silts).

In general, adverse effects of liquefaction or cyclic softening include excessive ground settlement, loss of bearing support for structural foundations, and seismically-induced lateral ground deformations such as lateral spreading.

Depending upon the relative thickness of the liquefied strata with respect to overlying non-liquefiable soils, other potentially adverse effects such as ground oscillation and ground fissuring may occur.

As regionally mapped on the California Geological Survey Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (EZRIM) for the Ontario Quadrangle (CGS, 200) and shown on Figure 4, Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the site is not within an area potentially susceptible to liquefaction. In addition, review of the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlays map FH27C (2010), the project site is not located within a County liquefaction susceptibility zone. The historically shallowest groundwater level recorded by DWR near the site is 214 feet bgs and the recent recorded depth to groundwater is greater than 200 feet bgs. Based on these findings, liquefaction is not considered a hazard at the site.

3.5 Seismically-Induced Settlement
Seismically-induced settlement consists of dynamic settlement of unsaturated soil (above groundwater) and liquefaction-induced settlement (below groundwater). 1037
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

These settlements occur primarily within low density sandy soil due to reduction in volume during and shortly after an earthquake event.

As previously discussed, the site is not considered susceptible to the occurrence of liquefaction. Therefore, seismically-induced settlement will consist solely of densification of non-saturated soils upon exposure to strong ground shaking.

Evaluation of the potential for such seismically-induced settlements to occur was performed for the Geomean Maximum Considered Event (MCEG) and the associated ground motion that corresponds to a 2,475 year average return period (ARP) for the CPT soundings that were advanced to a depth of 50 feet below grade.

The results of the analysis are presented below:

Table 3 – Seismically-Induced Settlement - MCEG Seismic Event Design Scenario CPT
I.D.

Settlement (inches)
PGA MW Liquefaction(1) Non-Liquefaction(2) Total

0.64 6.78 CPT-1 No Liquefaction 0.23 0.23
CPT-2 No Liquefaction 0.09 0.09
CPT-3A No Liquefaction 0.16 0.16
CPT-4 No Liquefaction 0.45 0.45
Notes: (1) Liquefaction-induced settlement; Design Groundwater below depth of 50 feet (2) Non-liquefaction induced (“dry sand”) settlement
The results of the analysis indicated the magnitude of seismically-induced settlement under the MCEG scenario will be less than ½ to 1 inch. Based on the general consistency in soil conditions as depicted by the test borings conducted at the site, the differential settlement is estimated to be approximately ½ inch over a distance of at least 40 feet, which results in an angular distortion less than 0.0021 in./in., which is anticipated to be within tolerable levels for structural design.

3.6 Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction may also cause lateral spreading. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along gently sloping ground toward an unconfined area. Since the site is relatively flat and constrained laterally and liquefaction is not considered a hazard at the site, earthquake-induced lateral spreading is also not considered a hazard at the site. 1038
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

3.7 Earthquake-Induced Landsliding
As regionally mapped on the California Geological Survey Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation for the Torrance Quadrangle (CGS, March 25, 1999) and shown on Figure 4, Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the site is not located within an area potentially susceptible to liquefaction (CGS, 2000a). Review of the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlays map FH27C (2010) indicates the project site is not located within a County landslide susceptibility zone. The project site is relatively flat with no significant slopes on or immediately adjacent. It is our opinion that seismically-induced landsliding is not considered a hazard at the site.

3.8 Flooding
According to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate map (FEMA, 2015), the project site is located within a flood hazard area identified as “Zone X”, which is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard.

Regionally, storm runoff flow is generally directed to the southwest. As shown on Figure 5, Flood Hazard Zone Map, the site is not located within a 100-year or 500- year flood hazard zone.

Earthquake-induced flooding can be caused by failure of dams or other waterretaining structures as a result of earthquakes. As shown on Figure 6, Dam Inundation Map, the site is mapped within an inundation zone associated with San Antonio Dam. Catastrophic failure of this dam is expected to be a very unlikely event in that dam safety regulations exist and are enforced by the DOSD, Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Water Resources. Inspectors may require dam owners to perform work, maintenance or implement controls if issues are found with the safety of the dam. Due to the location and distance of the site from San Antonio Dam, along with the unlikely failure of the dam, the potential for earthquake-induced flooding to occur due to a failure of this dam is considered low.

3.9 Seiches and Tsunamis
Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Tsunamis are waves generated in large bodies of water by fault displacement or major ground movement. Based on the absence of an enclosed water body near the site and the inland location of the site, seiche and tsunami risks at the site are considered negligible.
1039
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

3.10 Methane
Based on review of State of California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) records, the project site is not located within an oil field boundary (CalGEM, 2021). The nearest documented oil well to the site is located approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the site (API# 0407100083; Donald B.

Lamont, Donald B. Lamont Lease, Well No. 1) and is reported as a plugged dry hole (CalGEM, 2021). Based on these findings, the potential for methane hazard at the site is low.
1040
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

4.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
No evidence of adverse geological or geotechnical hazards was noted at the site that will preclude the development of the project as currently planned. Presented below is a summary of findings based upon the results of our geotechnical exploration of the site.

Geotechnical recommendations for design and construction are presented in Section 4.0 of this report.
• The potential for surface fault rupture is considered to be low since the site is not located in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. • The site may be subjected to strong ground shaking during the design life of the proposed development due to the proximity of several active faults in the vicinity of the site. The Chino fault, located approximately 4.7 miles southwest of the site is the nearest active fault to the site with a potential for surface rupture and generation of strong ground shaking. However, strong ground shaking may occur at the site due to seismic activity on one of a number of faults in the area. • The site is not located within an area shown as susceptible to liquefaction according to the CGS Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map for the Ontario Quadrangle or the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlays map FH27C.

Given the lack of shallow groundwater underlying the site, the potential for liquefaction is considered low.
• Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth explored of 51½ feet bgs.

Recent nearby groundwater levels as documented by the California Department of Water Resources indicate the depth to groundwater is likely on the order of greater than 200 feet bgs. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a constraint to site grading or construction.
• At a minimum, development of the site for support of the proposed mixed-use development should include overexcavation and recompaction of the existing artificial fill materials as well as a portion of the underlying native soils to develop a layer of structural compacted fill to provide foundation support. • The results of the infiltration testing performed at the site indicate stormwater infiltration is marginally feasible based on the tested locations and depths. • The proposed structures may be supported by a shallow foundation system supported on structural compacted fill underlain by suitable bearing native soils. 1041
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon this study, we conclude that the proposed development for the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated in design and construction. Geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development are presented in the following sections and are intended to provide sufficient geotechnical information to develop the project plans in accordance with 2019 CBC requirements. The following recommendations may be superseded by more restrictive requirements of the architect, structural engineer, and/or local building official.

The recommendations below are based upon the exhibited geotechnical engineering properties of the soils and their anticipated response both during and after construction.

The recommendations are also based upon proper field observation and testing during construction. The project geotechnical engineer should be notified of suspected variances in field conditions to determine the effect upon the recommendations subsequently presented. These recommendations are considered minimal and may be superseded by more restrictive requirements of the civil and structural engineers, the City of Ontario, the County of San Bernardino and other governing agencies.

Leighton should review the grading plans, foundation plans and project specifications as they become available to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the plans for this project.

5.1 Earthwork
All site grading should be performed in accordance with the project specifications that are prepared by the appropriate design professional. The guide specifications presented in Appendix D, General Earthwork and Grading Recommendations may be used as a guideline in developing the project specifications.

Earthwork and grading operations are recommended to be observed and appropriate testing be performed by representatives of the geotechnical engineer to verify that the site is properly prepared, the selected fill materials are satisfactory, and that placement and compaction of fills has been performed in accordance with our recommendations and the project specifications. 1042
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.1.1 Site Preparation
Initial preparation of the site should include demolition and removal of the existing facility from the project site including all foundations, slabs and underground structures. Existing utilities not planned for reuse with the proposed development should be either removed in their entirety, properly abandoned in-place, or rerouted around the development area to preserve their function. Disposal of all debris and remnants of the existing development should be performed in accordance with the type of material and local regulations.

The existing development includes a relatively large paved parking lot that consists of asphalt concrete. Based upon the conditions encountered at the test boring locations, the thickness of the existing asphalt concrete ranged from 2½ to 5 inches underlain by base course that ranged from 3 to 12 inches in thickness. Reuse of the pavement with the proposed development will require consideration of proposed finish grades and the need to construct an asphalt overlay to prolong the service life of the pavement.

Recommendations for reuse of the pavement can be provided upon request. However, for purposes of this report, the existing pavement is assumed to not be salvaged for reuse and will be removed from the site. If properly processed during demolition and removal, the pavement may be reused as the base course for construction of new pavement.

Upon completion of demolition and site clearing activities, the soils should be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable deposits. All undocumented fill or man-made debris, unsuitable native soils and former foundation remnants should be excavated and removed from the proposed building/structure footprint prior to fill placement.

5.1.2 Removals and Overexcavations
The recommended depths of overexcavation presented below have been based upon the assumed structural loads and the recommended allowable bearing pressure. The actual depth recommended for preparation of foundation areas may be revised depending upon the actual footing sizes that result from structural design of the foundations. Consequently, the recommendations for building pad preparation/overexcavation should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer as foundation design proceeds. 1043
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

To provide uniform foundation support and reduce the potential for excessive static settlement, all existing undocumented fill and any unsuitable soil, as deemed by the geotechnical engineer, should be removed to expose suitable native soils and replaced as engineered fill below the proposed building and other structural improvements. Based on our field explorations, we estimate removals of existing undocumented fill will be approximately 5 feet below existing grade across most of the site.

Localized areas are anticipated to require deeper removals, in particular beneath the existing buildings and in areas of existing utilities.

Removals should be performed such that all undocumented fill is removed and replaced as engineered fill. In addition, overexcavations should be performed such that a minimum of 4 feet of engineered fill is established below the proposed building foundation elements and the at-grade slabs of the buildings. The lateral extent of overexcavation beyond foundations should be equal to the depth of overexcavation below the proposed foundations as measured at the excavation subgrade.

The depth of overexcavation in non-structural areas planned for new pavement construction is recommended to be 2 feet below the current grade or planned subgrade elevation to develop a suitable bearing subgrade for pavement support. Deeper overexcavations in localized areas may be recommended during grading by a representative of the geotechnical engineer depending on observed subsurface conditions.

5.1.3 Subgrade Preparation
All excavation bottoms or removal bottoms should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of fill or other improvements to determine that geotechnically suitable soil is exposed.

Excavation bottoms observed to be suitable for fill placement or other improvements should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moistureconditioned as necessary to achieve a moisture content of at least 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content, and then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 (Modified Proctor).
1044
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction
The onsite soil, free of organic material, cobbles, boulders, rubble, and rock less than 3 inches in largest dimension, is suitable to be used as structural fill. All fill soil should be placed in loose lifts no greater than 8 inches in thickness, moisture-conditioned as necessary to a moisture content 1 to 2 percentage points above optimum moisture content and compacted using proper equipment to the minimum standard as noted below, unless stated otherwise in the specific sections.
• Fill soil should be moisture-conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557.
• Subgrade exposures should be moisture-conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557
• Base course material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction.
• Utility trench backfill is discussed in Section 5.5.

Material imported to the site for use as fill should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to import to the site and placement as fill.

Imported soils should be very low in expansion potential (EI less than 20); non-corrosive to metals and concrete; and be free of hazardous substances.

When grading is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations should not be resumed until the moisture content and the dry density of the placed fill are satisfactory.

5.1.5 Shrinkage and Bulking
The change in volume of excavated and recompacted soil varies according to soil type and location. This volume change is represented as a percentage increase (bulking) or decrease (shrinkage) in volume of fill after removal and recompaction. Field and laboratory data used in our calculations included laboratory-measured maximum dry density for the 1045
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

general soil type encountered at the subject site, the measured in-place densities of near surface soils encountered and our experience.

Earthwork operations are generally anticipated to be limited to soils to a depth of 5 to 6 feet below current grade with some additional overexcavation in localized areas of the site where unsuitable bearing/very loose relative density soils may be encountered in the southern to southwestern region of the site. Data regarding the in-place density of the near surface soils could not be collected due to the manner in which field exploration was encountered whereby the soils to a depth of 5 feet at the boring locations were pre-drilled by use of a hand auger to protect against damaging buried utilities. Therefore, earthwork quantities (shrinkage/bulking) are primarily based upon experience with similar materials at other project sites and the limited available data from soils recovered from a depth of 6 feet.

On a preliminary basis, the existing fill materials requiring removal and recompaction are anticipated to exhibit volume shrinkage on the order of of 10 to 15 percent. The estimated shrinkage does not include material losses due to removal of organic material or other unsuitable bearing materials (debris, rubble, oversize material greater than 6-inches) and the actual shrinkage that occurs during grading may vary throughout the site.

5.1.6 Reuse of Concrete and Asphalt Rubble
If encountered during site clearing and/or during preparation activities, construction rubble (i.e., Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete) may be incorporated in the proposed development. For use as structural fill, the processed material should be crushed to develop a relatively wellgraded mixture with a maximum particle size of 3-inch nominal diameter. Concrete rubble should be free of rebar and processed asphalt pavement rubble may be used if mixed with the existing base course (where present). Processed material may be used as structural fill if uniformly mixed with onsite soils in proportion of 1 part processed material to 3 parts soil. For use as pavement base course, rubble should be crushed to satisfy gradation requirements of Section 200-2.4 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (SSPWC, “Greenbook”). Such materials must be free of and segregated from any hazardous materials and/or organic material of any kind.
1046
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.2 Foundation Design
Preparation of the building areas should be performed as described in Section 5.1 of this report. Upon completion of building pad preparation, the soils that will provide support of the foundations are expected to consist of properly moistureconditioned structural compacted fill that exhibits very low to low expansion potential underlain by suitable bearing native soils.

5.2.1 Vertical Load Bearing Capacity
The proposed structures are recommended to be supported by a shallow foundation system in which continuous strip footings are used for wall support and isolated square pad footings for column support. Footings to support the proposed buildings are recommended to be designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for continuous strip footings for wall support and 3,000 psf for isolated square pad footings for column support.

The foundations for ancillary structures separate from the proposed buildings are recommend to be designed for a maximum 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for continuous strip footings for wall support and 2,500 psf for isolated square pad footings for column support. The recommended bearing pressures assume the foundations will be supported by a layer of structural compacted fill that is a minimum 2 feet in thickness below foundations and extends laterally distance of at least 2 feet beyond the edges of the foundations.

The allowable bearing values may be increased by one-third when considering short-term seismic or wind loads. The recommended bearing pressure is net so the unit weight of concrete may be assumed to be 50 pcf when calculating the component of load demand due to foundation weight; the weight of soil backfill can be neglected when determining the downward loads.

The recommended allowable bearing pressures stated above have been based upon specific minimum footing sizes and embedment depths:
• Minimum widths for foundations are recommended to be 18 inches for continuous strip footings and 24 inches for square pad footings. 1047
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

• Minimum footing embedment depth for the isolated exterior footings and the footings for the exterior walls is recommended to be 18 inches. • The minimum embedment depth for interior footings is recommended to be 18 inches.
• The minimum embedment depth for ancillary structures is 18 inches below adjacent subgrade elevation.

The depth of embedment should be determined from the finish subgrade elevation adjacent to the building for the perimeter footings and the finish pad grade within the structure for interior footings. Additional foundation embedment depth may be considered for foundations located close to property lines to protect foundations from being undermined due future excavation that may be performed on the adjacent properties.

Determination of the minimum steel reinforcement requirements of the continuous strip and isolated square pad footings should be performed by the structural engineer.

The foundation bearing soils are recommended to be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing reinforcing steel. Evaluation is intended to verify suitable bearing conditions to support the footings and the footing excavations are generally in compliance with foundation plans.

5.2.2 Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction acting along the bottoms of the footings and passive resistance of the soil adjacent to the vertical sides of the foundations provided the foundations are poured neat against properly compacted fill or undisturbed native soils. Resistance to lateral load may be calculated on the basis of an allowable frictional coefficient of 0.30 and allowable passive resistance equal to an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds-per-cubic-foot (pcf) to a maximum of 2,500 psf. No reduction will be needed to any of the above two components for computing the total resistance to lateral loads. The use of passive resistance in lateral load analysis requires the foundations to be cast against vertical, undisturbed trench walls or any voids along the footing be backfilled with structural compacted fill.
1048
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.2.3 Settlement Estimate
Estimated post-construction total and differential settlement under the assumed loading conditions and preparation of the building areas as described in this report are estimated to be on the order of 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively. The differential settlement is expected to occur over a minimum span of 30 feet, thereby resulting in an angular distortion less than

0.002, which is expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed structures.

Settlement is a function of footing size and contact bearing pressure. As a result, differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists. Leighton should review the settlement estimates when final foundation plans and loads for the proposed structures become available.

5.3 Slab-on-Grade Floors
Upon completion of the recommended building pad preparation, the subgrades of the slabs supported on grade are anticipated to consist of newly placed structural compacted fill, which is generally expected to consist of the existing soils that have been overexcavated and recompacted under engineering controlled conditions.

Based upon the anticipated subgrade conditions, the floor slabs of the proposed buildings that will be supported on grade may be designed and constructed as a mat on elastic foundation using a modulus of subgrade reaction (kv1) of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci). These slabs are recommended to be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and include No. 3 rebar placed at center of the slab at 18 inches oncenter in each direction based on geotechnical considerations. Increase in the slab thickness and/or reinforcing may be necessary due to structural engineering considerations as determined by the structural engineer.

The slabs may are recommended to be underlain by a minimum 4-inch thick coarse granular material to serve as a working mat during construction and serve as a capillary moisture break.

Interior slabs-on-grade are recommended to be underlain by a synthetic sheeting to serve as a retarder to moisture vapor transmission in areas where moisturesensitive floor coverings are used (such as vinyl, tile, or carpet) or storage areas 1049
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

for personal possessions. Prior to installing the synthetic sheeting, the exposed subgrade surface should be clear of all extruding rock and gravel that could damage the sheeting. The sheeting should be evaluated for the presence of punctures or tears by the installer prior to pouring concrete. Installation of the sheeting should include proper overlap and taping of seams.

Appropriate synthetic sheeting should be determined by others qualified in evaluating and mitigating moisture vapor transmission through concrete slabs. Our firm does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation, since this is not specifically a geotechnical issue. Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person, such as the flooring subcontractor and/or structural engineer, be consulted with to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction with respect to the storage facility and retail areas. That person should provide recommendations for mitigation of the potential adverse effects of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structures as deemed appropriate.

Care should be taken to avoid slab curling if slabs are poured in hot weather.

Frequent construction joints should be provided to minimize the potential for cracking. Slabs should be designed and constructed as promulgated by the Portland Cement Association (PCA). Prior to the slab pour, all utility trenches should be properly backfilled and compacted. Differential settlement of this material could result in movement and distress to hardscape and other improvements. The need to repair cracks, etc. should be anticipated.

5.4 Temporary Excavations
All temporary excavations, including utility trenches, retaining wall excavations, and other excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications and all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements.

Temporary excavations should be treated in accordance with the State of California version of OSHA excavation regulations, Construction Safety Orders for Excavation General Requirements, Article 6, Section 1541, effective October 1, 1995. The sides of excavations should be shored or sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA allows the sides of unbraced excavations, up to a maximum height of 20 feet, to be cut to a ¾H:1V (horizontal:vertical) slope for Type A soils, 1H:1V for Type B soils, and 1½H:1V for Type C soils. Onsite sandy soils 1050
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

are to be considered Type C soils which are subject to collapse in shallow unbraced excavations (i.e., approximately 3 to 4 feet in vertical height).

OSHA regulations are applicable in areas with no restriction of surrounding ground deformations. Shoring should be designed for areas with deformation restrictions.

The soil type should be verified or revised based on geotechnical observation and testing during construction, as soil classifications may vary over short horizontal distances.

Typical cantilever shoring should be designed based on an active fluid pressure of 38 pcf, assuming level ground above the shoring. If excavations are braced at the top and at specific design intervals, the active pressure may then be approximated by a rectangular soil pressure distribution with the pressure per foot of width equal to 25H psf, where H is equal to the depth of the excavation being shored.

Heavy construction loads, such as those resulting from stockpiles and heavy machinery, should be kept a minimum distance equivalent to the excavation height or 5 feet, whichever is greater, from the excavation unless the excavation is shored and these surcharges are considered in the design of the shoring system.

Excavations that extend below an imaginary plane inclined at 45 degrees below the edge of any adjacent existing site foundation should be properly shored to maintain support of the adjacent structures.

5.5 Trench Backfill
Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306-1.2 and 306-1.3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (SSPWC, “Greenbook”), 2018 Edition. Utility trenches can be backfilled with onsite material free of rubble, debris, organic and oversized material up to 3 inches in largest dimension. Prior to backfilling trenches, pipes should be bedded in and covered with either:
• Granular Bedding: a) ½-inch open grade aggregate; or b) a uniform sand material with a Sand Equivalent (SE) greater than or equal to (≥) 30, passing the No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve (or as specified by the pipe manufacturer).

