A - Ex A Draft EIR — San Leandro City Council, May 5, 2025 (part 5 of 12)

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions.

Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
1 2
3 10/17/23, 2:55 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/JQFTCHKB35H2ZD4GMY22MW36VE/resources 6/13 The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-takemigratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birdsand-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action NAME
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637
Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9591
Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31
Black Scoter Melanitta nigra
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds elsewhere
Black Skimmer Rynchops niger
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5234
Breeds May 20 to Sep 15
Black Swift Cypseloides niger
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8878
Breeds Jun 15 to Sep 10
Black Tern Chlidonias niger
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3093
Breeds May 15 to Aug 20
Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds elsewhere
Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds Jan 15 to Sep 30
10/17/23, 2:55 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/JQFTCHKB35H2ZD4GMY22MW36VE/resources 7/13 Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31
Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9462
Breeds May 15 to Jul 15
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Common Loon gavia immer
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4464
Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31
Common Murre Uria aalge
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 15
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7238
Breeds elsewhere
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481
Breeds elsewhere
Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3638
Breeds elsewhere
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
10/17/23, 2:55 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/JQFTCHKB35H2ZD4GMY22MW36VE/resources 8/13 Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Pink-footed Shearwater Puffinus creatopus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds elsewhere
Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds elsewhere
Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds elsewhere
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds elsewhere
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds elsewhere
Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds elsewhere
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds elsewhere
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480
Breeds elsewhere
Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds elsewhere
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds elsewhere
10/17/23, 2:55 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/JQFTCHKB35H2ZD4GMY22MW36VE/resources 9/13 probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Belding's Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Black Oystercatcher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Black Scoter
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Black Skimmer
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Black Swift
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Black Tern
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Willet Tringa semipalmata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds elsewhere
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
10/17/23, 2:55 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/JQFTCHKB35H2ZD4GMY22MW36VE/resources 10/13 Black Turnstone
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Brown Pelican
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide (CON)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC California Thrasher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Cassin's Finch
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Common Loon
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Common Murre
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Common Yellowthroat

BCC - BCR
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Lawrence's Goldfinch
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Long-tailed Duck
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Marbled Godwit
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Mountain Plover
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Nuttall's Woodpecker

BCC - BCR

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Olive-sided Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Pink-footed Shearwater
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Pomarine Jaeger
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Red Phalarope
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Red-breasted Merganser
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Red-necked Phalarope
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Red-throated Loon
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Ring-billed Gull
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Short-billed Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Surf Scoter
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Tricolored Blackbird
BCC Rangewide (CON)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide (CON)
10/17/23, 2:55 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/JQFTCHKB35H2ZD4GMY22MW36VE/resources 11/13 White-winged Scoter
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Willet
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report 10/17/23, 2:55 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/JQFTCHKB35H2ZD4GMY22MW36VE/resources 12/13 The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Wetland information is not available at this time
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory.

There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to 10/17/23, 2:55 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/JQFTCHKB35H2ZD4GMY22MW36VE/resources 13/13 establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

Attachment C
Photographs

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Highly disturbed grassland along a fence line in the east part of the site, looking southwest from the east edge of the site; 11/23/20.

Parking stalls in the north part of the site, looking northeast; 11/23/20. The site is currently being used for Amazon van parking.

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Railroad tracks adjacent to the south edge of the site, looking northeast from the southwest part of the site; 11/23/20.

East edge of the site, looking north from the southeast part of the site; 11/23/20.

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Northeast edge of the site, looking southeast; 11/23/20. A majority of the site is paved and is being used for parking.

West edge of the site, looking southeast along a fence line; 11/23/20.

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Cul-de-sac at the end of Hester Street, looking north from the northwest part of the site; 11/23/20. The landscape trees in this part of the site were scanned for nesting birds and none were observed.

Doolittle Drive, looking southwest from the west part of the site; 11/23/20. This road provides access to the south part of the site.

MOORE BIOLOGICAL
Warehouse in the south part of the site, looking northeast from just west of the warehouse; 11/23/20.

Large airplane warehouse in the south part of the site, looking northeast from the west side of the warehouse; 11/23/20. No evidence of bats or any other wildlife was observed within this warehouse.

Attachment D
National Wetland Inventory Map
880 Doolittle Drive
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
November 23, 2020
0 0.0275 0.055 0.11 mi
0 0.0425 0.085 0.17 km
1:3,308
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.