Testing to evaluate the Sand Equivalent (SE) of representative samples of the near surface soils indicated SE values below 30, thereby indicating the on-site soils may not be suitable for reuse in this manner.
1051
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

• CLSM: Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) conforming to Section 201- 6 of the SSPWC. CLSM bedding should be placed to 1 foot (0.3 m) over the top of the conduit, and vibrated.

Pipe bedding should extend at least 4 inches below the pipeline invert and at least 12 inches over the top of the pipeline. The bedding and shading sand is recommended to be densified in place by vibratory, lightweight compaction equipment. Jetting or hydro-consolidation may be suitable for this project site where utility trenches will be underlain by the silty sands, typically present in the upper 5 to 10 feet.

Trench backfill over the pipe bedding zone may consist of native and clean fill soils.

All backfill should be placed in thin lifts (appropriate for the type of compaction equipment), moisture conditioned above optimum, and mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, relative to the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum density.

5.6 Soil Corrosivity
In general, soil resistivity, which is a measure of how easily electrical current flows through soils, is the most influential factor for corrosion to ferrous metals. The following table presents an approximate relationship between soil resistivity and soil corrosiveness.

Table 4 – Soil Corrosivity as a Function of Resistivity Soil Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Classification of
Soil Corrosiveness
0 to 900 Very severe corrosion
900 to 2,300 Severely corrosive
2,300 to 5,000 Moderately corrosive
5,000 to 10,000 Mildly corrosive
10,000 to >100,000 Very mildly corrosive
Note: 1 ASTM STP 1013 titled Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion (February, 1989).

In addition to resistivity, the concentration of chloride ions can also be used to evaluate corrosive potential to steel, either in the form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover or plain steel substructures, such as steel pipes. As a general guideline, the chloride threshold adopted by Caltrans is a concentration of 500 ppm 1052
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

or greater as determined by California Test 532. Concentrations of chloride ions above the stated concentration or other characteristics such as soil resistivity or redox potential may warrant special corrosion protection measures. The results of corrosivity testing are summarized in the following table.

Table 5 – Summary of Corrosivity Testing
Test Parameter Test Results
LB-3 @ 0’-5’ General Classification of Hazard
Water-Soluble Sulfate in Soil
(ppm) 260 Negligible sulfate exposure to buried concrete Water-Soluble Chloride in Soil
(ppm) 40 Non-corrosive to buried reinforced
concrete
pH 7.92 Moderately alkaline
Minimum Resistivity
(saturated, ohm-cm) 1,335 Severely corrosive to buried ferrous pipes The results of the resistivity tests indicate the underlying soil is moderately corrosive to buried ferrous metals per ASTM STP 1013. The samples tested for water-soluble chloride content indicate a low potential for corrosion of steel in concrete due to the chloride content of the soil.

Based on the test results, ferrous pipes buried in moist to wet site earth materials should be avoided by using high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and/or other non-ferrous pipe when possible provided the pipe walls possess sufficient strength for the embedment and external loading to which the pipe will be subjected. Ferrous pipe can also be protected by polyethylene bags, tape or coatings, di-electric fittings or other means to separate pipe from on-site soils. If buried ferrous pipes are planned for this site, further corrosivity testing of soil samples should be performed upon completion of rough grading and specific corrosion protection measures should be recommended by a qualified corrosion engineer.

5.7 Cement Type
In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble sulfates and/or pH values of less than 5.5. Section 4.3 of ACI 318 (ACI, 2014) provides specific guidelines for the concrete mix-design when the soluble sulfate content of the soil exceeds 0.1 percent by weight or 1,000 parts per million (ppm).
1053
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

The results of laboratory testing indicated concentrations of soluble sulfate less than 0.1 percent. The test results indicate a sulfate Exposure Class designation of “S0” appears to be appropriate for the project site based upon criteria presented in ACI 318. However, if the concrete is expected to be in contact with reclaimed water, Type V cement and a water/cement ratio of 0.45 should be used. Samples should be collected from the compacted fill subgrade upon completion of grading to confirm the initial findings of this exploration.

5.8 Elevator Pit Wall Design
The proposed development is not expected to include new earth retaining structures due to the generally level topographic relief of the site and no below grade levels associated with the buildings. However, in consideration that the buildings will be multi-stories in height, the buildings are anticipated to include elevators. In the anticipation that elevator equipment will include below-grade pits to house the mechanical workings, design of the pit walls should include provisions to resist the lateral load of the adjacent soils. Based on the recommended building pad parathion and the anticipated soil conditions, design of the pit walls is recommended to be based upon an equivalent lateral earth pressure of 60 psf per foot of retained height.

5.9 Pavements

5.9.1 Pavement Subgrades
The pavement subgrades should be prepared as described in Section 5.1 of this report. In accordance with the recommendations, preparation of the subgrade within the areas of new pavement construction are recommended to be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below the current grade or planned subgrade elevation, or to the depth of undocumented fill whichever is greater, to allow placement of a minimum of 2 feet of structural fill to develop a suitable bearing subgrade for pavement support.

5.9.2 Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Pavement Sections
Asphalt pavements are anticipated to be feasible for the proposed development. Based on the anticipated subgrade conditions and the results of laboratory testing conducted on one bulk sample of the near surface soils 1054
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

(LB-1), the following recommendations for pavement design have been based upon a design R-value of 30 for the anticipated subgrade. R-value tests should be performed upon completion of grading to verify the design value is appropriate for the actual subgrade conditions. Based on the design procedures outlined in the current Caltrans Highway Design Manual and using an R-value of 78 for the pavement base course, the following flexible pavement sections may be used for Traffic Index values that correspond to various levels of vehicle traffic.

Table 6 – Asphalt Pavement Sections
Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Base Course (inches)

CAB CMB
4 or less 3 5 6

5.0 3 6 7

6.0 4 7 8
Notes: CAB – Crushed Aggregate Base Course; Caltrans Class 2, Section 26 or SSPWC Section 200-2.2
CMB – Crushed Miscellaneous Base Course; SSPWC Section 200-2.4 The asphalt concrete should conform to the specifications outlined in Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC, a.k.a. “Greenbook”), and asphalt concrete construction methods should meet the requirements of Section 302-5 of the Green Book.

The base course should conform to requirements of Section 26 of State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Caltrans), latest edition, or meet the specifications for untreated base as defined in Section 200-2.2 of the SSPWC (Greenbook). As an alternate, the base course may comply with the specifications for Crushed Miscellaneous Base per SSPWC Section 200-2.4 with an appropriate increase in thickness.

Prior to placement of the base course, the subgrade soil should be processed to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture-conditioned to 1 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Base course should be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned, as necessary, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).
1055
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

5.9.3 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavements
Portland cement concrete is recommended for areas of the development subjected to large loads and truck loading/unloading areas. In such areas, a minimum 6-inch thick Portland Concrete Cement (PCC) pavement section reinforced is recommended. Reinforcement is recommended to consist of No. 4 rebar at a maximum on-center spaced at 16 inches in each direction.

The recommended PCC pavement section was based on the procedures described in the Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots by the American Concrete Institute (ACI 330R-08).

All PCC pavements should have a minimum 28-day concrete compressive strength of 3,000 pounds-per-square-inch (psi). The reinforcement should be evaluated by the civil/structural engineer to accommodate any additional structural loading requirements. Control joints are recommended to be installed at a maximum on-center spacing of 12 feet for 6-inch thick slabs, and should form square panels.

Concrete pavement may be underlain by a minimum 4-inch thick layer of compacted granular base to serve as a leveling mat for construction and to assist in load transfer at construction joints.

Integral curbs should be used at the perimeter of PCC pavement.

Longitudinal joints should be avoided near curbs and gutters. Use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers should be considered at the perimeter of common parking or driveway areas when abutting either open (unfinished) or landscaped areas.

5.10 Concrete Flatwork and Exterior Slabs
Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches.

Common Type II cement should be adequate for concrete flatwork not exposed to recycled water. Type V cement and a water:cement ratio of 0.45 should be used for concrete exposed to recycled water.

Concrete flatwork should be placed on compacted fill. If this material has been disturbed or dried out, the subgrade soil to a depth of 12 inches should be moisture conditioned to 1 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content and recompacted to minimum 90 percent relative compaction.
1056
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

Exterior concrete driveways, ramps, curbs, gutters, sidewalks often crack.

Inclusion of joints at frequent intervals and reinforcement will help control the locations of the cracks, and thus reduce the unsightly appearance. Construction or weakened plane joints should be spaced at intervals of 6 feet or less for sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The spacing may be increased to 10 feet for ramps and driveways. If cracking occurs, repairs may be needed to mitigate the trip hazard and/or improve the appearance.

Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to expansion, drying and shrinkage is normal and should be expected. However, cracking is often aggravated by a high water-to-cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected.

The use of low-slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. Inclusion of joints at frequent intervals and reinforcement will help control the locations of the cracks, and thus improve aesthetics. Control joints should be spaced at intervals no more than 10 feet. If cracking occurs, repairs may be needed to mitigate the trip hazard and/or improve the appearance.

Slab cracking and/or uneven slab surfaces may result due to the presence of fill if the fill is left in place below the slabs. Slab distortion may result in tripping hazards.

Standard methods to mitigate trip hazards include the following:
• Saw Cutting
• Grinding
• Patching and ramping
• Removing and replacement
A regular maintenance program should be implemented to mitigate trip hazards and comply with safety requirements.

5.11 Surface Drainage
Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings or new site improvements.

Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away at a minimum of 2 percent for earthen surfaces for a lateral distance of at least five feet and further maintained by a swale or drainage path at a gradient of at least 1 percent. 1057
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by the use of area drains and collector pipes. Eave gutters are recommended and should reduce water infiltration into the subgrade materials. Downspouts should be connected to appropriate outlet devices.

Irrigation of landscaping should be controlled to maintain, as much as possible, consistent moisture content sufficient to provide healthy plant growth without over watering.

5.12 Additional Geotechnical Services
Leighton should review the grading plans, foundation plans, and specifications when they are available to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and incorporated.

Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided during the following activities:
• Grading and excavation of the site;
• Subgrade Preparation;
• Compaction of all fill materials;
• Utility trench backfilling and compaction;
• Footing excavation and slab-on-grade preparation;
• Pavement subgrade and base preparation;
• Placement of asphalt concrete and/or concrete; and
• When conditions are encountered on site that are not consistent with the conditions described in this report.
1058
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing at this time in San Bernardino County. We do not make any warranty, either express or implied.

As in many projects, conditions revealed in excavations may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and additional recommendations be developed as needed.

The identification and testing of hazardous, toxic or contaminated materials was outside the scope of Leighton's work. Should such materials be encountered at any time, or their existence be suspected, all measures stipulated in local, County, State and Federal regulations, as applicable, should be implemented.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the necessary design consultants for the project and incorporated into the plans; and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors carry out such recommendations in the field.

Changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on the subject or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may at some future time be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside Leighton’s control.

The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a necessarily limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples and tests. Such information can be obtained only with respect to the specific locations explored, and therefore may not completely define all subsurface conditions throughout the site. The nature of many sites is that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions.

Furthermore, changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to perform additional investigation of the site, finalize and complete the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report, and finally to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to verify that our preliminary findings are representative of the site. 1059
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

This report is intended only for the use of Legacy/Collier Residential, LLC and its design consultants, and only as related expressly to evaluation of the feasibility of developing the subject site with the proposed development and for preliminary planning and design.

If parties other than Leighton are engaged to provide construction geotechnical services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the findings and recommendations in this report or by providing alternative recommendations.

Any persons using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform such independent explorations as they deem necessary to satisfy themselves as to the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used in the performance of work on the subject site.
1060
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

7.0 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary, an ACI Standard, reported by ACI Committee 318.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, with Supplement 1, Effective December 12, 2018.

Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B., 2006, Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of FineGrained Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, September 2006, V. 132, No. 9, pp. 1165- 1177.

Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, 2007 Interim Revision.

California Building Standards Commission, 2019, 2019 California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on 2018 International Building Code, Effective January 1, 2020.

California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), 2021, Interactive Wellfinder Website,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/
California Geological Survey (CGS; formerly California Division of Mines and Geology, CDMG), 2000a, Seismic Hazards Zones, Ontario Quadrangle, Official Map Released November 17, 2000.
, 2000b, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Ontario 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report No. 040. _____, 2000c, CD-ROM containing digital images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones that affect the Southern Region, DMG CD 2000-003 2000. , 2008, Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.
, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018. 1061
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

San Bernardino County, 2010, Land Use Services, General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays, map FH27 C – Ontario, scale 1:14,400, dated march 9, 2010. , 2013, Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans, Prepared by CDM Smith, Inc. for the County of San Bernardino Areawide Stormwater Program, dated June 7, 2013.

Dibblee, T.W. Jr., 2002, Geologic Map of the San Dimas and Ontario Quadrangles, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map No. DF-91.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015, Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of Ontario, Map Number 06071C8620H, dated August 8, 2008.

Jennings, C.W., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000.

Morton D.M., and Miller, F.K., 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana, 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California, USGS Open File Report 2006-1217.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR), 2021, Historic Aerials by NETR Online, website: http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2018, Ontario Quadrangle, California, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, map scale 1:24,000.
, 2008a, Unified Hazard Tool for Deaggregations,
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
, 2008b, National Seismic Hazard Maps – Fault Parameters, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm , 2021a, Interactive Fault Map, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/ , 2021b, Interactive Geologic Map, http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/MapView/ Wildermuth Environmental, Inc., 2009, Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program, 2008 State of the Basin Report, Final Report, Prepared for Chino Basin Watermaster, dated November, 2009.

1062

FIGURES
1063
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F01_SLM_2022-04-19.mxd on 4/14/2022 2:00:06 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date: May 2022

SITE LOCATION MAP
Proposed Euclid and
Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
Approximate
Site Boundary
FIGURE 1
Reference: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation ©
2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus
1064
&<
&<
&<
&<
&< &(
!(#
!(#
!(#
!(#
/3
7'

$IX

4\I#

3HUF7HVW
,QWHUYDO

&37
7'

&37
7'

&377'
&37$
7'

/%7'
$IX
4\I#

/%7'
$IX
4\I#

/%7'
$IX
4\I#

/%7'

/3/%7'
$IX
4\I#
3HUF7HVW,QWHUYDO

Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F02_GM_2022-04-20.mxd on 4/19/2022 11:14:24 AM Author: KVM (btran)

GEOTECHNICAL MAP
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
³
0 100 200
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: Option A Site Plan, Euclid and Walnut Mixed UseSheet 01, Dated: 03/10/2022by AO Architecture Design Relationships 1 " = 100 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Date: May 2022
),*85(
/%
/3
&37
/(*(1'
&<
Approximate location of hollow-stem auger boringshowing total depth (T.D.) and depth to earth unitsin feet below ground surface. &(
Approximate location of percolation test wellshowing percolation test interval in feetbelow ground surface. !(# Approximate location of cone penetrometer test sounding showing total depth (T.D.) in feet below ground surface Approximate Site Boundary
Artificial Fill
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
$IX
4\I

W A L N U T S T R E E T

EUCLID AVENUE
1065
?zE
?¼E
Qyf3
Qyf
Scale:

Basemap: USGS Topo Map Service from Esri, 2021
Reference: USGS Geologic Map of the Sotuthern
California GIS Compilation by CGS, Lancaster, et al., 2012 1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F03_RGM_2022-04-19.mxd on 4/14/2022 2:02:07 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date: May 2022

REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
Qyf, Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
Proposed Euclid and
Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
FIGURE 3
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
1066
³ 0 510
Miles
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Reference: maps.conservation.ca.gov
1 " = 5 miles
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F04_RFHSM_2022-04-19.mxd on 4/14/2022 2:03:52 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date: May 2022

REGIONAL FAULTS AND

HISTORIC SEISMICITY MAP
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
Fault activity
Recency of Movement
Historic (<200 years)
Holocene (<11,700 years)
Late Quaternary (last 700,000 years)
Quaternary (<1.6M years)
Historical Earthquakes (≥M3.5)
! 3.5 - 3.99
! 4.0 - 4.99
! 5.0 - 5.99
! 6.0 - 6.99
FIGURE 4
1067
Scale:

Base Map: San Bernardino County Land Use Plan
General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays, FH27 C Ontario
1 " = 5,000 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F05_SHM_2022-04-20.mxd on 4/20/2022 1:12:49 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date: May 2022

SEISMIC HAZARD MAP
Proposed Euclid and
Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
Approximate
Site Location
FIGURE 5
³ 0 5,000 10,000
Feet
1068
?zE
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Reference: FEMA, DWR
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F06_FHM_2022-04-19.mxd on 4/14/2022 2:10:26 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date: May 2022

FLOOD HAZARD ZONE MAP
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
100-Year Floodplains
500-Year Floodplains
Proposed Euclid and
Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
FIGURE 6
1069
!"`$
?zE
³ 0 4,000 8,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Reference: FEMA, DWR
1 " = 4,000 '
Project: 13493.001 Eng/Geol: JEH/EMH
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13493\001\Maps\13493-001_F07_DIM_2022-04-19.mxd on 4/14/2022 2:17:09 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date:May 2022

DAM INUNDATION MAP
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
San Antonio 1986 Revision
Proposed Euclid and
Walnut Mixed-Use Development
2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, California
FIGURE 7
1070

RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL

WITH PROPER

SURFACE DRAINAGE
SLOPE

OR LEVEL
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE

WEEP HOLE

WATERPROOFING
(SEE GENERAL NOTES)

LEVEL OR
SLOPE
12"

FILTER MATERIAL
NATIVE
¼ TO 1½ INCH SIZE GRAVEL

WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC

LEVEL OR
SLOPE

WEEP HOLE
SLOPE

OR LEVEL
12"

WITH PROPER

SURFACE DRAINAGE
4 INCH DIAMETER

PERFORATED PIPE
(SEE NOTE 3)

FILTER FABRIC
OPTION 1: PIPE SURROUNDED WITH
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL OPTION 2: GRAVEL WRAPPED

IN FILTER FABRIC
SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50 Sieve Size
1"
3/4"
3/8"
No. 4
No. 8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
Percent Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
Class 2 Filter Permeable Material Gradation
Per Caltrans Specifications
(SEE NOTE 5)
12" MINIMUM
(SEE GRADATION)

WATERPROOFING
(SEE GENERAL NOTES)
(SEE NOTE 4)
12" MINIMUM
NATIVE
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT
(SEE NOTE 5)
WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50
GENERAL NOTES:
* Waterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisance problem through the wall is undesirable. * Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geotechnical engineer * All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum *Outlet portion of the subdrain should have a 4-inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal area designed by the project engineer. The subdrain pipe should be accessible for maintenance (rodding) *Other subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.

Notes:
1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting. 2) 1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/2-inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric 3) Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Schedule 40, Armco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in diameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered) 4) Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent. 5) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot maximum intervals. If exposure is permitted, weepholes should be located 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pipe under the sidewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement-type wall, a proper subdrain outlet system should be provided.
6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer. 7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above requirements.

V:\DRAFTING\TEMPLATES\STANDARD-FIGURES\ALL-STANDARD-FIGURES.DWG (08-02-21 9:07:35AM) Plotted by: btran FIGURE 8
1071

APPENDIX A

EXPLORATION LOGS
1072
ML-SM
ML/CL
ML-SM
CL-ML
SC
SP
@Surface: 2.5 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 4.5 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.58': Sandy SILT, olive brown, moist, low plasticity, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous; grades to Silty SAND, medium brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly
micaceous @ ~4'
<Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty CLAY, stiff, olive brown, moist, low plasticity, iron oxidation staining, slightly micaceous, few fine sand
PP=2.50 TSF )>>
@7.5': Sandy SILT, very stiff, medium olive brown, moist, very fine sand, low plasticity, slightly micaceous, slightly laminated; grades to Clayey SILT with sand, grayish brown, moist, low plasticity, iron oxidation staining, slightly micaceous, few fine sand
@10': Silty CLAY, very stiff, gray, moist, low to medium plasticity, iron oxidation staining/veins, few fine sand, trace subrounded gravel, slightly laminated
PP>4.5 TSF
@15': Silty CLAY, stiff, medium brown, moist, medium plasticity, iron oxidation staining, slightly micaceous; grades to Sandy CLAY, medium brown, moist, medium plasticity, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous, iron oxidation staining
PP=4.25 TSF
@20': Clayey SAND, medium dense, mottled medium brown to orange, low plasticity, predominately fine sand, little medium sand, slightly micaceous, slightly laminated, trace fine subrounded gravel
PP>4.50 TSF
@25': SAND with Silt, medium dense, yellowish brown, slightly moist, predominately fine sand, poorly-graded, little medium sand, slightly micaceous
95 89
112
120
9 31
16 12
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
EI, RV
CN
CO
4 7
9 7
11 13
4 9
15 4
8 12
8 18
22 12
16 27
805'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
805
800
795
790
785
780
775
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
1073
@30': SAND with gravel, medium dense, orange brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse sand, few fine subrounded gravel, slightly micaceous
@35': SAND with Silt, Very dense, yellowish brown,
predominately fine sand, little medium to coarse sand, poorly graded, few fine subangular to subrounded gravel
@40': SAND, dense, medium brown, slightly moist,
predominately fine sand, little medium to coarse sand, trace to few fine subangular to subrounded gravel, slightly
micaceous
@45': Very dense, medium brown to orange brown, few fine subrounded gravel
@50': Very dense, little subrounded granitic gravel
Total Depth: 51.5' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Backfilled with soil cuttings
Patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete
115
4 4
2 3
S-7
R-8
S-9
R-10
S-11
CO
9 12
14 11
24 50/4"
8 12
19 47
50/3"
35 39
50/4"
805'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
775
770
765
760
755
750
745
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
1074
ML-SM
ML-SM
SP
CL/SM
SP-ML
ML-SM
CL-SC
SP
@Surface: 4 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 5 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.75': Sandy SILT, olive brown, moist, low plasticity, very fine sand, slightly micaceous, some debris (asphalt)
<Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Clayey SAND, medium dense, olive gray, very moist, low plasticity, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous, pinhole pores; grades to Silty SAND with gravel, light to medium brown, predominately fine sand, few medium sand, fine
subangular granitic gravel )>>
@7.5': SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous, little iron oxidation staining @10': CLAY, stiff, olive gray, moist, lean, low plasticity, extensive iron oxidation staining, few very fine sand, slightly micaceous; grades to Silty SAND, light orange brown, very fine sand, slightly micaceous
@15': SAND with silt, medium dense, light gray, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, micaceous; interbedded with Clayey SILT, medium brown, moist, low plasticity, laminated, iron oxidation staining
@20': Sandy SILT, very stiff, medium brown, moist, low
plasticity, very fine sand, micaceous; grades to Sandy CLAY, medium brown, moist, low plasticity, very fine to fine sand, trace subrounded gravel
PP = 3.50
@25': Sandy CLAY, very stiff, medium brown, moist, low
plasticity, very fine to fine sand, micaceous, some silt PP > 4.50 TSF
@26': SAND with silt, orange brown, dry to slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, few medium sand, slightly micaceous
Total Depth: 26.5' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Backfilled with soil cuttings
101
103
112
108
3 4
16 10
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6

DS, MD,
SE
CN
CN, AL
3 8
16 6
11 11
4 8
12 10
10 11
7 11
17 10
15 24
807'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
805
800
795
790
785
780
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
1075
Patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete
807'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
775
770
765
760
755
750
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
1076
SM
SM
CL-SC
CL
SC
@Surface: 3.5 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 12 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@1.3': Silty SAND, olive brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, few medium sand, trace coarse sand, non-plastic, few debris (asphalt)
<Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, medium dense, medium brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly laminated, slightly micaceous )>> @7.5': Silty SAND, medium dense, olive, slightly moist, fine sand, low plasticity, iron oxidation staining, carbonate veins; grades to SAND, yellowish brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand
@10': Silty CLAY, very stiff, grayish brown, slightly moist, low to medium plasticity, trace very fine sand, iron oxidation staining PP > 4.50 TSF
@15': Very stiff, slightly laminated
PP = 4.25 TSF
@20': Clayey SAND, medium dense, orange brown, slightly moist, low plasticity, fine sand, trace medium to coarse sand, slightly laminated, iron oxidation staining
PP = 4.50 TSF
@25': Medium dense, higher sand content, pinhole pores
PP > 4.50 TSF
Total Depth: 26.5' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Backfilled with soil cuttings
Patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete
111
90 87
122
114
8 26
35 12
14 B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
CR, MD
DS
7 9
11 7
12 15
10 16
26 5
9 17
12 16
27 7
10 17
808'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
805
800
795
790
785
780
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3
1077
SM
SM-ML
ML-SM
CL-ML
SC
@Surface: 5 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 3 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.67': Silty SAND, olive brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, few medium sand, trace coarse sand, trace debris
(asphalt)
<Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, medium dense, medium brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, trace coarse sand, nonplastic, slightly micaceous; grades to Sandy SILT, yellowish brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, no to low plasticity, slightly
micaceous )>>
@7.5': Sandy SILT, very stiff, grayish brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, low plasticity, iron oxidation staining; grades to Sandy SILT, yellowish brown
@10': Silty CLAY, very stiff, grayish brown to tan, moist, low plasticity, slightly laminated, trace very fine sand; grades to SAND, tan to yellowish brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous
@15': Silty CLAY, very stiff, grayish brown, moist, low to medium plasticity, iron oxidation staining, some very fine to fine sand, slightly laminated
@20': Very stiff, few to little very fine to fine sand, slightly laminated
@25': Clayey SAND, dense, olive brown, moist, predominately fine sand, trace to few medium to coarse sand, low plasticity, slightly micaceous; grades to orange, iron oxidation stained Clayey SAND, slightly laminated
Total Depth: 26.5' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Backfilled with soil cuttings
Patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
SE
5 7
9 9
16 16
6 11
16 5
10 21
6 9
19 10
18 28
807'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
805
800
795
790
785
780
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5
1078
ML-SM
SM-ML
ML-CL
SP
SM
ML-SM
@Surface: 3 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 7 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.83': Sandy SILT, olive brown, moist, low plasticity, very fine sand, slightly micaceous; grades to Silty SAND, medium
brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, trace medium sand, slightly micaceous @ ~4'
Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, very loose, medium brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous, nonplastic
@10': Clayey Sandy SILT, medium stiff, moist, low plasticity, very fine sand, slightly micaceous; grades to Silty CLAY with sand, gray, moist, low to medium plasticity, very fine sand, micaceous, extensive iron oxidation staining
@15': Silty SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, slightly moist, prodominately fine sand, some clay, trace medium to coarse sand, trace fine subrounded gravel, slightly micaceous
@18.5': Sandy SILT, very stiff, olive brown, slightly moist, low plasticity, very fine to fine sand, iron oxidation staining, slightly micaceous
PP > 4.50 TSF
@23.5': Sandy CLAY, stiff to medium dense, orange mottled with brown, low plasticity, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous
Total Depth: 25' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Temporary percolation well installed; screened from 17 - 22' bgs Upon completion of percolation testing, boring was backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with cold-mix asphalt
104
119
5 12
B-1
S-1
S-2
R-3
R-4
S-5
, SA
, SA
SA
2 2
2 2
3 4
6 9
11 8
13 21
5 6
7 805'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
805
800
795
790
785
780
775
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-1
1079
SM-ML
SM
ML/CL
SM
@Surface: 3.5 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 4 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.62': Silty SAND to Sandy SILT, olive brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, low to no plasticity, slightly micaceous <Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, very loose, medium to dark brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, trace coarse sand to fine subrounded gravel )>>
@10': Sandy SILT, medium stiff, mottled with gray and light brown, slightly moist, low plasticity, very fine sand, slightly micaceous; grades to Silty CLAY, grayish brown, moist, low to medium plasticity, iron oxidation staining, laminated @15': Silty CLAY, stiff, olive brown, moist, low plasticity, very fine sand, slightly micaceous, laminated, iron oxidation staining
@18.5': Silty SAND, medium dense, olive brown, moist, very fine to fine sand, low to no plasticity, little iron oxidation staining, trace pinhole pores
Total Depth: 20' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Temporary percolation well installed; screened from 15 - 20' bgs Upon completion of percolation testing, boring was backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with cold-mix asphalt
91 115
25 7
B-1
S-1
S-2
R-3
R-4
, SA
, SA
4 2
2 2
2 3
4 6
9 12
16 26
804'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
4-6-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
800
795
790
785
780
775
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-2
1080

SUMMARY
OF

CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
Prepared by:

KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING
5415 Industrial Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1518
Office (714) 901-7270 / Fax (714) 901-7289
www.kehoetesting.com
Project:

Legacy-Ontario
2530 W. Walnut Street
Ontario, CA
April 7, 2022
Prepared for:

Mr. Eric Holliday
Leighton & Associates
17781 Cowan
Irvine, CA 92614-6009
Office (800) 253-4567 / Fax (949) 250-1114
1081

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK

3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES

4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION

APPENDIX
• CPT Plots
• CPT Classification/Soil Behavior Chart
• Summary of Shear Wave Velocities
• CPT Data Files (sent via email)
1082

SUMMARY
OF

CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA

1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Cone Penetration Test (CPT) program carried out for the Legacy-Ontario project located at 2530 W. Walnut Street in Ontario, California. The work was performed by Kehoe Testing & Engineering (KTE) on April 7, 2022. The scope of work was performed as directed by Leighton & Associates personnel.

2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK
The fieldwork consisted of performing CPT soundings at five locations to determine the soil lithology. A summary is provided in TABLE 2.1.

LOCATION

DEPTH OF
CPT (ft) COMMENTS/NOTES:

CPT-1 50
CPT-2 50
CPT-3 35 Refusal
CPT-3A 50
LB-4 50
TABLE 2.1 - Summary of CPT Soundings

3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES
The CPT soundings were carried out by KTE using an integrated electronic cone system manufactured by Vertek. The CPT soundings were performed in accordance with ASTM standards (D5778). The cone penetrometers were pushed using a 30-ton CPT rig. The cone used during the program was a 15 cm^2 cone with a cone net area ratio of 0.83. The following parameters were recorded at approximately 2.5 cm depth intervals:
• Cone Resistance (qc) • Inclination
• Sleeve Friction (fs) • Penetration Speed
• Dynamic Pore Pressure (u)
1083
At location CPT-1, shear wave measurements were obtained at approximately 5-foot intervals.

The shear wave is generated using an air-actuated hammer, which is located inside the front jack of the CPT rig. The cone has a triaxial geophone, which recorded the shear wave signal generated by the air hammer.

The above parameters were recorded and viewed in real time using a laptop computer. Data is stored at the KTE office for up to 2 years for future analysis and reference. A complete set of baseline readings was taken prior to each sounding to determine temperature shifts and any zero load offsets. Monitoring base line readings ensures that the cone electronics are operating properly.

4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION
The Cone Penetration Test data is presented in graphical form in the attached Appendix. These plots were generated using the CPeT-IT program. Penetration depths are referenced to ground surface. The soil behavior type on the CPT plots is derived from the attached CPT SBT plot (Robertson, “Interpretation of Cone Penetration Test…”, 2009) and presents major soil lithologic changes. The stratigraphic interpretation is based on relationships between cone resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and penetration pore pressure (u). The friction ratio (Rf), which is sleeve friction divided by cone resistance, is a calculated parameter that is used along with cone resistance to infer soil behavior type. Generally, cohesive soils (clays) have high friction ratios, low cone resistance and generate excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils (sands) have lower friction ratios, high cone bearing and generate little (or negative) excess pore water pressures.

The CPT data files have also been provided. These files can be imported in CPeT-IT (software by GeoLogismiki) and other programs to calculate various geotechnical parameters.

It should be noted that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based on qc, fs and u. In these situations, experience, judgement and an assessment of the pore pressure data should be used to infer the soil behavior type.

If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call our office at (714) 901-7270.

Sincerely,

KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING
Steven P. Kehoe
President
04/14/22-kd-4039
1084

APPENDIX
1085
Project: Leighton & Associates / Legacy
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
2530 W. Walnut St, Ontario, CA Total depth: 50.40 ft, Date: 4/7/2022 CPT-1
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 00
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
86420 1 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 10 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 61 41 21 086420 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 4/8/2022, 11:45:56 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Leighton-Ontario4-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 1086
Project: Leighton & Associates / Legacy
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
2530 W. Walnut St, Ontario, CA Total depth: 50.20 ft, Date: 4/7/2022 CPT-2
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 00
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
86420 1 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 10 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 61 41 21 086420 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 4/8/2022, 11:45:57 AM 2 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Leighton-Ontario4-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 1087
Project: Leighton & Associates / Legacy
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
2530 W. Walnut St, Ontario, CA Total depth: 35.84 ft, Date: 4/7/2022 CPT-3
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 00
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
86420 1 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 10 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 61 41 21 086420 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 4/8/2022, 11:45:57 AM 3 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Leighton-Ontario4-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 1088
Project: Leighton & Associates / Legacy
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
2530 W. Walnut St, Ontario, CA Total depth: 50.66 ft, Date: 4/7/2022 CPT-3A
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 00
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
86420 1 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 10 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 61 41 21 086420 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 4/8/2022, 11:45:58 AM 4 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Leighton-Ontario4-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 1089
Project: Leighton & Associates / Legacy
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
2530 W. Walnut St, Ontario, CA Total depth: 50.14 ft, Date: 4/7/2022 LB-4
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 00
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
86420 1 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 10 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 61 41 21 086420 1 8
Depth (ft)
5 0
48 4 6
4 4
4 2
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 4/8/2022, 11:45:58 AM 5 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Leighton-Ontario4-22\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 1090
1091
Leighton & Associates
Legacy
Ontario, CA
CPT Shear Wave Measurements
S-Wave Interval
Tip Geophone Travel S-Wave Velocity S-Wave
Depth Depth Distance Arrival from Surface Velocity
Location (ft) (ft) (ft) (msec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec)
CPT-1 5.09 4.09 4.55 4.80 949

10.14 9.14 9.36 10.26 912 880

15.03 14.03 14.17 16.16 877 816

20.01 19.01 19.11 21.42 892 940

25.10 24.10 24.18 26.42 915 1014

30.05 29.05 29.12 31.16 934 1041

35.07 34.07 34.13 36.20 943 994

40.03 39.03 39.08 40.12 974 1263

45.14 44.14 44.19 44.64 990 1129

50.03 49.03 49.07 48.80 1006 1174
Shear Wave Source Offset - 2 ft
S-Wave Velocity from Surface = Travel Distance/S-Wave Arrival Interval S-Wave Velocity = (Travel Dist2-Travel Dist1)/(Time2-Time1) 1092

APPENDIX B

PERCOLATION TEST DATA
1093
Project Number: 13493.001 Test Hole Number: LP-1
Project Name: Legacy - Collier Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 23.5 Tested By: LFO/KD Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: 8:34 Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5 Start Time for Standard: 9:31 Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 16.9 25 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Percolation
Rate (min./in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
8:34 16.93 78.8
8:59 17.61 70.7
9:04 16.99 78.1
9:29 17.61 70.7
9:31 16.94 78.7
9:41 17.43 72.8
9:43 17.00 78.0
9:53 17.42 73.0
9:55 17.00 78.0
10:05 17.44 72.7
10:06 17.00 78.0
10:16 17.44 72.7
10:18 17.00 78.0
10:28 17.45 72.6
10:30 17.00 78.0
10:40 17.44 72.7
Infiltration Rate, I (Last Reading) = 0.32 in./hr.

Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
4/6/2022
4/7/2022
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Percolation Data
1 25 8.2 3.06 0.20
2 25 7.4 3.36 0.18
3 10 5.9 1.70 0.35
4 10 5.0 1.98 0.30
5 10 5.3 1.89 0.32
6 10 5.3 1.89 0.32
7 10 5.4 1.85 0.33
8 10 5.3 1.89 0.32
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 1094
Project Number: 13493.001 Test Hole Number: LP-2
Project Name: Legacy - Collier Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 20
Tested By: LFO/KD Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: 7:25 Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5 Start Time for Standard: 8:27 Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 15.05 25 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Percolation
Rate (min./in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
7:25 15.05 59.4
7:50 15.06 59.3
7:55 15.20 57.6
8:20 16.55 41.4
8:27 15.08 59.0
8:37 15.75 51.0
8:39 15.05 59.4
8:49 15.78 50.6
8:56 15.08 59.0
9:06 15.75 51.0
9:08 15.08 59.0
9:18 15.50 54.0
9:21 15.08 59.0
9:31 15.78 50.6
9:34 15.08 59.0
9:44 15.78 50.6
Infiltration Rate, I (Last Reading) = 0.69 in./hr.

Percolation Data
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
4/6/2022
4/7/2022
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:
1 25 0.1 208.33 0.00
2 25 16.2 1.54 0.59
3 10 8.0 1.24 0.66
5 10 8.0 1.24 0.66
4 10 8.8 1.14 0.72
6 10 5.0 1.98 0.40
7 10 8.4 1.19 0.69
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 8 10 8.4 1.19 0.69
1095

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1096
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 04/13/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/26/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type:

Soil Identification:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 185.47
Weight of Ring (g): 45.70
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9695
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 169.15
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 153.14
Weight of Container (g): 65.19
Initial Moisture Content (%) 18.2
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 98.3
Initial Saturation (%): 68
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0773
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 254.24
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 229.01
Weight of Container (g): 59.14
Final Moisture Content (%) 20.32
Final Dry Density (pcf): 106.5
Final Saturation (%): 94
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1103
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.71
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.10 0.0777 0.9996 0.00 0.04 0.720 0.04

0.25 0.0812 0.9962 0.03 0.39 0.714 0.36

0.50 0.0834 0.9940 0.08 0.61 0.711 0.53

1.00 0.0869 0.9905 0.15 0.95 0.707 0.80

2.00 0.0905 0.9868 0.25 1.32 0.702 1.07

2.00 0.0917 0.9856 0.25 1.44 0.700 1.19

4.00 0.0982 0.9791 0.36 2.09 0.691 1.73

8.00 0.1092 0.9681 0.49 3.19 0.674 2.70

16.00 0.1274 0.9500 0.64 5.01 0.645 4.37

4.00 0.1222 0.9552 0.47 4.49 0.651 4.02

1.00 0.1172 0.9602 0.34 3.99 0.658 3.65

0.25 0.1103 0.9670 0.25 3.30 0.668 3.05

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
13493.001
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive silty clay (CL-ML)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)

5.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
LB-1
R-1
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)

0.640

0.650

0.660

0.670

0.680

0.690

0.700

0.710

0.720

0.730

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol LB-1, R-1 @ 5
1097
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:

Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-1 R-1 18.2 20.3 106.5
Olive silty clay (CL-ML)
Project No.:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
04-22
13493.001
Time Readings

98.3 0.668 68 94
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.720
Void Ratio
5 0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.9000

1.0000

0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

5.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
1098
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 04/13/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/26/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type:

Soil Identification:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 199.47
Weight of Ring (g): 44.89
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9819
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 189.19
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 178.43
Weight of Container (g): 59.52
Initial Moisture Content (%) 9.0
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 117.9
Initial Saturation (%): 56
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0958
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 269.21
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 253.05
Weight of Container (g): 66.12
Final Moisture Content (%) 11.38
Final Dry Density (pcf): 120.3
Final Saturation (%): 76
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1178
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.71
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.10 0.0960 0.9998 0.00 0.02 0.435 0.02

0.25 0.0974 0.9984 0.06 0.16 0.434 0.10

0.50 0.0988 0.9970 0.14 0.30 0.433 0.16

1.00 0.1015 0.9943 0.24 0.57 0.430 0.33

2.00 0.1043 0.9916 0.36 0.84 0.428 0.48

2.00 0.1051 0.9907 0.36 0.93 0.427 0.57

4.00 0.1102 0.9856 0.50 1.44 0.422 0.94

8.00 0.1170 0.9788 0.66 2.12 0.414 1.46

16.00 0.1275 0.9684 0.86 3.17 0.402 2.31

4.00 0.1240 0.9718 0.67 2.82 0.404 2.15

1.00 0.1210 0.9748 0.51 2.52 0.406 2.01

0.25 0.1178 0.9780 0.39 2.20 0.409 1.81

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
13493.001
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive gray silty, clayey sand (SC-SM)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)

5.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
LB-2
R-1
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)

0.400

0.405

0.410

0.415

0.420

0.425

0.430

0.435

0.440

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol LB-2, R-1 @ 5
1099
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:

Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-2 R-1 9.0 11.4 120.3
Olive gray silty, clayey sand (SC-SM)
Project No.:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
04-22
13493.001
Time Readings
117.9 0.409 56 76
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.435
Void Ratio
5 0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.9000

1.0000

0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
1100
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JD Date: 04/13/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/26/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type:

Soil Identification:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 193.07
Weight of Ring (g): 45.55
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9656
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 263.34
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 214.46
Weight of Container (g): 55.13
Initial Moisture Content (%) 30.7
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 93.9
Initial Saturation (%): 100
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0902
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 253.11
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 222.45
Weight of Container (g): 61.21
Final Moisture Content (%) 26.50
Final Dry Density (pcf): 99.6
Final Saturation (%): 99
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1293
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.79
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.10 0.0911 0.9991 0.00 0.09 0.854 0.09

0.25 0.0978 0.9924 0.11 0.76 0.843 0.65

0.50 0.1021 0.9882 0.25 1.19 0.838 0.94

1.00 0.1082 0.9820 0.43 1.80 0.830 1.37

2.00 0.1140 0.9762 0.58 2.38 0.822 1.80

2.00 0.1130 0.9773 0.58 2.28 0.824 1.70

4.00 0.1196 0.9706 0.72 2.94 0.814 2.22

8.00 0.1355 0.9547 0.88 4.53 0.788 3.65

16.00 0.1602 0.9301 1.07 7.00 0.745 5.93

4.00 0.1523 0.9379 0.89 6.21 0.757 5.32

1.00 0.1409 0.9493 0.72 5.07 0.775 4.35

0.25 0.1293 0.9609 0.47 3.91 0.791 3.44

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
13493.001
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive gray lean clay (CL)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)

10.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
LB-2
R-3
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)

0.720

0.740

0.760

0.780

0.800

0.820

0.840

0.860

0.880

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol LB-2, R-3 @ 10
1101
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:

Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-2 R-3 30.7 26.5 99.6
Olive gray lean clay (CL)
Project No.:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
04-22
13493.001
Time Readings

93.9 0.791 100 99
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.855
Void Ratio
10 0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.9000

1.0000

0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
1102
Project Name: Tested By : G. Berdy Date: 04/13/22
Project No. : 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No. LB-3
Sample No. B-1
Sample Depth (ft) 0-5
168.20
168.07

52.00 0.11
100.19
8 3
860
7:15/8:00
45 24.5192

24.5129

0.0063
259.25
260
ml of Extract For Titration (B) 15
ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C) 0.4
PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 40
PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 40

7.92 20.3
TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS
SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II
pH TEST, DOT California Test 643
Furnace Temperature (°C)
Weight of Container (g)
Crucible No.

Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Olive brown
(SM)
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Temperature °C
pH Value
Duration of Combustion (min)
Soil Identification:

Time In / Time Out
Wt. of Residue (g) (A)
CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422
Wt. of Crucible (g)
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis
PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150
Moisture Content (%)
Beaker No.

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
Weight of Soaked Soil (g)
1103
Project Name: Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario C Tested By : Date:

Project No. : Checked By: A. Santos Date:

Boring No.: Depth (ft.) :

Sample No. :

Soil Identification:*
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.

23.14 1500 Wt. of Container (g)

0.11 168.20
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Specimen
No.
1 2
Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
30 Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
1500

1.000
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm)

46.18 Moisture Content Sulfate Content
5 Min. Resistivity
DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Test 643 (%) (ppm) (ppm)
DOT CA Test 643
4 40
50 60
3 38.50 1350 130.40
1350
1335 34.4 260 40 7.92 20.3

SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
pH Temp. (°C)
Soil pH
1350
1350
168.07

52.00 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
04/19/22
04/25/22
0-5
13493.001
LB-3
G. Berdy
B-1
Container No.

Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
1450 1450 Box Constant
Olive brown (SM)
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)

30.82 Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Moisture Content (%)
1104
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 04/18/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: Sample Type: 90% Remold
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 0-5
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
197.98 198.21 198.62

45.38 45.43 45.60
Before Shearing
169.35 169.35 169.35
155.92 155.92 155.92

56.15 56.15 56.15

0.2545 0.2729 0.0000

0.2651 0.2858 -0.0224
After Shearing
211.09 212.06 191.55
190.82 191.76 171.67

58.12 58.19 38.35

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
LB-2
Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

B-1

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

DS LB-2, B-1 @ 0-5
1105
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
04-22
Project No.: 13493.001
Sample Type:
90% Remold
Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)

71.7 0.9894

15.3 Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

72.3 0.9776

14.9 1.000

0.893

0.729

0.0017

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

2.000

1.405

1.405

0.0017

4.000

2.719

2.719

0.0017

71.9 0.9871

15.2 Soil Identification: 13.46
112.0

13.46 111.9 112.2

1.000

2.415

13.46 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-2
B-1
0-5

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-2, B-1 @ 0-5
1106
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: 90% Remold Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)  (o
) Saturation (%)
Peak 236 32 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 72 34 Final Moisture Content (%)

1.405

1.405
Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-2
B-1
0-5

71.9 13.46
112.0

0.0017

4.000

2.719

2.719

0.0017

72.3 2.000

0.9776

13.46 14.9

1.000

2.415

0.9871

15.2 112.2

1.000

2.415

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

1.000

0.893

0.729

0.0017

13.46 111.9

2.415
Soil Identification:
04-22
Project No.: 13493.001

71.7 0.9894

1.000

15.3 Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-2, B-1 @ 0-5
1107
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 04/19/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 7.5
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
177.41 181.99 182.19

43.72 45.58 45.95
Before Shearing
182.62 182.62 182.62
178.05 178.05 178.05

58.18 58.18 58.18

0.0000 0.2562 0.2637
-0.0126 0.2707 0.2918
After Shearing
208.16 204.29 212.34
188.26 184.44 192.59

66.34 58.11 67.16

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
LB-3
Olive silty sand (SM)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

R-2
DS LB-3, R-2 @ 7.5
1108
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
109.1

1.000

2.415

3.81 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
R-2

7.5 19.0

0.9855

15.7 Soil Identification: 3.81
109.3

3.81 107.1

1.364

0.0033

4.000

2.858

2.704

0.0033

1.000

0.773

0.688

0.0033

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

2.000

1.544

17.9 0.9874

16.3 Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

18.9 0.9719

15.7 04-22
Project No.: 13493.001
Sample Type:

Ring
Olive silty sand (SM)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, R-2 @ 7.5
1109
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)  (o
) Saturation (%)
Peak 116 35 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 18 34 Final Moisture Content (%)
04-22
Project No.: 13493.001

17.9 0.9874

1.000

16.3 Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

1.000

0.773

0.688

0.0033

3.81 107.1

2.415
Soil Identification:

0.9719

3.81 15.7

1.000

2.415

0.9855

15.7 109.1

1.000

2.415

19.0 3.81
109.3

0.0033

4.000

2.858

2.704

0.0033

18.9 2.000

1.544

1.364
Olive silty sand (SM)
Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
R-2

7.5 0.00

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, R-2 @ 7.5
1110
Tested By: G. Berdy Date: 04/13/22
Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22
Depth (ft.):

Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container No. (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h 1100
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 18

1.0 0.6030
04/14/22 9:53 1.0 1351 0.6030
04/14/22 5:42 1.0
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
04/13/22 11:59 1.0 37 0.6000
10 04/13/22 11:12 1.0 0 0.5855
04/13/22 11:22 0.5855
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 49.0 96.3
Date Time Pressure (psi) Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
Total Porosity 0.331 0.343
Pore Volume (cc) 68.6 72.2
Dry Density (pcf) 112.7 110.8
Void Ratio 0.496 0.522
Moisture Content (%) 9.00 18.61
Wet Density (pcf) 122.9 131.4
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 751.90 575.77
Wt. of Container (g) 0.00 202.10
Container No. OO
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 819.60 645.30
Wt. of Mold (g) 202.10 0.00
Specific Gravity (Assumed) 2.70 2.70
Specimen Height (in.) 1.0000 1.0175
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (g) 609.40 443.20
Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01
100.00
MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test
1000.00

0.00 1000.00

0.00 0-5
Sample No.: B-1
Soil Identification: Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
Project No.: 13493.001
Boring No.:

EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
Project Name:

LB-1
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
1111
LB-1 7.5 9.3 94.6
LB-1 10.0 31.0 88.6
LB-1 15.0 15.7 111.5
LB-1 20.0 12.2 120.1
LB-1 30.0 3.6
LB-1 40.0 4.4
LB-1 45.0 2.0 114.9
LB-1 50.0 3.2
LB-2 7.5 3.0 101.4
LB-2 15.0 4.0 102.8
LB-2 20.0 15.7 111.9
LB-2 25.0 10.4 108.4
LB-3 5.0 7.7 110.6
LB-3 10.0 26.3 90.1
LB-3 15.0 35.1 87.0
LB-3 20.0 12.5 121.7
LB-3 25.0 13.9 113.8
LP-1 15.0 5.0 104.3
LP-1 18.5 12.4 119.3
LP-2 15.0 25.4 91.0
LP-2 18.5 7.3 115.0
Classification
Water
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
Maximum
Size
(mm)
%<#200
Sieve
Saturation
(%)
Void
Ratio Depth
Summary of Laboratory Results
Sheet 1 of 1
Borehole
Figure No. 1
Project Name:

Project Number:

Date:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Residential Development
13493.001
5/4/2022 11:49:57 AM
US_LAB_SUMMARY 13493.001 BORING LOGS.GPJ ROCKLOG2012.GDT 5/4/22 1112
Tested By: J. Gonzalez Date: 04/12/22
Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/13/22
LB-2 Depth (ft.): 0-5
Preparation Method: X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³) 0.03330 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 123456
3861 3920 3880
1826 1826 1826
2035 2094 2054
462.6 478.9 498.0
423.8 429.5 437.3

37.9 36.3 39.6

10.05 12.56 15.26
134.7 138.6 136.0
122.4 123.2 118.0
123.5 11.5

PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:

GR:SA:FI
Atterberg Limits:

LL,PL,PI
Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
13493.001
TEST NO.

Soil Identification:

Sample No.:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA

MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:

Boring No.:

Weight of Container (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
Project Name:

Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%)
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.

Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
SP. GR. = 2.80
XX
MX LB-2, B-1 @ 0-5
1113
Tested By: J. Gonzalez Date: 04/13/22
Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22
LB-3 Depth (ft.): 0-5
Preparation Method: X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³) 0.03330 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 123456
3839 3913 3850
1826 1826 1826
2013 2087 2024
499.8 520.0 518.3
469.3 477.3 466.0

41.0 39.1 37.8

7.12 9.74 12.21
133.3 138.2 134.0
124.4 125.9 119.4
126.4 9.0

PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:

GR:SA:FI
Atterberg Limits:

LL,PL,PI
Olive brown silty sand (SM)
13493.001
TEST NO.

Soil Identification:

Sample No.:

Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA

MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:

Boring No.:

Weight of Container (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
Project Name:

Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%)
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.

Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.55
SP. GR. = 2.60
SP. GR. = 2.65
XX
MX LB-3, B-1 @ 0-5
1114
Project Name: Tested By: J. Domingo Date: 04/22/22
Project No. : Input By: G. Bathala Date: 04/25/22
Boring No.: Checked By: A. Santos
Sample No.: Depth (ft.) 10.0
Soil Identification:
121234
26 21 16

8.64 8.87 20.09 21.49 20.68

7.38 7.61 14.48 15.38 14.70

1.06 1.07 1.11 1.03 1.00

19.94 19.27 41.96 42.58 43.65
42 20
22 CL
PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 16.06
One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation
LL =Wn(N/25)

PROCEDURES USED
Wet Preparation
Multipoint - Wet
X Dry Preparation
Multipoint - Dry
X Procedure A
Multipoint Test
Procedure B
One-point Test
Olive gray lean clay (CL)

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318
13493.001
LB-2
R-3
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Onratio CA
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content (%) [Wn]
TEST
NO.

Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Classification
Number of Blows [N]
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index (PI)
Liquid Limit (LL)

0.121
CL or OL
ML or OL
MH or OH
For classification of finegrained soils and finegrained fraction of coarsegrained soils "A" Line
7 4
CH or OH
CL- ML
40 41
42 43
44 45
10 100
Moisture Content (%)
Number of Blows
20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1115
Project Name: Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid &
Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
Project No.: 13493.001
Summary of Pocket Penetrometer Test Results
Tested by: S. Felter Date: 04/19/22
Prepared by: G. Bathala Date: 04/22/22
Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft.) Readings Remarks
LB-1 R-2 7.5 2.50
R-3 10 >4.50
R-4 15 4.25
R-5 20 >4.50
R-10 45 3.50
LB-2 R-2 7.5 1.75
R-4 15 3.75
R-5 20 3.50
R-6 25 >4.50
LB-3 R-1 5 >4.50
R-3 10 >4.50
R-4 15 4.25
R-5 20 4.50
R-6 25 >4.50
LP-1 R-3 15 2.75
R-4 18.5 >4.50
LP-2 R-3 15 >4.50
R-4 18.5 >4.50
1116
PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: 13493.001
BORING NUMBER: LB-1 DEPTH (FT.): 0-5
SAMPLE NUMBER: B-1 TECHNICIAN: O. Figueroa
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Olive brown sandy silt s(ML) DATE COMPLETED: 4/13/2022 TEST SPECIMEN a b c
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 12.7 13.7 14.6
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.45 2.50 2.53
DRY DENSITY, pcf 120.2 118.7 116.2
COMPACTOR PRESSURE, psi 325 250 150
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 564 302 139
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 51 35 25
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 28 36 46
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.60 5.13 5.45
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 72 63 53
R-VALUE CORRECTED 72 63 53
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 0.45 0.59 0.75
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 1.70 1.17 0.83

EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 50
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 63
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 50

R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
DOT CA Test 301
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use Ontario CA

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feet
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
1117
Project Name: Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut Mixed-Use, Ontario CA Tested By: A Santos Date: 04/25/22 Project No. : Input By: J. Ward Date: 04/25/22
11:20 11:30 11:33 11:53 13.5 1.2 9
11:24 11:34 11:37 11:57 13.4 1.1 911:28 11:38 11:41 12:01 13.5 1.1 913:40 13:50 13:53 14:13 12.6 1.4 12 13:44 13:54 13:57 14:17 12.6 1.4 12
13:48 13:58 14:01 14:21 12.7 1.3 11
T1 = Starting Time T3 = Settlement Starting Time Sand Equivalent = R2 / R1 * 100 T2 = ( T1 + 10 min) Begin Agitation T4 = ( T3 + 20 min) Take Clay Reading (R1) Record SE as Next Higher Integer (131 cycles in 45 sec) and Sand Reading (R2) Olive brown silty sand
(SM) LB-5
R2

SAND EQUIVALENT TEST
DOT CA Test 217
Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft.)
12 13493.001
Average
SE
Olive brown sandy silt
s(ML) B-1
B-1
Soil Type R1 SE
0-5
LB-2 0-5 9
T1 T2 T3 T4
SE LB-2 & LB-5, B-1 @ 0-5
1118
Project Name: Tested By: S. Felter Date: 04/20/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: LP-1 Depth (feet): 15.0
Sample No.: R-3
Soil Identification: Grayish brown silty sand (SM)
2 0.0
712.3 0.0
110.0 1.0
602.3 0.0
2 582.3
110.0
472.3
(in.) (mm.)
1 1/2" 37.5
1" 25.0
3/4" 19.0
1/2" 12.5
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.75
#8 2.36
#16 1.18
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL: 0%
SAND: 77 %
FINES: 23 %
GROUP SYMBOL: SM
Remarks:

After Wet Sieve
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)

17.0 22.9
343.0 43.1
100.0

99.8 97.2

99.4 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.
464.2

72.3 54.5
PAN
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

0.0 1.2
166.8
Cu = D60/D10 =

3.6 91.0
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)
Container No.:

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 6913
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
1119
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

15.0 COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY
Project No.: 13493.001
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA Project Name:

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING
SAND

FINE SILT

HYDROMETER

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

GRAVEL FINES
LP-1 Sample No.:

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Grayish brown silty sand (SM)
SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:Depth (feet): Soil Type :
0 : 77 : 23
R-3
0 102030405060708090
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve LP-1, R-3 @ 15
1120
Project Name: Tested By: S. Felter Date: 04/20/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: LP-1 Depth (feet): 18.5
Sample No.: R-4
Soil Identification: Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
9545 0.0
774.5 0.0
106.2 1.0
668.3 0.0
9545
426.4
106.2
320.2
(in.) (mm.)
1 1/2" 37.5
1" 25.0
3/4" 19.0
1/2" 12.5
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.75
#8 2.36
#16 1.18
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL: 0%
SAND: 47 %
FINES: 53 %
GROUP SYMBOL: s(ML)
Remarks:

Container No.:

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 6913
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed Use, Ontario CA
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)

93.8 Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
PAN
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

0.0 2.9
106.5
Cu = D60/D10 =

8.0 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.
315.8

84.1 41.7

15.3 52.7
206.4 69.1
100.0

99.6 97.7

98.8 After Wet Sieve
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)
1121
0 : 47 : 53
R-4
Depth (feet): Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Olive brown sandy silt s(ML)
s(ML)
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:

GRAVEL FINES
LP-1 Sample No.: Project Name:

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING
SAND

FINE SILT

HYDROMETER

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

18.5 COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY
Project No.: 13493.001
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed Use, Ontario CA
0 102030405060708090
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve LP-1, R-4 @ 18.5
1122
Project Name: Tested By: S. Felter Date: 04/19/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: LP-1 Depth (feet): 23.5
Sample No.: S-5
Soil Identification: Brown sandy lean clay s(CL)
969 0.0
538.7 0.0
109.4 1.0
429.3 0.0
969
344.3
109.4
234.9
(in.) (mm.)
1 1/2" 37.5
1" 25.0
3/4" 19.0
1/2" 12.5
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.75
#8 2.36
#16 1.18
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL: 0%
SAND: 51 %
FINES: 49 %
GROUP SYMBOL: s(CL)
Remarks:

Container No.:

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 6913
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)

91.6 Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
PAN
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

0.0 1.1

83.7 Cu = D60/D10 =

4.2 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.
220.7

80.5 36.0

12.8 48.6
148.7 65.4
100.0

99.7 97.0

99.0 After Wet Sieve
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)
1123
0 : 51 : 49
S-5
Depth (feet): Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Brown sandy lean clay s(CL)
s(CL)
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:

GRAVEL FINES
LP-1 Sample No.: Project Name:

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING
SAND

FINE SILT

HYDROMETER

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

23.5 COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY
Project No.: 13493.001
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
0 102030405060708090
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve LP-1, S-5 @ 23.5
1124
Project Name: Tested By: S. Felter Date: 04/19/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: LP-2 Depth (feet): 15.0
Sample No.: R-3
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty clay (CL-ML)
V-1 0.0
635.6 0.0
108.7 1.0
526.9 0.0
V-1
139.2
108.7

30.5 (in.) (mm.)
1 1/2" 37.5
1" 25.0
3/4" 19.0
1/2" 12.5
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.75
#8 2.36
#16 1.18
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL: 0%
SAND: 5%
FINES: 95 %
GROUP SYMBOL: CL-ML
Remarks:

Container No.:

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 6913
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)

99.9 Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
PAN
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

4.4 Cu = D60/D10 =
Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.

28.4 99.2

0.4 0.0

94.6 12.6 97.6
100.0
After Wet Sieve
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)
1125
0 : 5 : 95
R-3
Depth (feet): Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty clay (CL-ML)
CL-ML
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:

GRAVEL FINES
LP-2 Sample No.: Project Name:

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING
SAND

FINE SILT

HYDROMETER

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

15.0 COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY
Project No.: 13493.001
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed-Use, Ontario CA
0 102030405060708090
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve LP-2, R-3 @ 15
1126
Project Name: Tested By: S. Felter Date: 04/20/22
Project No.: 13493.001 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/25/22 Boring No.: LP-2 Depth (feet): 18.5
Sample No.: R-4
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)
R-2 0.0
799.6 0.0
107.7 1.0
691.9 0.0
R-2
576.0
107.7
468.3
(in.) (mm.)
1 1/2" 37.5
1" 25.0
3/4" 19.0
1/2" 12.5
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.75
#8 2.36
#16 1.18
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL: 0%
SAND: 67 %
FINES: 33 %
GROUP SYMBOL: SM
Remarks:

Container No.:

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 6913
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed Use, Ontario CA
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)

93.7 Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
PAN
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

0.0 0.9
150.5
Cu = D60/D10 =

3.8 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.
464.3

78.2 43.5

13.1 32.9
340.6 50.8
100.0

99.9 98.1

99.5 After Wet Sieve
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)
1127
0 : 67 : 33
R-4
Depth (feet): Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)
SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:

GRAVEL FINES
LP-2 Sample No.: Project Name:

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING
SAND

FINE SILT

HYDROMETER

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

18.5 COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY
Project No.: 13493.001
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut
Mixed Use, Ontario CA
0 102030405060708090
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve LP-2, R-4 @ 18.5
1128
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 04/18/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/26/22
Boring No.: LB-1 Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: R-6 Depth (ft.) 25.0
Sample Description: Yellowish brown poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM) Initial Dry Density (pcf): 104.9 Final Dry Density (pcf): 107.0 Initial Moisture (%): 3.61 Final Moisture (%) : 18.2
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void Ratio: 0.6072 Initial Dial Reading: 0.3076 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.415 Initial Saturation (%) 16.0

0.100 0.9999 0.00 -0.01 -0.01

3.000 0.9814 0.52 -1.86 -1.34
H2O 0.9751 0.52 -2.49 -1.97
Percent Swell (+) / Settlement (-) After Inundation = -0.64 Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA Pressure (p)
(ksf)