Project Site
Attachment E
Designated Critical Habitat
NEWARK

HAYWARD

SAN MATEO

WOODSIDE PALO ALTO

SAN LEANDRO

OAKLAND WEST OAKLAND EAST

HUNTERS POINT

REDWOOD POINT

MOUNTAIN VIEW

LAS TRAMPAS RIDGE

RICHMOND
NILES

BRIONES VALLEY WALNUT CREEK
DUBLIN
DIABLO

MILPITAS

MONTARA MTN

HALF MOON BAY

SAN QUENTIN CLAYTON

CRITICAL HABITAT
880 Doolittle Drive
Town of San Leandro, Alameda County, CA
Map Date: 10/18/2023; Source: USFWS, NOAA
± 0 1 2
Miles
Project Site
Chinook Salmon
Green Sturgeon
Alameda whipsnake (=striped racer)
Bay checkerspot butterfly
California red-legged frog
Western snowy plover
Appendix D
Cultural Resources Memorandum
MEMORANDUM Basin Research Associates
Cultural Resources Due Diligence Level Review – New Industrial Building and Parking Structure, 880 Doolittle Drive, San Leandro, Alameda County (PLN20-0036)
TO: Claudia Tarpin (562-376-9271)
Director, Development
Prologis, El Segundo
RE: Archaeological Resources Due Diligence Level Review - New Industrial Building and Parking Structure, 880 Doolittle Drive, San Leandro (PLN20- 0036)
FROM: Colin I. Busby, Project Principal (510 430-8441 ext 101) DATE: 12 April, 2024 (Revised)

INTRODUCTION
Prologis is proposing to redevelop a 14.4 acres site comprised of two parcels at 880 Doolittle Drive/498 Hester Street, City of San Leandro (APN 077A-0741-004-02; 077A-0741-005-00; USGS San Leandro, CA, 1993 T2S, R3W) [Figs. 1-3, 17]. The project plans to demolish four existing buildings and construct a single 98,015 square-foot warehouse building with a total building area of 106,747 square feet. The proposed project would contain office and industrial uses and operate as a distribution and delivery station for a single tenant. The distribution and delivery station would receive deliveries of consumer products, sort and store these products, and coordinate the delivery of products to the customer. The project also includes surface parking spaces, landscaping, and stormwater improvements. The site is located in a mixed-use commercial and industrial area of the Davis Tract in northwestern San Leandro.

The most recent use was an Expresso Airport Parking facility and includes asphalt parking areas and an auxiliary building and three former industrial buildings repurposed for indoor parking totaling 213,500 square feet. The initial facility was developed in the mid to late 1940s by Robert Osborne Engineering that manufactured motor or aircraft parts. Kaiser Industries Corporation/Kaiser Aerospace & Electronics Corporation (KAEC) apparently took over operations in 1951 although it did not purchase the property until 1957. The project site also appears to have been occupied by the Oakland Aircraft Division of Willys Motors, Inc., San Leandro in 1955-1956/1962. Kaiser manufactured aircraft bodies and parts from 1955 to 1957 but then shifted in 1957 to manufacturing nozzles for rocket engines with limited production of aircraft parts. Portions of the property were also used for employee parking and storage.

Manufacturing continued until the plant was closed in 1996. The site was used as an off-airport parking enterprise from 2002/2003 to 2018/2020.

The topography is relatively flat and is approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. San Leandro Creek is located approximately 0.5 miles north of the project site and San Francisco Bay is approximately one mile to the southwest. The project site is within Holocene alluvial fan deposits (fine facies Qhff) and latest Holocene alluvial fan deposits (see Witter et al. 2006).

Subsurface sediments are primarily unconsolidated and interbedded fine sand, silt and clay 2 deposits in fluvial, inter-fluvial basin and alluvial environments. Ground water is found approximately 5-7 feet below the surface depending on the season.

Basin Research Associates (BASIN) was requested to review the proposed project site to determine if historic properties or unique archaeological resources would be affected by the proposed actions for use in a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) study.

PROJECT SITE HISTORY (excerpted from Langan 2019 and other sources) The project site covers 14.4 acres within two parcels – 880 Doolittle Drive (southern portion) and 498 Hester Street (northern portion) – in a mixed-use commercial and industrial area of northwest San Leandro. Currently, the northern portion consists of asphalt-paved parking areas, and the southern portion is occupied by three large, industrial, warehouse-like buildings, and a smaller office or administrative building [see Fig. 3]. Project redevelopment will result in the demolition of the existing buildings. The project site was recently used as an off-site airport parking facility.

LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
The project site in the later 19th century was in a large open area in agriculture west of the city boundary of San Leandro [see Figs. 4-6]. Davis Street, a major east-west trending road, was in place and the alignment of Bayshore or Shoreline Boulevard (the future Doolittle Drive) extended north from Davis Street towards the Oakland city boundary. The South[ern] Pacific Railroad (SPRR) to Alameda and Oakland was present both north and south of Davis Street following the approximate and future alignment of Doolittle Drive (Thompson and West 1878:36; USGS Haywards, Calif. 1899; Shaffer 1972:128). The area to the immediate west of the present-day alignment of Doolittle Drive and the railroad was largely tidal marshland with San Leandro Creek to the north. The project site was primarily located within a 100 acre parcel owned by D. Sullivan in 1874 (see Allardt 1874) and a 33 ½ acre parcel owned by D. Tosto in 1878 (Thomson and West 1878) [Figs. 5-6].