0.6070

0.5856
Final Reading
(in) Void Ratio
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL OR SETTLEMENT

POTENTIAL OF COHESIVE SOILS
ASTM D 4546
13493.001

0.5755

0.3075

0.2890

0.2827
Corrected
Deformation
(%)

0.5700

0.5750

0.5800

0.5850

0.5900

0.5950

0.6000

0.6050

0.6100

0.100 1.000 10.000
Void Ratio
Log Pressure (ksf)
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
Inundate with
Tap water
Swell or Settlement LB-1, R-6 @ 25 1129
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 04/18/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/26/22
Boring No.: LB-1 Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: R-8 Depth (ft.) 35.0
Sample Description: Yellowish brown poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM) Initial Dry Density (pcf): 110.6 Final Dry Density (pcf): 112.3 Initial Moisture (%): 3.30 Final Moisture (%) : 15.9
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void Ratio: 0.5246 Initial Dial Reading: 0.3373 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.415 Initial Saturation (%) 17.0

0.100 0.9999 0.00 -0.01 -0.01

4.000 0.9847 0.18 -1.53 -1.35
H2O 0.9825 0.18 -1.75 -1.57
Percent Swell (+) / Settlement (-) After Inundation = -0.22

ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL OR SETTLEMENT

POTENTIAL OF COHESIVE SOILS
ASTM D 4546
13493.001

0.5007

0.3372

0.3220

0.3198
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Legacy-Collier, Proposed Euclid & Walnut MixedUse, Ontario CA Pressure (p)
(ksf)

0.5244

0.5040
Final Reading
(in) Void Ratio
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)

0.4950

0.5000

0.5050

0.5100

0.5150

0.5200

0.5250

0.5300

0.100 1.000 10.000
Void Ratio
Log Pressure (ksf)
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
Inundate with
Tap water
Swell or Settlement LB-1, R-8 @ 35 1130

APPENDIX D

GENERAL EARTHWORKS AND GRADING

RECOMMENDATIONS
1131
i

APPENDIX D
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Appendix D Page

1.0 GENERAL ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Intent.......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record .................................................... 1

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor.......................................................................... 2

2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED........................................................ 2

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing............................................................................... 2

2.2 Processing................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Overexcavation.......................................................................................... 3

2.4 Benching.................................................................................................... 3

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas .......................................................... 4

3.0 FILL MATERIAL ................................................................................................... 4

3.1 General...................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Oversize ..................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Import......................................................................................................... 4

4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION.............................................................. 5

4.1 Fill Layers .................................................................................................. 5

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning........................................................................... 5

4.3 Compaction of Fill ...................................................................................... 5

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes .......................................................................... 5

4.5 Compaction Testing................................................................................... 5

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing ............................................................. 6

4.7 Compaction Test Locations ....................................................................... 6

5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION ................................................................................. 6

6.0 EXCAVATION ...................................................................................................... 6

7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS .......................................................................................... 7

7.1 Safety......................................................................................................... 7

7.2 Bedding and Backfill .................................................................................. 7

7.3 Lift Thickness............................................................................................. 7

7.4 Observation and Testing............................................................................ 7 1132
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)

ATTACHMENTS
Standard Details
A - Keying and Benching Rear of Text
B - Oversize Rock Disposal Rear of Text
C - Canyon Subdrains Rear of Text
D - Buttress or Replacement Fill Subdrains Rear of Text E - Transition Lot Fills and Side Hill Fills Rear of Text 1133
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
D-1

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 Intent
These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.

Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.

During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. 1134
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
D-2
The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.

The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished.

The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.

The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.

2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
1135
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
D-3
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.

If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.

As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.

2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.

2.3 Overexcavation
In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.

2.4 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched.

Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.

Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical 1136
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
D-4
Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.

3.0 FILL MATERIAL

3.1 General
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.

3.2 Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill.

Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.

3.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
1137
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
D-5

4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION

4.1 Fill Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557).

4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant.

Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.

4.5 Compaction Testing
Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify 1138
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
D-6
adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant.

The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.

4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.

5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial.

Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.

6.0 EXCAVATION
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of 1139
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
D-7
the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS

7.1 Safety
The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.

7.2 Bedding and Backfill
All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.

7.3 Lift Thickness
Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.

7.4 Observation and Testing
The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
1140

FILL SLOPE
PROJECTED PLANE 1: 1
(HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL)

MAXIMUM FROM TOE

OF SLOPE TO

APPROVED GROUND

EXISTING

GROUND SURFACE

FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE
-

CUT-OVER-ALL SLOPE

PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM

FROM TOE OF SLOPE

TO APPROVED GROUND

KEYING AND BENCHING
REMOVE

UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL
REMOVE

UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL

UT FACE SHALL BE

CONSTRUCTED PRIOR

TO FILL PLACEMENT
REMOVE

UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL

BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S
ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5: 1.

MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET
AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET.

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS A
�Leighton
1141

FINISH GRADE
_ - - - - - - ·10•- - - - COMPACTEDFILL:.__- _- _- _- _- _: - MIN. -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �--------------- _-_-_-_-_-_ � - �----_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ - --
-----7- ------ ------- �
-------v------o.-------o-
--------- -----� ------- _-_ - _
-_
-__ /--_-_
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ - _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
---- ·
_-
7----------------------- ------ -------- --- 7---------v------ ---- ----- u---- -
-_-_-_-_-,e_-_-_
o
-_-_-_ -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-: er----_
- - 10·- - . -7"'- - - - 0 -I-a-- - - - - - - - - - -
__- _- -r:1J:N.:....
__
_ ...-:_- - -__- _- _- _- __ 4' - MIN. _ -t� _ 15'MIN._-_.-l -
-_- - -
-------p 7=�----n*-------�-
------- -- ------ - --- ��
------- -- ------ ---
- - - -,,,,�- - -_-..::__- -_OVERSIZE --__- _- _- _- _- -_ - - - -
-
- - - - /"" - - - - _ _ _ _ WINDROW ___ _ �---7-------------- • Oversize rock is larger than 8 inches
in largest dimension.
• Backfill with approved soil jetted or
flooded in place to fill all the voids.
• Do not bury rock within 10 feet of
finish grade.
• Windrow of buried rock shall be
parallel to the finished slope face.

PROFILE ALONG WINDROW

SECTION A-A'

JETTED OR FLOODED

APPROVED SOIL
-
_ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_ A' :-::::-
-
-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-� ---
-
-
-
-
-
_

JETTED OR FLOODED

APPROVED SOIL
�
l
.�
�----------------------.---------------.----------,!

OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS B
L_ ____________ _j_ ________ ____JL__ _____ ___J
�
I
a.

E
�
g
Cl 1142 a:

NATURAL
GROUND
/
�----------::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-- "'�" -
-
-��-----
-
-
-_:COMPACTED FILL:._-_-_-
-
-�-----
- - -
-�

TYPICAL

BENCHING
----------------- �---.----..o..._-_
-�_-_-_-_-_-_�---_-�----,,.........
----�----------::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::0

SUBDRAIN
(See Alternates A and B)

FILTER MATERIAL SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A

PERFORATED PIPE SURROUNDED
WITH FILTER MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL PER STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATION, OR APPROVED ALTERNATE.

FILTER MATERIAL (9FT 3/FT) CLASS 2 GRADING AS FOLLOWS:

Sieve Size
1"
3/4"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No. 30
No. 50
No.200
Percent Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-1 SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-2
ALTERNATE B-1

PERFORATED PIPE
6" 0 MIN.

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
3/4" MAX. GRAVEL OR

APPROVED EQUIVALENT
(9FT3 /FT)
ALTERNATE B-2
0 PERFORATED PIPE IS OPTIONAL PER

GOVERNING AGENCY'S REQUIREMENTS

DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL
DESIGN

FINISHED GRADE
10' MIN. BACKFILL
r-15' MIN.---i---i--20' MIN.
5' MIN PERFORATED
6"0MIN.
· • 6"0 MIN.----i I

NON-PERFORATED

FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140N OR

APPROVED EQUIVALENT)
�
t
:g
·e
1------------------,,------------------------,------------g CANYON

SUBDRAIN

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS a.

E
�
g

STANDARD DETAILS C
L...-----------------''------------------------1--------------' c.:
1143
I .15' MIN�
�-
I
��,,,..-����
OUTLET PIPES 4"1> NON-PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
,,,/ / I
/ �,---------J
,,,
,,, / I
/ ,..r ,,, / ., I
·�
/
/
/ /� ,,, , I � / --2% MIN. �� BACKCUT
/I
/ /
,,, \ / I BENCHING
// \ /i
,,,// \ /�
1'± / \ ,--_J
J (! �/ _2% MIN. \ Jo1
. 2% MIN.--- / I SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
r•-----15' MIN.----·-1

KEY DEPTH KEY WIDTH
2' MIN.

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A POSillVE SEAL SHOULD BE PROVIDED ----....

AT THE JOINT
CAL TRANS CLASS 2
,,o���, ;rr��:,��:
���""MIN

OUTLET PIPE
(NON-PERFORATED)
3/4" ROCK (3FT.3
/FT)-----­

WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC

T-CONNECTION FROM

COLLECTION PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE
• SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall •
•
be 1/4" to 1/2" if drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% towards the outlet.

SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, ASTM D1527 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 ABS pipe or ASTM D3034 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 PVC pipe.

All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench and, after fill is placed above it, rodded to verify integrity.

FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140 OR

APPROVED

EQUIVALENT)
�
I
.ci
::,
"'1
1-----------------""T"'"------------------.--------------tl

BUTTRESS OR

REPLACEMENT FILL

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS D SUBDRAINS
�
g
.__ _______________ _._ _______________ __._ _________ __,a: 1144

OVERBURDEN

OR UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL

CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION
REMOVE

UNSUITABLE
GROUND \. \_..- ----

SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD

OVEREXCAVATE

AND RECOMPACT
(REPLACEMENT FILL)
/
/
/
----
/
/
/
/
4' MIN. <'\(/'

NATURAL
GROUND�__-
__-
---
/
/
/
/
/

FINISHED CUT PAD
L...=��.,......-.J.J-------- SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR SUBDRAINS

WHEN REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSUL TANT
KEY
2'MIN. �

DEPTH UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
�
t
.!!!
ii=
51 1------------------------.---------------"T"""-------------1!!! ·�

TRANSITION LOT FILLS

AND SIDE HILL FILLS

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS E
a.

E
�
g
Leighton
.__ ___________________ __,_ ______________ _.__ _________ ____.a: 1145 November 29, 2022
Project No. 13493.002
Legacy/Collier Residential, LLC
5154 California Avenue
Irvine, California 92617
Attention: Mr. David Pinto
Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Exploration Report
Infiltration Testing
Proposed “Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use” Development
112 Walnut Street, 2502 and 2530 Euclid Avenue
Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Reference: Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2022, Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed “Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use” Development, 112 Walnut Street, 2502 and 2530 Euclid Avenue, Ontario, California, Project No. 13493.001, dated May 13, 2022.

Introduction
Per your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) performed supplemental infiltration testing for the subject mixed use development. Additional field infiltration testing was performed in coordination with Mr. Steve Ellis of Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. (project civil engineer) to target the locations and depths planned for infiltration. While official infiltration plans were not available, we understand that stormwater infiltration is intended to be achieved utilizing a drywell system to be located in the southern portion of the site extending to approximate depths of no greater than 45 feet below ground surface (bgs).

Purpose and Scope
Purpose of our exploration was to perform field infiltration tests at the proposed device locations and invert depths. The test locations and depths were selected by the project civil engineer. Our Scope of Work included the following:
• Pre-Field Exploration Activities – Site reconnaissance performed by a professional geologist to mark the proposed infiltration test locations. Underground Service Alert 1146
Addendum Letter No. 1 Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use-Supplemental Infiltration Testing 13493.002 2 (USA) was notified to locate and mark existing underground utilities prior to our subsurface exploration.
• Field Exploration – Our supplemental subsurface exploration was performed on August 24, 2022 and included drilling, logging, and sampling of two (2) hollow-stem auger borings (designated LP-3 and LP-4) to depths ranging from approximately 40 to 45 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of these explorations are shown on Figure 1, Geotechnical Map. The corresponding boring logs are presented in Appendix A, Exploration Logs.

During drilling of the hollow-stem auger borings drive samples were obtained from the borings for geotechnical laboratory testing. Sample collection was performed by conducting the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) within the borings in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586. Samples were collected within the proposed test infiltration zone at 5-foot intervals. During sampling, the sampler was driven below the bottom of the borehole by a 140-pound weight (hammer) free-falling 30 inches. The drilling rig was equipped with an automatic hammer to provide greater consistency in the drop height and striking frequency. The number of blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches of the 18-inch drive interval is termed the “blowcount” or SPT N-value.

N-values provide a measure of relative density in granular (non-cohesive) soils and comparative consistency in cohesive soils. Number of blows per 6 inches of penetration was recorded on the boring logs included in Appendix A.

The borings were logged in the field by a geologist from our firm. Each soil sample collected was reviewed and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The samples were sealed and packaged for transportation to our laboratory for testing. After completion of drilling, the borings were converted to percolation wells for subsequent testing. • Percolation Testing – Borings LP-3 and LP-4 (Figure 1) were converted to temporary percolation test wells upon completion of drilling and sampling. The test wells consisted of 2-inch diameter slotted (0.020-inch) PVC well casing screened within the proposed test zone. In-situ percolation testing was performed in general accordance with the County of San Bernardino guidelines Upon completion of the percolation testing, the well casing was removed from each boring and the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings and patched at the surface to match existing site conditions. • Laboratory Testing – Selected soil samples obtained from our hollow-stem-auger borings were tested at our in-house geotechnical laboratory. This laboratory testing 1147
Addendum Letter No. 1 Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use-Supplemental Infiltration Testing 13493.002 3 program was designed to evaluate the fines content of the soils within the tested zone (i.e. soil particles finer than the No. 200 sieve). . Results are included in Appendix C. • Report Preparation – This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed infiltration devices.

Infiltration Testing
Percolation testing was performed in temporary wells installed within borings LP-3 and LP4 located in the southern region of the site with test zone at depths of 25 to 45 feet bgs and 25 to 40 feet bgs, respectively. The percolation tests were conducted in general accordance with the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for Water Quality Management Plans (2013). Results of the percolation testing are presented in Appendix B. The test locations and tested depth intervals are shown on Plate 1.

A boring percolation test is useful for field measurements of the infiltration rate of soils, and is suited for testing when the design depth of the infiltration device is deeper than current existing grades, especially in areas where it is difficult to dig test pits, or where the depths of these test pits would be considerably deep. At the subject site, testing consisted of advancing the borings to the anticipated depth for the invert of the proposed infiltration devices.

The Percolation Test Procedure (falling-head test method) as outlined in the County Guidelines was implemented at each percolation test well location. The infiltration rate was calculated by dividing the rate of discharge by the infiltration surface area, or flow area.

The volume of discharge was calculated by adding the total volume of water that dropped within the PVC pipe and within the annulus, and incorporating a porosity reduction factor to account for the porosity of the annulus material. The flow area was based on the average water height within the test well.

Detailed results of the field testing data and measured infiltration rate for the test well are presented in Appendix B. The test results are summarized in the table below:

Table 1 – Measured (Unfactored) Infiltration Rate
Test Well
Designation
Approximate Depth of
Test Zone (feet bgs)
Measured
Infiltration Rate
(inches per hour)
LB-3 25 to 45 0.14
LP-4 25 to 40 0.47
1148
Addendum Letter No. 1 Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use-Supplemental Infiltration Testing 13493.002 4 Based on the results of our field percolation testing that was performed at the site, the measured (unfactored) infiltration rates for the two (2) tests performed were 0.14 inches per hour (LP-3) and 0.47 inches per hour (LP-2), respectively. According to the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for Water Quality Management Plans (2013), the measured infiltration rate at the LP-4 well location technically exceeds the minimum feasibility criteria of 0.3 inch per hour. However, implementation of a minimum factor of safety of 2.0 as required for the design infiltration rate indicates the depth and location tested for both wells are considered infeasible for infiltration.

Closure
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us directly at the phone extensions and/or e-mail addresses listed below.

Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Eric M. Holliday, PG, 9219
Senior Project Geologist
Ext 4252, [email protected]
John E. Haertle, PE, GE 2352
Principal Engineer
Ext: 4268, [email protected]
EMH/JEH/lr
Attachments: Figure 1 – Geotechnical Map
Appendix A - Exploration Logs
Appendix B - Percolation Test Data
Appendix C - Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Distribution: (1) Addressee
1149
&<
&<
&<&<
&<
&(
!(#
!(#
!(#
!(#
&(
&(
LB-2
T.D.26.5'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
LB-1
T.D.51.5'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
LB-5
T.D.26.5'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
LB-3
T.D.26.5'
LP-1/LB-4
T.D.25'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
PercTest
Interval17-22'
LP-3
T.D.45'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
PercTest
Interval25-45'
LP-4
T.D.40'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
PercTest
Interval25-40'
CPT-2
T.D.50.2'
CPT-1
T.D.50.4'
CPT-4
T.D.50.1'
CPT-3/3A
T.D.35.8/50.7'
LP-2
T.D.20'
Afu0-5'
Qyf@5'
PercTest
Interval15-20'
MapSavedasJ:\Drafting\13493\002\Maps\13493-002_F01_GM_2022-11-18.mxdon11/18/202210:57:40AMAuthor:KVM(btran)

GEOTECHNICALMAP
ProposedEuclidandWalnutMixed-UseDevelopment
2502and2530S.EuclidAvenue
Ontario,California
³
0100200
Feet
Scale:

BaseMap:OptionASitePlan,EuclidandWalnutMixedUse
Sheet01,Dated:03/10/2022
byAOArchitectureDesignRelationships
1"=100'
Project:13493.002
Eng/Geol:JEH/EMH
Date:November2022
FIGURE1
LB-5
LP-2
CPT-4
LEGEND
&<
Approximatelocationofprevioushollow-stemaugerboring
showingtotaldepth(T.D.)anddepthtoearthunits
infeetbelowgroundsurface.(Leighton,2022)
&(
Approximatelocationofpreviouspercolationtestwell
showingpercolationtestintervalinfeet
belowgroundsurface.(Leighton,2022)
!(#
Approximatelocationofpreviousconepenetrometertestsounding showingtotaldepth(T.D.)infeetbelowgroundsurface
(Leighton,2022)
ApproximateSiteBoundary
ArtificialFill
QuaternaryYoungAlluvialFanDeposits
Afu
Qyf
LP-4
Approximatelocationofcurrentpercolationtestwell
showingpercolationtestintervalinfeet
&(
belowgroundsurface.
1150

APPENDIX A
Exploration Logs
1151
SM
SM-ML
SM
@Surface: 3 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 6 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.75': Silty SAND, brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, trace medium to coarse sand and fine subrounded gravel
Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Valley Deposits (Qyf)
@20': Clayey Sandy SILT to Clayey Silty SAND, medium
dense/very stiff, olive brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, low plasticity, slightly micaceous, friable, pockets of higher clay content
@25': Silty SAND, medium dense, mottled reddish brown and grayish brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, nonplastic, slightly micaceous, friable, grading slightly finer toward bottom
S-1
S-2 -200
3 7
11 4
8 9
'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
8-24-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 1 - Geotechnical Map
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
13493.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-3
1152
ML
SM
ML
SM-ML
@30': Sandy SILT, very stiff, mottled orange brown and grayish brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, trace coarse sand, nonplastic, friable, slightly micaceous
@35': Silty SAND, medium dense, olive brown, moist, very fine sand, micaceous, friable
@38.5': Sandy SILT, medium dense, brown, moist, very fine sand, nonplastic, micaceous, friable, trace medium sand @43.5': Interbedded Clayey Sandy SILT and Silty SAND;
Clayey Sandy SILT, hard, brown, slightly moist, fine to medium sand, low plasticity, slightly micaceous
Silty SAND, very dense, yellowish brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, micaceous, nonplastic, friable
Total Depth: 45' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Temporary percolation well installed; screened from 25-45' Upon completion of percolation testing, boring backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete.

S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
-200
9 11
11 7
11 14
10 11
11 7
14 37
'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
8-24-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 1 - Geotechnical Map
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
13493.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-3
1153
SM
CL/SM
SM-SC
@Surface: 4 -inches Asphalt Concrete over 5 -inches Base Artificial Fill, undocumented (Afu)
@0.75': Silty SAND, brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, trace medium to coarse sand and fine subrounded gravel
Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Valley Deposits (Qyf)
@20': Silty CLAY, stiff, gray-brown, slightly moist, medium plasticity, few very fine sand; grading to Silty SAND, loose, brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, some silt, nonplastic, trace fine subangular gravel
@25': Silty SAND, medium dense, grayish brown to yellowish brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, slightly micaceous, some silt; grading to Sandy CLAY/Clayey SAND, medium dense/stiff, reddish brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, low plasticity, slightly micaceous
S-1
S-2
4 -200
5 5
5 7
8 '

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
8-24-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 1 - Geotechnical Map
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
13493.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-4
1154
SM
SP
SM
@30': Silty SAND, medium dense, orange brown, slightly moist, very fine sand, slightly micaceous, nonplastic, friable @35': Grading to Silty Gravelly SAND, very dense, whitish tan, slightly moist, fine to coarse sand, some fine subangular to subrounded gravel (granitic)
@38.5': Silty SAND, dense, brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, some silt, nonplastic, slightly micaceous, friable Total Depth: 40' bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Temporary percolation well installed; screened from 25-40' Upon completion of percolation testing, boring backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete.

S-3
S-4
S-5
-200
8 9
12 8
38 50/5"
15 21
25 '

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BTM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
8-24-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Corp.

Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * BTM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 1 - Geotechnical Map
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development
13493.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-4
1155

APPENDIX B
Percolation Test Data
1156
Project Number: 13493.002 Test Hole Number: LP-3
Project Name: Legacy - Collier Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 45
Tested By: BTM Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: 11:25 Length of slotted of casing (ft): 20 Start Time for Standard: 12:21 Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 25.05 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 1
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Percolation
Rate (min./in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
11:25 25.05 239.4
11:50 26.51 221.9
11:54 25.00 240.0
12:19 26.28 224.6
12:21 25.00 240.0
12:31 25.53 233.6
12:33 25.00 240.0
12:43 25.45 234.6
12:44 25.00 240.0
12:54 25.38 235.4
12:58 25.00 240.0
13:08 25.35 235.8
13:17 25.00 240.0
13:27 25.26 236.9
13:29 25.00 240.0
13:39 25.24 237.1
Infiltration Rate, I (Last Reading) = 0.14 in./hr.

Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
8/24/2022
8/24/2022
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Percolation Data
1 25 17.5 1.43 0.36
2 25 15.4 1.63 0.31
3 10 6.4 1.57 0.32
4 10 5.4 1.85 0.27
5 10 4.6 2.19 0.23
6 10 4.2 2.38 0.21
7 10 3.1 3.21 0.16
8 10 2.9 3.47 0.14
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 1157
Project Number: 13493.002 Test Hole Number: LP-4
Project Name: Legacy - Collier Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 40
Tested By: BTM Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: 10:21 Length of slotted of casing (ft): 15 Start Time for Standard: 11:20 Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 25.00 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 1
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Percolation
Rate (min./in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
10:21 25.00 180.0
10:46 28.22 141.4
10:51 25.02 179.8
11:16 27.73 147.2
11:20 25.00 180.0
11:30 26.05 167.4
11:32 25.00 180.0
11:42 25.90 169.2
11:46 25.00 180.0
11:56 25.85 169.8
12:00 25.00 180.0
12:10 25.71 171.5
12:13 25.00 180.0
12:23 25.70 171.6
12:27 25.00 180.0
12:37 25.58 173.0
12:38 25.02 179.8
12:48 25.59 172.9
12:50 25.00 180.0
13:00 25.58 173.0
Infiltration Rate, I (Last Reading) = 0.47 in./hr.

Percolation Data
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
8/24/2022
8/24/2022
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:
1 25 38.6 0.65 1.14
3 10 12.6 0.79 0.86
2 25 32.5 0.77 0.94
5 10 10.2 0.98 0.69
4 10 10.8 0.93 0.73
7 10 8.4 1.19 0.57
6 10 8.5 1.17 0.58
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 10 10 7.0 1.44 0.47
8 10 7.0 1.44 0.47
9 10 6.8 1.46 0.46
1158

APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
1159
LP-3 LP-3 LP-4 LP-4
S-2 S-4 S-1 S-4

25.0 35.0 20.0 35.0

SPT SPT SPT SPT

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 616.90 794.40 588.90 847.80108.60 108.50 107.30 108.00508.30 685.90 481.60 739.80 V-1 927 936 957
AAAA
411.10 609.70 340.00 732.50108.60 108.50 107.30 108.00302.50 501.20 232.70 624.50

40.5 26.9 51.7 15.6

59.5 73.1 48.3 84.4
Project Name: Legacy - OntarioProject No.: 13493.002Tested By: J. Domingo Date: 09/12/22 Moisture Content (%)Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Container (g)Container No.:Sample Type
Yellowish
brown silty
sand (SM)
Weight of Container (g)
% Passing No. 200 Sieve
Moisture Correction
Weight of Dry Sample (g)
Dry Weight of Sample + Cont. (g)
After Wash
Dry Weight of Sample (g) Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) Sample Dry Weight Determination
Light olive
brown silty
sand (SM)
Light olive
brown sandy
silt s(ML)
Light olive
brown silty
sand with
gravel (SM)g
Boring No.Sample No.Soil IdentificationDepth (ft.)

PERCENT PASSING
No. 200 SIEVE
ASTM D 1140
Weight of Sample + Container (g)Method (A or B)Weight of Container (g) % Retained No. 200 Sieve
Passing #200 LP-3 and LP-4
1160
1 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
(PWQMP)
For compliance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R8-2010-0036 (NPDES Permit No. CAS618036)
Project Name: EUCLID AND WALNUT MIXED USE
Ontario Project #: PDEV22-027
Applicant Name: LEGACY PARTNERS, CONTACT: DAVID PINTO
Applicant Address: 5141 CALIFORNIA AVE., STE 100, IRVINE, CA 92617 Project Address: NW CORNER OF E. EUCLID AND WALNUT STREET Project Size (acres): 9.82 ACRES
Project Description: Redevelopment of existing commercial site to residential development

Submittal Date: _________________
1161
2 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP)

1. Introduction
The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) is a planning tool to improve integration of required water quality elements, stormwater management, water conservation, rainwater harvesting and re-use, and flood management in land use planning and the City’s development process. The Preliminary WQMP will assist project applicants and planners in properly designing and laying out project sites so that water quality may be incorporated in the most effective manner and at the lowest cost for the developer.

The San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (MS4 Permit) requires project-specific Water Quality Management plans (WQMP) to be prepared for all priority new development and significant redevelopment projects listed in Section 2 of this document. The MS4 Permit stipulates that the City of Ontario require priority project applicants to submit a Preliminary project-specific WQMP, as early as possible, during the environmental review or planning phase of a development project and that the Preliminary WQMP be approved prior to the issuance of land use entitlement.

2. Priority Projects (requiring a Preliminary WQMP)
Land Use entitlement shall not be issued for any of the listed projects, below, until a Preliminary WQMP has been approved by the City’s Engineering Department. For construction projects not going through entitlement, a Preliminary and Final project specific WQMP shall be approved, prior to the issuance of construction permits:

Check the appropriate project category below, for this project:

Check
below Project Categories

1. All significant re-development projects. Significant re-development is defined as the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site subject to discretionary approval of the Permittee. Redevelopment does not include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, original purpose of the facility, or emergency redevelopment activity required to protect public health and safety. Where redevelopment results in an increase of less than fifty percent of the impervious surfaces of a previously existing developed site, and the existing development was not subject to WQMP requirements, the numeric sizing criteria discussed below applies only to the addition or replacement, and not to the entire developed site. Where redevelopment results in an increase of fifty percent or more of the impervious surfaces of a previously existing developed site, the numeric sizing criteria applies to the entire development (new and existing).

2. New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site) including commercial, industrial, residential housing subdivisions (i.e., detached single family home subdivisions, multi-family attached subdivisions or townhomes, condominiums, apartments, etc.), mixed-use, and public projects. This category includes development projects on public and private land, which fall under the planning and building authority of the permitting agency. 1162
3 Check
below Project Categories

3. Automotive repair shops (with SIC codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532- 7534, 7536-7539).

4. Restaurants and Food Service Establishments where the land area of development is 5,000 square feet or more.

5. Developments of 2,500 square feet of impervious surface or more adjacent to (within 200 feet) or discharging directly into environmentally sensitive areas (ESA’s) such as areas designated in the Ocean Plan as areas of special biological significance or waterbodies listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.

6. Parking lots of 5,000 square feet or more exposed to storm water. Parking lot is defined as land area or facility for the temporary storage of motor vehicles.

7. Retail Gasoline Outlets (RGOs) that are either 5,000 sq ft or more or have a projected average daily traffic of 100 or more vehicles per day.

8. *This project is not covered under any of the categories listed above. * If the development is not covered under any of the project categories listed in Section 2, the project is not required to design and install Site Design/LID BMPs or Treatment Control BMPs to treat the design storm event (Design Capture Volume) described in Section 4.

3. Preliminary WQMP Objectives
Through a combination of Site Design/LID BMPs (where feasible), Source Control, and/or Treatment Control BMPs, project-specific WQMPs shall address all identified pollutants and hydrologic conditions of concern from new development and significant re-development projects for the categories of projects (priority projects) listed in Section 2. Under each type of BMP, listed below, please indicate which BMPs are planned to be implemented and included in the Final WQMP for the project:

A. Site Design/LID (Low Impact Design) for Reducing Stormwater Runoff:

The MS4 Permit requires each priority development project to infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or bio-treat the runoff from a 2-yr, 24-hour storm event (Design Capture Volume). If site conditions do not permit infiltration, harvest and use, evapotranspiration, and/or bio-treatment of the entire Design Capture Volume, at the project site, Site Design/LID techniques are required to be implemented to the Maximum Extent Practicable, at the project site, and the remainder of the DCV shall be infiltrated, harvested, bio-treated or treated by alternative measures. Project applicants shall submit a Preliminary WQMP that documents the LID/Site Design BMPs, proposed for the project. Please indicate, in the table below, which Site Design/LID BMPs will be utilized on this project to accomplish this requirement:

1163
4 Site Design/LID Practice Planned Not
Planned
Provide at least the minimum effective area required for LID BMPs, to comply with the WQMP (see Table 3-1 below).


Grade parking lot areas/drive aisles/roof drains to sheet flow runoff into landscaped swales, via curb cuts or zero-face curbs or otherwise disconnect direct drainage from MS4.

Design landscaped areas as swales and grade to accept
runoff from building roofs, parking lots and project roadways.

Install surface retention basins or infiltration trenches to receive impervious area runoff.


Install pervious pavement in parking stalls, alleys, driveways, gutters, walkways, trails or patios.


Install underground stormwater retention chambers where downstream landscaped areas are limited.


Install approved Stormwater Drywells in detention areas.
Construct streets, sidewalks, and parking lot stalls to the minimum widths necessary.


Install on-site Biotreatment basins/trenches with underdrains, where soil type is poorly draining.


Install “Engineered Soil” to increase uptake/soil storage capacity and/or evapotranspiration.


Install Rainwater Harvesting/Use Equipment.

Regional LID BMP facilities are installed, off-site, with the capacity and conveyances to accept post-development storm water runoff from this project and reserved capacity allocation credits have been assigned to the project, in a Certificate or other legally binding document, attached herein


Table 3-1 Minimum Effective Area1
Required for LID BMPs (surface + subsurface facilities) for Project WQMP to Demonstrate Infeasibility2 (% of site) Project Type New
Development
ReDevelopment
SF/MF Residential < 7 du/ac 10% 5%
SF/MF Residential < 7 - 18 du/ac 7% 3.5%
SF/MF Residential > 18 du/ac 5% 2.5%
Mixed Use, Commercial/Industrial w/FAR< 1.0 10% 5%
Mixed Use, Commercial/Industrial w/FAR 1.0-2.0 7% 3.5%
Mixed Use, Commercial/Industrial w/FAR> 2.0 5% 2.5%
Podium (parking under > 75% of project) 3% 1.5%
Zoning allowing development to property lines 2% 1%
Transit Oriented Development3 5% 2.5%
Parking 5% 2.5%
1164
5 1 “Effective area” is defined as land area which 1) is suitable for a retention/infiltration BMP (based on infeasibility criteria) and 2) is located down-gradient from building roof or paved areas, so that it may receive gravity flow runoff.
2 Criteria only required if the project WQMP seeks to demonstrate that the full DCV cannot be feasibly managed on-site.
3 Transit oriented development is defined as a project with development center within one half mile of a mass transit center.

Key: du/ac = dwelling units/acre, FAR = Floor Area Ratio = ratio of gross floor area of building to gross lot area, MF = Multi Family, SF = Single Family B. Source Control BMPs – The following BMPs are designed to control stormwater pollutants and runoff water at the location where it is generated. Please indicate which of the listed BMPs are planned to be implemented for the project:

Source Control BMPs Planned Not
Planned
Minimize non-stormwater site runoff through efficient
irrigation system design and controllers.


Minimize trash and debris in storm runoff through a regular parking lot, storage yard and roadway sweeping program.

Provide proper covers/roofs and secondary containment for outside material storage & work areas.


Provide solid roofs over all trash enclosures.

Site Owner(s)/Property Manager/HOA or POA will be
familiar with the project WQMP and stormwater BMPs.


Owner or HOA or POA to provide Education/Training of site occupants and employees on stormwater BMPs.


Install stormwater placards/stenciled messages with a “No Dumping” message on all on-site/off-site storm drain inlets.

Provide contained equipment/vehicle wash rack areas that discharge to sanitary sewer.


C. Treatment Control BMPs – The following BMPs are designed to control stormwater pollutants where it is not feasible to install on-site or off-site Site Design/LID BMPs, with the requisite capacity to treat the Design Capture Volume for identified Pollutants of Concern or where pretreatment of stormwater runoff is required, ahead of infiltration BMPs. Please indicate which of the listed BMPs are planned to be implemented for the project:

Treatment Control BMP Planned Not
Planned
Gravity Separator devices for pretreatment of sediment, trash/litter or Oil & Grease


Proprietary Biofiltration vaults/devices

Media Cartridge Filtration Vaults

Proprietary Filter Inserts for on-site storm drain inlets or retention basin/trench overflow drains


1165
6 4. Volume-based calculation (approximate) for sizing on-site or off-site Stormwater Retention/Infiltration, Harvest & Re-Use or Biotreatment facilities 1) After calculating the “Watershed Imperviousness Ratio”, i, which is equal to the percent of impervious area in each Drainage Management Area, divided by 100, calculate the composite runoff coefficient CBMP for the Drainage Area above using the following equation:

CBMP = 0.858i
3 – 0.78i
2 + 0.774i + 0.04
where: CBMP = composite runoff coefficient; and,
i = watershed imperviousness ratio.
3) Determine the area-averaged “6-hour Mean Storm Rainfall”, P6, for the Drainage Area.

This is calculated by multiplying the area averaged 2-year 1-hour value (0.5”-0.6”) by the appropriate regression coefficient (1.4807). The 2-yr, 1-hr value for southern Ontario is approximately to 0.5” (P6 = 0.5*1.4807 = 0.74 and northern Ontario is approximately 0.6” in/hr (P6 = 0.6*1.4807 = 0.89).
4) Determine the appropriate drawdown time. Use the regression constant a = 1.582 for 24 hours and a = 1.963 for 48 hours. Note: Regression constants are provided for both 24 hour and 48-hour drawdown times; however, 48-hour drawdown times should be used in most areas of California. Drawdown times in excess of 48 hours should be used with caution as vector breeding can be a problem after water has stood in excess of 72 hours. (Use of the 24-hour drawdown time should be limited to drainage areas with coarse soils (Class ‘A’ soils that readily drain.) 5) Calculate the “Maximized Detention Volume”, P0, using the following equation:

P0 = a · CBMP · P6
where: P0 = Maximized Detention Volume, in inches
a = 1.582 for 24 hour and a = 1.963 for 48-hour drawdown, CBMP = composite runoff coefficient; and,
P6 = 6-hour Mean Storm Rainfall, in inches
6) Calculate the “Target Capture Volume”, V0, using the following equation:

V0 = (P0 · A) / 12
where: V0 = Target Capture Volume, in acre-feet
P0 = Maximized Detention Volume, in inches; and,
A = BMP Drainage Area, in acres
1166
7 Project Volume-based calculation (approximate) for planned on-site or off-site Stormwater Retention/Infiltration, Harvest & Re-Use or Biotreatment facilities: N/A Variable Factor/Formula DA1,
DMA A
DA2
DMA B
DA3
DMA C
DA4
DMA D
DA5
DMA E
Impervious
surface/total
surface, ratio
(i)
CBMP= runoff
coefficient 0.858i
3 –

0.78i
2 +0.774i+ 0.04
P6 **P6 = 2-yr,1-hr
depth*1.4807 =
Detention
Volume (acre
inches)
P0 = a * CBMP * P6 =
Drawdown rate
of basin/trench
(a)

1.963 for 48-hr
drawdown =
Project Total
Area (acre)
(A)
Design Capture
Volume in cu. ft.

V0 = [(P0 * A)/12]
*43560 =
Runoff Volume
infiltrated in first
3 hours of storm
(not applicable for
underground
systems)
Vol= in/hr/12 x ft2 of
infiltration area x 3
hrs
Retention
Volume provided
in cubic feet.

Retention capacity of
basins, trenches,
underground storage
or biotreatment basin
**For P6 value, use site coordinates and NOAA website to determine project’s average 2-yr, 1-hr rainfall depth, at: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html .

5. Flow-Based calculation (approximate) for sizing on-site or off-site Biotreatment facilities and proprietary treatment technology BMPs:
1) After calculating the “Watershed Imperviousness Ratio”, i, which is equal to the percent of impervious area in each Drainage Management Area divided by 100, calculate the composite runoff coefficient CBMP for the Drainage Area above using the following equation:

CBMP = 0.858i
3 – 0.78i
2 + 0.774i + 0.04
where: CBMP = composite runoff coefficient; and,
i = watershed imperviousness ratio.
1167
8 2) Determine BMP design rainfall intensity, IBMP, using the project site geo-coordinates and the NOAA website to determine project’s average 2-yr, 1-hr rainfall intensity, at:
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html .Multiply this value by 0.2787 (regression coefficient for Ontario) and a minimum safety factor of 2. 4) Calculate the target BMP flowrate, Q, using the following formula (for each DMA <50 acres*):

Q = CBMP · IBMP · A
Where: Q = flow in cfs (Cubic feet per second)
IBMP = BMP design rainfall intensity, in/hr
A = Drainage Area in acres
*For DMAs >50 acres, with CBMP <0.5, the project applicant shall use the unit hydrograph method specified in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, using the design storm pattern with rainfall return frequency such that the peak 1-hr rainfall intensity equals the 85th percentile 1-hr rainfall, multiplied by 2.

Project Flow-based calculation (approximate) for planned on-site or off-site flow-based Biotreatment facilities or Stormwater Treatment BMPs:

Variable Factor/Formula DA1
DMA A
DA2
DMA B
DA3
DMA C
DA4
DMA D
DA5
DMA E
Impervious
surface/
total surface, ratio
(i)

0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
CBMP= composite
runoff coefficient 0.858i
3 +0.78i
2 +0.774i
+0.04

0.712 0.712 0.712 0.712 0.712
IBMP IBMP = 2-yr,1-hr storm
intensity*0.2787*safety
factor

0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333
Drainage area
(ac)
A = DMA sq ft/43,560 1.77 1.46 1.50 1.32 1.90
Target BMP
flowrate
Q = CBPM* IBMP * A 0.423 0.348 0.357 0.316 0.453
Please see next sheet for additional DRAINAGE AREA Treatment BMPs 1168
9 Project Flow-based calculation (approximate) for planned on-site or off-site flow-based Biotreatment facilities or Stormwater Treatment BMPs: (Continued) Variable Factor/Formula DA6
DMA A
DA7
DMA B
DA8
DMA C
DA9
DMA D
DA10
DMA E
Impervious
surface/
total surface, ratio
(i)

0.89 0.89

CBMP= composite
runoff coefficient 0.858i
3 +0.78i
2 +0.774i
+0.04

0.712 0.712
IBMP IBMP = 2-yr,1-hr storm
intensity*0.2787*safety
factor

0.333 0.333
Drainage area
(ac)
A = DMA sq ft/43,560 0.69 0.97
Target BMP
flowrate
Q = CBPM* IBMP * A 0.165 0.232

6. Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) and use of the on-line San Bernardino County HCOC Map for determining necessary mitigation steps necessary if there are HCOCs downstream of a project:

Project applicants may access the on-line HCOC Map at:
http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/WAP/. The map will indicate any hydrology concerns with downstream waterways that are hydraulically connected to the project and will indicate if there are any approved regional projects downstream that could be utilized for off-site mitigation of HCOCs. Please indicate here if the project will or will not be able to retain/infilter, harvest and use or biotreat and detain the DCV, on-site, as calculated in Section 4 and if there are HCOCs identified downstream of the project:

Retain or Harvest/Use the DCV on site? Yes No

Biotreat the DCV but not infilter the runoff? Yes
No
HCOCs identified downstream of site? Yes No

If the entire DCV will not be retained on site, the DCV is biotreated but not infiltered or additional detention capacity is needed to address identified HCOCs, downstream of the site, please list here, what additional mitigation measures will be utilized (on-site or off-site) to address HCOCs (see Section 4.2.1-4.2.3 of the SB County WQMP Technical Guidance):

NO HCOC EXISTS FOR THIS SITE

7. Site Plan and Conceptual Grading/Drainage Plan requirements for submission with the Preliminary WQMP:
1169
10 Provide a Site Plan and Conceptual Grading/Drainage Plan along with this Preliminary WQMP, which conceptually shows the proposed locations of buildings, homes, parking lots, parks, new paved roadways, landscaped areas, drainage patterns and drainage sub-areas, methods of conveyance, proposed retention/infiltration, harvest & use or biotreatment facilities that are planned for installation. Where it is determined to be infeasible to capture and detain design storm runoff volumes, on-site, please include other design features, as described in Section 3, above. Include numbered or lettered notes on the Site Plan with a legend detailing other BMPs, as described in Section 3.

8. BMP Maintenance and Funding Mechanism & Description:

BMP Maintenance and funding will be the responsibility of the owner/lessee.

9. Acknowledgment:

As the property owner or developer, I understand that this project is required to install and implement permanent LID Storm Water Best Management Practices pursuant to the requirements of the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit and to document those BMPs in the submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan, which is binding on any current or successive owners of this property.

10. Exemption Signature:

As the property owner or developer, I understand that this project is not required by the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit to install and implement permanent LID Storm Water Best Management Practices and will not be required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan.

Signature of Owner or Developer

Date
Yes
No
1170

WQMP PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAN
• Vicinity Map
• Site Plan, Drainage Flow and LID BMP Plan
• Conceptual Grading Plan (For reference only)

1171

WH WHE WATER GAS FRONT TRANSFORMER FRONT TRANSFORMER
FRONT

TRANSFORMER FRONT TRANSFORMER WALNUT STREET
EUCLID AVENUE N15 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 S4 N15 N15 N15 N15 N15 N15N15 N15 N15 N15 S4 Scale: Exhibit Date: N EUCLID AND WALNUT MIXED USE AND WALNUT STREET PWQMP EXHIBIT-OPTION 2 ONTARIO, CA 1" = 40' 06.27.23 NW CORNER OF E. EUCLID 60 PROJECT LOCATION LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY FLOW DIRECTION (SURFACE) FLOW DIRECTION (PIPE) PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE (PUBLIC) PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE (PRIVATE) CATCH BASIN STENCILING AND COMMON AREA CATCH BASIN INSPECTION N15 STREET VACUUMING AND CLEANING S4 EFFICIENT IRRIGATION LANDSCAPE AREA ROOF PAVEMENT/HARDSCAPE DRAINAGE AREA ID AND ACREAGE UNDERGROUND RETENTION/INFILTRATION CHAMBERS MODULAR WETLAND BY CONTECH (PROPRIETARY BIO RETENTION BASIN) PROPOSED STORM DRAIN DRAINING TO MODULAR WETLAND R F U L L C I R C L E T H I N K I N G FE NUG ISN CE EOR IEN G 1172

FRONT TRANSFORMER FRONT TRANSFORMER
FRONT

TRANSFORMER FRONT TRANSFORMER WH WHE WATER GAS
GL 16.25 GL 16.50 GL 16.75 FF=17.67 FF=17.67 FF=17.67 FF=16.92 FF=16.17 FF=16.17 GL 17.00 GL 17.00 GL 12.00 GL 12. 08 GL 12.17 GL 12.25 GL 12.33 GL 12.42 FF=12.75 FF=12.75 FF=12.75 FF=12.75 FF=12.75 GL 12.42 GL 13.08 FF=13.75 FF=13.75 FF=13.75 FF=13.75 FF=13.75 GL 13.00 GL 13.08 GL 13.17 GL 13.25 GL 13.33 GL 13.42
GL 13.50 GL 13.58 GL 13.67 GL 13.75 GL 13.83 GL 13.92GL 14.08 FF=14.25 FF=14.25 FF=14.25 FF=14.25 FF=14.25 WALNUT STREET EUCLID AVENUE GL 16.00 GL 16.00 GL 16.00
GL 15.42 GL 15.50 GL 15.58 GL 15.67 GL 15.75 GL 15.83 GL 18.50 GL 18.50 GL 19.25 GL 19.25 GL 19.25 GL 19.25 GL 20.00 GL 20.00 GL 20.00 GL 20.00 FF=18.67
FF=18.67FF=19.42 FF=20.17 FF=20.17 FF=20.17 FF=20.17 FF=20.17 FF=18.67 FF=16.17 FF=16.17 FF=16.17 FF=16.17 FF=16.17 FF=17.17 FF=17.17 FF=17.17 FF=17.17 FF=17.17 GL 16.42 GL 16.50 GL 16.58
GL 16.67
GL 16.75 GL 16.83 GL 15.83 GL 16.50
GL 16.92 GL 17.00 GL 17.08 GL 17.17 GL 17.25 GL 17.33 FF=17.67 FF=17.67 FF=17.67 FF=17.67 FF=17.67 CL CL CL CL D A C E B EXISTING CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT NOT A PART GL 17.00 TRASH TRASH TRASH POOL 3C1 4C 5C1 8C 7C1 6C 2B 1A
USPS FREEWAY PROJECT LOCATION CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN FOR ONTARIO APARTMENTS IN THE CITY OF ONTARIO, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA C1 EARTHWORK QUANTITY ESTIMATE CUT (C.Y.) FILL (C.Y.) R F U L L C I R C L E T H I N K I N G FE NUG ISN CE EOR IEN G 1173
C2 A SECTION A EUCLID AVENUE B SECTION B WALNUT STREET C SECTION C D SECTION D E SECTION E R F U L L C I R C L E T H I N K I N G FE NUG ISN CE EOR IEN G 1174

BMP SIZING CALCULATIONS
• Precipitation Data
• Treatment control BMP sizing calculations (Proposed Modular Wetland by Contech) for DA-1 through DA-7
1175








 










!"#

$

%!"# &'
(

)*+,-./01*2345*678+ ))*+,-./01*93:3 ;
<=;>&<;<==<
?>&@&A&=<B=& 37CD7*E0.F/7G*37.7H*IF0JKG*37.7H*L0FMG*NFOOF7C*LFC0.G*P7K-CQ-*67FJ7.F7G*I0R,.7H*67.JFCG*37CS.7 E7TO,TF/G*5+H7CF*4,UG*V7.O*W.U87O-XG*I7O0*9C.-HG*Y0CQOFC*Z7CG*6F/H70O*Z0XJ7G*W7C*[H7,G*:0,\\.0U ],CCFCG*I7CF0O*].0^0.G*NF_VH-7C*VH0CG*WU0*E7.KUR,XG*`,HC*Z7./H,7C abccG*a7JF,C7O*d07JH0.*30.TF/0G*3FOT0.*38.FCQG*67.UO7CS EYeJ7R-O7.*f*EYeQ.78HF/7O*f*678+ege70.F7O+ ;?h  ;i%h
j
jj
k
lmno p

'qnr
i

 '$
'qlr   "  " "   "  "%  stutvwxtuyzy{ " stuy|wxtuy}~{ oo stuyxtu|z|{ 
! stuyvxtu|vy{ €o stu|txtu{
€ stu|~~xtuz|~{
! stu|wvxtuz}v{  € stutyxtu~~v{  
stu|wxtu{ "  stuz~xtuw~y{  % ! stuyvxtu|t|{ o stuy}|xtu|~{ € stu|}xtuzw{ stu|}txtuzyw{   stu|vxtu~|~{  ! stuxtutv{ " stuzttxtuwty{ "€" stuzyxtu}t|{  stuzvxtuv~t{ ! stuzvzxyut}{ "%   stuy}xtu|zz{  stu||txtu|t{  stu|}wxtuz|t{   stuvxtu~tz{ " stuv}xtu~{ "€ stuzz|xtuww{  ! stuz}xtu}zw{ ! ! stu~|yxtuvv{ €
stu~wxyuy~{ €!€ stu~v}xyut{
%
" stu|~~xtuwt{   stuzxtuz}~{ " stuz~xtu{  stu~yzxtuwz{ !"€ stutxtuvy{ € stuwtxyuy|{ o stuw|xyu|}{  ! stuwvtxyuzw{  stu}~vxyuwz{ 

stuvt~xyuvw{  %  " stu}yxtu~~|{ "o€ stuzv}xtuw|z{ !€ stu~txtuv~t{ o stuwwxyuyz{ 
stuvttxyuzz{ € syuttxyuw{  syutvxyuv|{  syuy}x|uyv{ € syu|}x|ut{ o€ syu~x|uvz{ %n € stu~wtxtu}|{ €o stuwz~xyut}{  stuv~xyuzy{  ! syuyxyu}{ " syuyx|utv{ €" syuzzx|uzt{   syu~x|uwz{  syuxutv{ " syuw}xuy{ ! syu}xzutz{ %n €"€ stuwyxyutz{  stuvxyu{  " syu|yxyuww{ ! syuzyx|uyt{  " syux|ut{  syuwvx|uv}{ " syuvxu}{ !€ s|ut~xu}y{
 s|uyvxzuz{

s|u|wxzuvz{ %n o stuvvxyuzz{ " syutxyu}v{   syuwx|uz~{  ! syuv~x|uvt{ €
s|u|~xu~v{
 s|uzxzuyt{
o s|u~xzuz{
€ s|u}yx~u|{  s|uvvxut{ "" suytxuw~{ %n "" syu|vxyu}}{  syuvx|uz~{ 
s|uy}xuyv{
 s|u~~xuwv{
! s|uv~xzuwy{ ! su|zx~uzt{  su~txuyz{ "  suwxuvz{ " suv}x}ut}{  € szuyzxvut|{  %n   syuwvx|u{ " s|u~xut{ ! sutxzut|{ 
suyxzu}|{ " szu|xut{ " szuvxuv{ 
 s~uy|xwuv{ o€ s~u~txvut~{ !€€ s~uvxytu{ €" su|xyyuv{ % l   s|uyx|uw}{

s|u}~xuw{
 su}txzuvv{ "o szu~zxut{  s~uz|xwuw|{ !
sut}xvut{ €o suwyxytuz{ o€ swuyxy|ut{   s}ut~xyzu{ ! s}u~~xyu{ %
l "€ s|u|}x|uvw{
" suytxzutz{ !
szuywx~uz}{ "!" s~utxuwy{ ! sutx}u{ €! su}xytu|{ o swu|xyyuv{   s}u~xyuw{  svu|wxyu~{ 
 svuv|xy}uv{ %
l !! s|uz~xu|t{
€ suxzu}{ " szu~~x~uv}{ 
s~u~yxwu~{ !€ suxvuz}{ o o swu~zxyyu|{   s}uvxyuy{ ! svu|yxy~uy{  " sytu|xy}u{ " syyutx|tuv{ !%
l
 s|u}~xuwy{
suvyx~uyy{ 
s~u|xuv}{ !
" suzx}u~}{ o! swuwxyyuy{   s}uw}xyut{  svuw~xy~u|{   sytuwxywu{ " syyu}x|yuy{ !
sy|ux|zuy{  %
l
" suyyxzut~{ €" szu|}x~u~v{  s~u}xwu~{ €  swut~xvuzy{   s}u~yxy|uy{  svu|xyzu{   sytuwxyu{  € syyuwxyvu|{ ! sy|uvx|ut{ €€ syu}x|u{  % l  suwwxzuvy{ "o s~u|~xu}{ €o swu||xvuz}{   s}uwvxyyuw{  sytuwxy~u|{   sy|uyxy}ut{ ! syu~x|yut{ €€ syzuvx|zuz{ € syu~x|vuz{   sywuwxuw{ %
l " szuzx~uww{ !  suyvx}utv{ o! s}u~wxyyu|{  sytu~xyzut{ " sy|u}xy}u{ !! syzux|yuw{  syuzx|~u~{ 
sy}uyx|vu}{ € s|tuxu|{ oo s|yuvxzyuw{ "%
l "o! s~u|vxu}v{ €
" swu}xvuz{  sytu|xyuz{   sy|uxyu}{ €
sy~u~x||uy{ " sywu}x|u~{  o s|tuyxyu{ € s||uzxu}{

" s|~uzxz~u|{
! s|wu~x~|u~{  %
l o suyzx}utt{ o s}u~txyyuy{ 
syyu}xy~u~{  syzu~xyvu{  sy}utx|~u{ " s|tu}xtu}{ o s|uxuw{

 s|uzxzu~{
oo stu|x~u}{ " sutxut{ y*E.0/F8FJ7JF,C*\.0‚-0C/U*sEY{*0+JFM7J0+*FC*JHF+*J7RO0*7.0*R7+0S*,C*\.0‚-0C/U*7C7OU+F+*,\*87.JF7O*S-.7JF,C*+0.F0+*sEI3{u a-MR0.+*FC*87.0CJH0+F+*7.0*EY*0+JFM7J0+*7J*O,^0.*7CS*-880.*R,-CS+*,\*JH0*vtƒ*/,C\FS0C/0*FCJ0.T7Ou*WH0*8.,R7RFOFJU*JH7J*8.0/F8FJ7JF,C*\.0‚-0C/U*0+JFM7J0+*s\,. 7*QFT0C*S-.7JF,C*7CS*7T0.7Q0*.0/-..0C/0*FCJ0.T7O{*^FOO*R0*Q.07J0.*JH7C*JH0*-880.*R,-CS*s,.*O0++*JH7C*JH0*O,^0.*R,-CS{*F+*~ƒu*2+JFM7J0+*7J*-880.*R,-CS+*7.0*C,J /H0/X0S*7Q7FC+J*8.,R7RO0*M7„FM-M*8.0/F8FJ7JF,C*sE6E{*0+JFM7J0+*7CS*M7U*R0*HFQH0.*JH7C*/-..0CJOU*T7OFS*E6E*T7O-0+u EO07+0*.0\0.*J,*abcc*cJO7+*yz*S,/-M0CJ*\,.*M,.0*FC\,.M7JF,Cu ]7/X*J,*W,8 ;?$jn 1176 MODULAR WETLAND #1
Tributary Area DA-1 77121 sf Step 1Pervious area 8483 sf Site condition Area = 1.77 ACImpervious area 68638 sf Site condition Ibmp= 0.167Percent Imperviousness 89% Site condition FS= 2Runoff coefficient= 0.716 Step 3 Required Ibmp= 0.333 P2yr-1hr= 0.598 Step 4 (See Attached) Qbmp = 0.423 cfs Flow control BMP C1 Valley = 1.4807 Step 5 Modular Wetland MW-1 8X16 ftXft Proposed SizeP6 = 0.885 Step 5 Proposed treatment Capacity 0.462 cfs > Required flow rateDrawdown Time = 48 hour Step 6C2 (For 48 hour)= 1.963 Step 7DCV = 7997 cft Step 7P0= 1.244MODULAR WETLAND #2Tributary Area DA-2 63501 sf Step 1Pervious area 6985 sf Site condition Area = 1.46 ACImpervious area 56516 sf Site condition Ibmp= 0.167Percent Imperviousness 89% Site condition FS= 2Runoff coefficient= 0.716 Step 3 Required Ibmp= 0.333 P2yr-1hr= 0.598 Step 4 (See Attached) Qbmp = 0.348 cfs Flow control BMP C1 Valley = 1.4807 Step 5 Modular Wetland MW-2 8X16 ftXft Proposed SizeP6 = 0.885 Step 5 Proposed treatment Capacity 0.462 cfs > Required flow rateDrawdown Time = 48 hour Step 6C2 (For 48 hour)= 1.963 Step 7DCV = 6585 cft Step 7P0= 1.244 MODULAR WETLAND #3
Tributary Area DA-3 65174 sf Step 1Pervious area 7169 sf Site condition Area = 1.50 ACImpervious area 58005 sf Site condition Ibmp= 0.167Percent Imperviousness 89% Site condition FS= 2Runoff coefficient= 0.716 Step 3 Required Ibmp= 0.333 P2yr-1hr= 0.598 Step 4 (See Attached) Qbmp = 0.357 cfs Flow control BMP C1 Valley = 1.4807 Step 5 Modular Wetland MW-3 8X16 ftXft Proposed SizeP6 = 0.885 Step 5 Proposed treatment Capacity 0.462 cfs > Required flow rateDrawdown Time = 48 hour Step 6C2 (For 48 hour)= 1.963 Step 7DCV = 6758 cft Step 7P0= 1.244 Qbmp Euclid and Walnut, ONTARIO (PWQMP)
Biotreatment (Modular Wetland) Sizing Calculation
Qbmp Euclid and Walnut, ONTARIO (PWQMP)
Biotreatment (Modular Wetland) Sizing Calculation
Qbmp Euclid and Walnut, ONTARIO (PWQMP)
Biotreatment (Modular Wetland) Sizing Calculation
1177
MODULAR WETLAND #4
Tributary Area DA-4 57596 sf Step 1Pervious area 6336 sf Site condition Area = 1.32 ACImpervious area 51260 sf Site condition Ibmp= 0.167Percent Imperviousness 89% Site condition FS= 2Runoff coefficient= 0.716 Step 3 Required Ibmp= 0.333 P2yr-1hr= 0.598 Step 4 (See Attached) Qbmp = 0.316 cfs Flow control BMP C1 Valley = 1.4807 Step 5 Modular Wetland MW-4 8X12 ftXft Proposed SizeP6 = 0.885 Step 5 Proposed treatment Capacity 0.346 cfs > Required flow rateDrawdown Time = 48 hour Step 6C2 (For 48 hour)= 1.963 Step 7DCV = 5972 cft Step 7P0= 1.244 MODULAR WETLAND #5
Tributary Area DA-5 82585 sf Step 1Pervious area 9084 sf Site condition Area = 1.90 ACImpervious area 73501 sf Site condition Ibmp= 0.167Percent Imperviousness 89% Site condition FS= 2Runoff coefficient= 0.716 Step 3 Required Ibmp= 0.333 P2yr-1hr= 0.598 Step 4 (See Attached) Qbmp = 0.453 cfs Flow control BMP C1 Valley = 1.4807 Step 5 Modular Wetland MW-5 8X16 ftXft Proposed SizeP6 = 0.885 Step 5 Proposed treatment Capacity 0.462 cfs > Required flow rateDrawdown Time = 48 hour Step 6C2 (For 48 hour)= 1.963 Step 7DCV = 8564 cft Step 7P0= 1.244 MODULAR WETLAND #6
Tributary Area DA-6 30034 sf Step 1Pervious area 3304 sf Site condition Area = 0.69 ACImpervious area 26730 sf Site condition Ibmp= 0.167Percent Imperviousness 89% Site condition FS= 2Runoff coefficient= 0.716 Step 3 Required Ibmp= 0.333 P2yr-1hr= 0.598 Step 4 (See Attached) Qbmp = 0.165 cfs Flow control BMP C1 Valley = 1.4807 Step 5 Modular Wetland MW-6 8X8 ftXft Proposed SizeP6 = 0.885 Step 5 Proposed treatment Capacity 0.231 cfs > Required flow rateDrawdown Time = 48 hour Step 6C2 (For 48 hour)= 1.963 Step 7DCV = 3114 cft Step 7P0= 1.244 Biotreatment (Modular Wetland) Sizing Calculation
Qbmp Euclid and Walnut, ONTARIO (PWQMP)
Biotreatment (Modular Wetland) Sizing Calculation
Qbmp Euclid and Walnut, ONTARIO (PWQMP)
Biotreatment (Modular Wetland) Sizing Calculation
Qbmp Euclid and Walnut, ONTARIO (PWQMP)
1178
MODULAR WETLAND #7
Tributary Area DA-7 42385 sf Step 1Pervious area 4662 sf Site condition Area = 0.97 ACImpervious area 37723 sf Site condition Ibmp= 0.167Percent Imperviousness 89% Site condition FS= 2Runoff coefficient= 0.716 Step 3 Required Ibmp= 0.333 P2yr-1hr= 0.598 Step 4 (See Attached) Qbmp = 0.232 cfs Flow control BMP C1 Valley = 1.4807 Step 5 Modular Wetland MW-6 8X12 ftXft Proposed SizeP6 = 0.885 Step 5 Proposed treatment Capacity 0.346 cfs > Required flow rateDrawdown Time = 48 hour Step 6C2 (For 48 hour)= 1.963 Step 7DCV = 4395 cft Step 7P0= 1.244 Qbmp Euclid and Walnut, ONTARIO (PWQMP)
Biotreatment (Modular Wetland) Sizing Calculation
1179
MWS LINEAR 2.0 HGL SIZING MATRIX - 2.1 gpm/sf Prefilter

MWS MODEL SIZE

WETLAND

PERIMETER
LENGTH

LOADING
RATE
GPM/SF

HGL HEIGHT

SHALLOW MODELS

STANDARD
HEIGHT
MODEL

HIGH CAPACITY MODELS

4.8 5.0 5.2 6.0

SIDE BY SIDE UNITS
MWS‐L‐4‐4 6.70 1.0

1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 5.4 5.6 5.8

0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2

0.022 0.025 0.028 0.031 0.034 0.037 0.040 0.043 0.046 0.049 0.052 0.055 0.058 0.062 0.065 0.068 0.071 0.074 0.077 0.080 0.083 0.086 0.089 0.092

1.0 MWS‐L‐4‐6 9.30 1.0 0.030 0.034 0.038 0.043 0.047

1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.4

0.060 0.064 0.068 0.073

3.6 3.7 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.5

0.128
MWS‐L‐4‐6.33 9.30 1.0

0.051 0.055 0.077 0.081 0.085 0.090 0.094 0.098 0.102 0.107 0.111 0.115 0.120 0.124

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.5

0.030 0.034 0.038 0.043 0.047 0.051 0.055 0.060

0.8 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1

0.128
MWS‐L‐4‐8 14.80 1.0

0.064 0.068 0.073 0.077 0.081 0.085 0.090 0.094 0.098 0.102 0.107 0.111

0.8 0.115 0.120 0.124

0.048 0.054 0.061 0.068 0.075

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8

0.095 0.102 0.109 0.115

2.1 2.1

0.082 0.088 0.143 0.149 0.156

1.9 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4

0.204

END TO END UNITS
MWS‐L‐4‐13 18.40 1.0

0.122 0.129 0.136 0.163 0.170 0.177 0.183 0.190 0.197

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.1 1.4 1.5

0.059 0.068 0.076 0.084 0.093 0.101 0.110

0.7 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0

0.245 0.253
MWS‐L‐4‐15 22.40 1.0

0.118 0.127 0.135 0.144 0.152 0.160 0.220 0.228 0.236 0.169 0.177 0.186 0.194 0.203 0.211

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7

0.072 0.082 0.093 0.103

1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.4 1.7 1.8

0.113 0.123 0.134 0.144 0.154 0.165 0.175 0.185 0.195 0.206 0.216 0.226 0.236 0.247 0.257 0.267 0.278 0.288 0.298 0.308

0.7 MWS‐L‐4‐17 26.40 1.0 0.085 0.097 0.109 0.121 0.133

0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.6

0.170 0.182 0.194 0.206

1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1

0.364
MWS‐L‐4‐19 30.40 1.0

0.145 0.158 0.218 0.230 0.242 0.254 0.267 0.279 0.291 0.303 0.315 0.327 0.339 0.351

0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.4 2.4

0.098 0.112 0.126 0.140 0.153 0.167 0.181 0.195

1.3 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3

0.419
MWS‐L‐4‐21 34.40 1.0

0.209 0.223 0.237 0.251 0.265 0.279 0.293 0.307 0.321 0.335 0.349 0.363

1.0 0.377 0.391 0.405

0.111 0.126 0.142 0.158 0.174

1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1

0.221 0.237 0.253 0.268

2.4 2.5

0.189 0.205 0.332 0.347 0.363

2.2 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.8

0.474

SIDE BY SIDE UNITS
MWS‐L‐6‐8 18.80 1.0

0.284 0.300 0.316 0.379 0.395 0.411 0.426 0.442 0.458

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5

0.060 0.069 0.078 0.086 0.095 0.104 0.112

1.0 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4

0.250 0.259
MWS‐L‐8‐8 29.60 1.0

0.121 0.129 0.138 0.147 0.155 0.164 0.224 0.233 0.242 0.173 0.181 0.190 0.198 0.207 0.216

0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

0.095 0.109 0.122 0.136

1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.3 2.4

0.149 0.163 0.177 0.190 0.204 0.217 0.231 0.245 0.258 0.272 0.285 0.299 0.312 0.326 0.340 0.353 0.367 0.380 0.394 0.408

0.8 MWS‐L‐8‐12 44.40 1.0 0.143 0.163 0.183 0.204 0.224

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8

0.285 0.306 0.326 0.346

1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

0.611
MWS‐L‐8‐16 59.20 1.0

0.245 0.265 0.367 0.387 0.408 0.428 0.448 0.469 0.489 0.509 0.530 0.550 0.571 0.591

0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.3 2.4

0.190 0.217 0.245 0.272 0.299 0.326 0.353 0.380

1.3 1.4 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

0.734 0.761 0.788 0.815
MWS‐L‐8‐20 74.00 1.0

0.408 0.435 0.462 0.489 0.516 0.543 0.571 0.598 0.625 0.652 0.679 0.706

0.8 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

0.238 0.272 0.306 0.340 0.374

1.0 1.1 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

0.408 0.442 0.476 0.509 0.543 0.577 0.679 0.713 0.747 0.781

0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2

1.019
MWS‐L‐8‐24 88.80 1.0

0.611 0.645 0.815 0.849 0.883 0.917 0.951 0.985

1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7

0.611 0.652 0.693 0.734 0.774 0.815

2.3 2.4

0.285 0.326 0.367 0.408 0.448 0.489 0.530 0.571

2.0 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

0.856 0.897 0.937 0.978 1.019 1.060 1.101 1.141 1.182 1.223 1180

BMP DETAIL
• Modular Wetland by Bio-Clean Environmental (Contech)
• List of Certified Trash Full Capture Systems by Water Resources Control Board
1181

PLAN VIEW

ELEVATION VIEW

RIGHT END VIEW

LEFT END VIEW

SITE SPECIFIC DATA

GENERAL NOTES

INSTALLATION NOTES

STANDARD DETAIL

STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM
MWS-L-8-12-V-UG

FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO
www.ContechES.com/IP 1182

State Water Resources Control Board
Certified Trash Full Capture Systems Available to the Public (Updated October 13, 2022)
Trash Provisions
To qualify as a trash full capture system (System) as described below and satisfy the requirements of the Trash Provisions,
1 a System installed after December 2, 2015, must
be certified, prior to installation, by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Executive Director, or designee, that meets the full capture system definition. The Trash Provisions define a full capture system as a treatment control, or series of treatment controls, including but not limited to, a multi-benefit project or a low impact development control that traps all particles that are 5-millimeter or greater, and has a design treatment capacity that is either:

1. Of not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm event (design storm) in the subdrainage area, or

2. Appropriately sized and designed to carry at least the same flows as the corresponding storm drain.

Consistent with these requirements, the Systems shall not bypass trash below the design storm under maximum operational loading conditions and shall not have a diversion structure present upstream such that a portion of the peak flow is not treated to trap all particles 5-millimeter or greater.

Vector Control Accessibility
According to the California Health and Safety Code,2 California landowners are legally responsible to abate (eliminate the source of) a public nuisance arising from their property, including mosquitoes. Mosquito vector control districts have substantial authority to access public and private property, inspect known or suspected sources of 1 Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California adopted by the State Water Board.
2 Health & Safety Code sections 2001-2002, 2060-2067, 100170, and 131075. 1183
Certified Trash Full Capture Systems Available to the Public

mosquitoes, abate mosquito sources, and charge the landowner for work performed and/or charge fees if a landowner is unwilling or unable to address a mosquito source arising from their property.

If not designed properly, a System may impede the mosquito vector control district’s ability to (1) visually inspect the System and/or storm vault for mosquito breeding, and (2) apply the appropriate chemical treatment. Moreover, some Systems may create a habitat for mosquitoes.

All the Systems in the tables below have been reviewed and approved by the Mosquito Vector Control Association of California for vector control accessibility. However, prior to installation of any Systems, the local mosquito vector control district should be contacted to ensure the installation conforms to the local district’s visual inspection, treatment, and vector breeding minimizing guidelines. The Mosquito Vector Control Association of California may also be contacted via email at [email protected].

Certified Trash Full Capture System Tables
The Systems included in the tables below are: 1) new Systems certified by the State Water Board Executive Director after adoption of the Trash Provisions, and 2) legacy Systems that were certified pursuant to the Trash Provisions include those full capture systems that were listed in Appendix I of the Bay Area-wide Trash Capture Demonstration Project, Final Project Report (May 8, 2014). All Systems remain certified unless and until they are decertified by the State Water Board’s Executive Director or designee. Legacy Systems’ descriptions are included in “fact sheets” that have been updated to address the application requirements for new Systems.

The tables do not include the Department of Transportation’s Systems as its Systems are not available to the public. Multi-benefit trash treatment systems are listed separately on the State Water Board’s Trash Implementation webpage at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/trash_implementati on.html.

Systems are either identified by their application number or, for legacy Systems, by a fact sheet alpha numeric designation.

Please note: Only Systems originally manufactured or distributed by the listed applicants are certified full capture systems.

The alphabetical tables of System applicants are divided into two categories:
· Catch Basin Inserts and Other Insert Systems. These Systems typically are inserted into existing stormwater infrastructure; and
1184
Certified Trash Full Capture Systems Available to the Public

· High Flow Capacity Trash Full Capture Systems. These Systems are generally self-contained units that typically are not inserted into existing stormwater infrastructure and that are designed to treat trash from large drainage areas.

How to Access Certified System Applications and Legacy System Fact Sheets Other than those applications pertaining to the Department of Transportation’s certified Systems, all certified System applications and legacy System fact sheets may be obtained from the California Stormwater Quality Association’s trash webpage at:
https://www.casqa.org/resources/trash/certified-full-capture-system-trash-treatmentcontrol-devices. To obtain the Department of Transportation’s certified applications, please contact Leo Cosentini (contact information below).

All questions concerning the Trash Provisions and the tables below should be directed to Leo Cosentini by email at [email protected] or by phone at (916) 341-5524.
1185
Certified Trash Full Capture Systems Available to the Public

TABLE 2. High Flow Capacity Trash Full Capture Systems
Applicant/Owner Full Capture System Name
Date of Application
Certification and Update
(if applicable), or Fact
Sheet Update
Date of Vector
Control
Accessibility
Approval
Advanced Drainage Systems,
Inc. Barracuda Hydrodynamic Separator
Application 21
06/26/19
Updated 05/21/21
03/15/19
AquaShield, Inc. Aqua-Swirl® Stormwater Treatment
System
Application 1
08/04/17
Updated 11/06/20
12/03/20
Bio Clean® Environmental
Services, Inc. Debris Separating Baffle Box Application 603/15/18 07/28/20 Bio Clean® Environmental
Services, Inc. Bio Clean® Deflective Screening Device Application 2006/26/19 07/28/20 Bio Clean® Environmental
Services, Inc. Modular Wetland System® Application 1507/10/18 03/15/19 Coanda Inc. Coanda Trash Screen and Debris Fence
Fact Sheet COA-1
12/02/15
Updated 09/10/21
09/07/21
1186

INFILTRATION TESTING RESULTS
1187

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

PROPOSED EUCLID AND WALNUT

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
112 WALNUT STREET, 2502 AND 2530 EUCLID AVENUE

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For LEGACY/COLLIER RESIDENTIAL, LLC
5154 CALIFORNIA AVENUE
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92617
Prepared By LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
17781 COWAN
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
Project No. 13493.001
May 13, 2022
1188
May 13, 2022
Project No. 13493.001
Legacy/Collier Residential, LLC
5154 California Avenue
Irvine, California 92617
Attention: Mr. David Pinto
Subject: Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed “Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use” Development
112 Walnut Street, 2502 and 2530 Euclid Avenue
Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
In accordance with our March 30, 2022 proposal, Leighton and Associates, Inc. submits this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Development located at 112 Walnut Street, 2502 and 2530 Euclid Avenue in the City of Ontario, California. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed concept as currently planned. The results of our exploration, findings, conclusions and recommendations are presented in this report.

The recommendations presented in this report are considered to be preliminary and subject to revision based upon the limited information regarding the proposed development. Upon review of project design concept plans, revision to the recommendations may be considered necessary. In addition, revision to design recommendations may be necessary upon review by the local building official or their designated, third party technical reviewer.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions or if we can be of further service, please contact us at (866) LEIGHTON; directly at the phone extensions or e-mail as listed below.

Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Eric M. Holliday, PG, 9219 John E. Haertle, PE, GE 2352 Senior Project Geologist Principal Engineer
Ext 4252, [email protected] Ext: 4268, [email protected] EMH/JEH/ lr
1189
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001 TOC Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

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

1.1 Site Description.......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Proposed Development ............................................................................. 1

1.2.1 Structural Loads.............................................................................. 2

1.2.2 Finish Floor Elevations.................................................................... 2

1.2.3 Pavement........................................................................................ 2

1.2.4 Ancillary Improvements................................................................... 3

1.3 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................... 3

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ............................................................................... 6

2.1 Regional Geologic Setting ......................................................................... 6

2.2 Surficial Geology........................................................................................ 6

2.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions........................................................................ 6

2.3.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu).................................................... 7

2.3.2 Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)...................... 7

2.4 Engineering Properties .............................................................................. 7

2.4.1 Expansive Soil Characteristics........................................................ 7

2.4.2 Soil Corrosivity ................................................................................ 8

2.4.3 Soil Compressibility......................................................................... 8

2.4.4 Shear Strength................................................................................ 9

2.4.5 Excavation Characteristics.............................................................. 9

2.5 Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................ 9

2.6 Infiltration ................................................................................................. 10

3.0 SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ............................................................ 12

3.1 Surface Fault Rupture.............................................................................. 12

3.2 Regional Faulting..................................................................................... 12

3.3 Strong Ground Shaking ........................................................................... 12

3.4 Liquefaction Potential............................................................................... 14

3.5 Seismically-Induced Settlement............................................................... 14

3.6 Lateral Spreading .................................................................................... 15

3.7 Earthquake-Induced Landsliding ............................................................. 16

3.8 Flooding................................................................................................... 16

3.9 Seiches and Tsunamis............................................................................. 16

3.10 Methane................................................................................................... 17

4.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 18

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................... 19 1190
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001 TOC Page ii

5.1 Earthwork................................................................................................. 19

5.1.1 Site Preparation ............................................................................ 20

5.1.2 Removals and Overexcavations.................................................... 20

5.1.3 Subgrade Preparation................................................................... 21

5.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction..................................................... 22

5.1.5 Shrinkage and Bulking .................................................................. 22

5.1.6 Reuse of Concrete and Asphalt Rubble........................................ 23

5.2 Foundation Design................................................................................... 24

5.2.1 Vertical Load Bearing Capacity..................................................... 24

5.2.2 Lateral Load Resistance ............................................................... 25

5.2.3 Settlement Estimate...................................................................... 26

5.3 Slab-on-Grade Floors .............................................................................. 26

5.4 Temporary Excavations ........................................................................... 27

5.5 Trench Backfill ......................................................................................... 28

5.6 Soil Corrosivity......................................................................................... 29

5.7 Cement Type ........................................................................................... 30

5.8 Elevator Pit Wall Design .......................................................................... 31

5.9 Pavements............................................................................................... 31

5.9.1 Pavement Subgrades.................................................................... 31

5.9.2 Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Pavement Sections.................................. 31

5.9.3 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavements.............................. 33

5.10 Concrete Flatwork and Exterior Slabs...................................................... 33 Surface .................................................................................................... 34

5.11 Drainage .................................................................................................. 34

5.12 Additional Geotechnical Services ............................................................ 35

6.0 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................... 36

7.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 38 Tables
Table 1 – Measured (Unfactored) Infiltration Rate ........................................................ 10 Table 2 – 2019 CBC Based Ground Motion Parameters (Mapped Values) .................. 13 Table 3 – Seismically-Induced Settlement - MCEG Seismic Event................................ 15 Table 4 – Soil Corrosivity as a Function of Resistivity................................................... 29 Table 5 – Summary of Corrosivity Testing .................................................................... 30 Table 6 – Asphalt Pavement Sections........................................................................... 32 1191
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001 TOC Page iii
Attachments
Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Rear of Text Figure 1 – Site Location Map Rear of Text
Figure 2 – Geotechnical Map Rear of Text
Figure 3 – Regional Geology Map Rear of Text
Figure 4 – Regional Fault Map and Historical Seismicity Map Rear of Text Figure 5 – Flood Hazard Zone Map Rear of Text
Figure 6 – Dam Inundation Map Rear of Text
Figure 7 – Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail (EI≤50) Rear of Text Appendix A – Exploration Logs
Appendix B – Percolation Test Data
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – General Earthworks and Grading Recommendations 1192
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Site Description
The project site is a rectangular parcel of land, approximately 10.6-acres in size, located at the northwest corner of Walnut Street and Euclid Avenue in the city of Ontario, California. The site consists of the properties located at the street addresses of 112 W. Walnut Street, and 2502 and 2530 S. Euclid Avenue. The site is bordered by Euclid Avenue on the east, Walnut Street to the south, and residential development on the west and north. The southeastern region of the property is occupied by an existing Carl’s Jr. restaurant. The site location (latitude

34.0275°, longitude -117.6524°) and immediate vicinity are shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map.

Based on visual site reconnaissance and review of the Alta/NSPS Land Title Survey prepared by Hillwig-Goodrow Inc., the site is currently occupied by a large rectangular-shaped structure formerly used as a K-Mart store located in the western portion of the site, and a strip mall retail development in the northeast region. The remainder of the site was generally paved with asphalt concrete and served as the parking lot for the development. The property is relatively flat, generally level with the adjacent roadways with site elevations (EL.) ranging from approximately EL. +823 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the northeastern region to approximately EL. +812 feet msl in the southwest region.

Based on review of historic aerial photographs (NETR, 2021), the project site appears to have a similar configuration dating back to at least 1985. The strip mall located in the northeast corner of the site was constructed between 1980 and 1985 and the K-Mart and Carl’s Jr. structures were constructed at some point between 1966 and 1980. Prior to at least 1966, the site seems to have been used for agricultural purposes.

1.2 Proposed Development
Our understanding of the proposed development is based on review of the Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use Site Plan Options A and B, Scale 1” = 100’, dated March 10, 2022, prepared by AO Architects (AOA, 2022). The development conceptually consists of two options for a proposed mixed-use development with 3- to 4-story residential and commercial structures:
1193
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

• Option A includes a total of 346 residential units in 8 structures with 5,000 square feet of commercial development. In the Option A development scheme it appears the existing Carl’s Jr. restaurant in the southeast corner of the site will remain.
• Option B consists of full-site development with 376 residential units in 10 structures with 11,400 square feet of commercial development.

We understand the current preferred option for development is Option A and, therefore, is the development scheme that serves as the basis for the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report. Ancillary improvements will include pavement for vehicle access and parking, landscaping, utility infrastructure, and flatwork.

1.2.1 Structural Loads
Information regarding total building height, finish floor elevations, and proposed loading conditions were not readily available at the time of this report. However, we understand that subterranean levels are not currently planned. Based upon the type of development planned for project site and our experience with similar developments, the buildings have been assumed to consist of wood frame structures supported by load bearing wall and isolated columns. Structural loads have been assumed to be a maximum of 3 kips per lineal foot for bearing walls and 40 kips for columns, Should additional design information become available, it should be provided to Leighton for review.

1.2.2 Finish Floor Elevations
The finish first floor elevations of the proposed structures have been assumed to be within 1 to 2 feet of existing grade with floor elevations established or minimize cut and fill required on site. The actual quantity of cut and fill will be dependent upon the actual floor elevations determined by the project civil engineer and the quantity of overexcavation required to prepare building pad areas.

1.2.3 Pavement
Pavements proposed for the development are expected to be primarily subjected to automobiles and occasional heavy truck traffic. Pavement 1194
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001

recommendations have been based upon a Traffic Index of 4.0 for automobile parking stalls; 5.0 for general purpose drive aisles; and 6.0 for areas subject to heavy trucks. Pavement recommendations have been based upon a twenty-year design life.

1.2.4 Ancillary Improvements
Based on email correspondence with Mr. Steve Ellis with Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., we understand preliminary infiltration system design is considering an invert depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) along the southern property line.

1.3 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of our geotechnical exploration was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site relative to the proposed development concept and provide geotechnical recommendations to aid in the design and construction for the project as currently planned. The scope of this geotechnical exploration included the following tasks:
• Background Review – We reviewed readily available in-house geotechnical reports, literature, aerial photographs, and maps relevant to the site. We evaluated geological hazards and potential geotechnical issues that may significantly impact the site. The documents reviewed are listed in Section 7.0. • Pre-Field Exploration Activities – A site visit was performed by a member of our technical staff to mark the proposed exploration locations. Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified to identify and mark the locations of existing underground utilities prior to our subsurface exploration. • Field Exploration – Our subsurface exploration was performed on April 6, 2022 and included drilling, logging, and sampling of five (5) hollow-stem auger borings (designated LB-1 through LB-5) to approximate depths ranging from 25 to 51½ feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). One (1) additional boring (designated LP-2) was drilled to an approximate depth of 20 feet bgs for subsequent percolation testing. To supplement the hollow-stem auger borings, four (4) Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings (designated CPT-1 through CPT-4) were advanced to depths of approximately 50 feet bgs. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2, Geotechnical Map. The boring and CPT logs are presented in Appendix A, Exploration Logs. 1195
Proposed Euclid and Walnut Mixed-Use Ontario, CA 13493.001