By the early 20th century, there were orchards to the northeast and southeast of the project site but the project vicinity is shown as open agricultural fields [Fig. 7]. Several additional roads were present in the area to the south of the project site. One notable change was the addition of a rail connection to the main SPRR line heading to Oakland [Fig. 8] and the possible abandonment of the alignment to Alameda. The 1915 USGS shows the rail line as the only railroad near the project site but the original rail alignment to Alameda adjacent to and through the tidal marsh is still shown on other maps, and appears to be visible in a 1939 aerial (USGS Haywards, Calif. 1915; USCGS San Francisco Bay, Southern Part, 1905, 1923). Detailed information on the railroad and its changes is provided in Shafter (1972:37). The extent of marshland to the west and north of the project vicinity appears unchanged.

By 1939 filling had occurred on some of the tidal marsh west of Doolittle. A sewer plant is visible at the end of Davis Street, and an industrial building had been built on Davis Street, east of the SPRR tracks [see Figs. 9-10]. The Oakland Airport North Field is present having been developed in 1927. Much of the area, however, remained in agriculture and the project site was mostly vacant. The Nimitz Freeway (Interstate I-880), not visible on a 1946 aerial, is mapped on the 1947 USGS San Leandro topographic map; however, the section between 98th Avenue in 3 Oakland and Lewelling Boulevard in San Leandro was not completed until mid-June 1952 and the section from Lewelling to Jackson Street in Hayward was completed in 1953.

Housing developments are present west of the SPRR tracks and Doolittle Drive, approximately one mile to the south of the project site. The USGS topographic map shows three more industrial buildings in the vicinity, including the first building on the project parcel (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1947) [Figs. 11-12]. A 1946 aerial photograph shows initial site development with grading and foundations present – a start to the post-World War II development of northwest San Leandro.

Early industry in San Leandro was clustered on the east end of Davis Street generally near the SPRR tracks before East 14th Street and/or Bancroft Avenue in the vicinity of Alvarado and Martinez streets. Industrial development in San Leandro increased during and just after WWII with a focus on calculating machines, food products, tractor parts, boxes and paper products, auto assembly and parts, aircraft assembly and parts, paint, electronic and scientific instruments, furniture and wood specialties, chemicals, process instruments and general machine and tool and die parts. The presence of the railroad, the completion of the Nimitz Freeway in the early 1950s and the Port of Oakland all facilitated transportation for raw materials and finished product shipping. The Oakland Airport, constructed in 1927 and subsequently expanded and developed by the Port of Oakland, provided passenger and cargo transport.

The late 1940s and early 1950s resulted in the development of new sewer lines and outfalls and the expansion of the sewage treatment plant site at the end of Davis Street with partial funding provided by the new Chrysler Dodge auto assembly plant on Davis Street just east of Doolittle Drive. Industrial development started in earnest from 1948 on with the annexation of more than 80 industrial properties over 20 years (see Shaffer 1972:128-129) with a focus south of Davis Street along Doolittle Drive and west of the Nimitz Freeway which was opened in the early 1950s. In 1954, there were 198 industrial firms employing 14,000 workers in San Leandro.

Virtually all of the industries had entered the city within a few years due to post-WWII and Korean War industrial expansion as well as the continuing focus on agriculture and food processing industries (San Leandro Historical Society, personal communications with C. Busby, September 2021). The availability of open land, expanding and new transportation networks, the presence of a skilled post-war labor pool and the opening of large areas of the Eastbay including San Leandro and unincorporated San Lorenzo for suburban housing development were factors that fed the industrial expansion.

The 1950s industrial expansion included the project area. By 1958, scattered industrial buildings are present in the project vicinity, although there are still many undeveloped parcels in the area.

There is little marshland remaining. By 1963, development is starting to fill in the area to the northwest and by 1982 the area is predominantly industrial with only a few unbuilt parcels.

Small manufacturing and fabrication, transportation, storage, food processing and service based industries are dominant.

Development of industrial San Leandro continued steadily through the 1990s with minor development in early 21st century. At present, there is increasing focus on biotechnology research and development (R&D) as well as continuing emphasis on food processing, beverage production and light manufacturing and service related industries. Relocation of these industries to San Leandro appears driven by the proximity of a trained and available workforce, the 4 presence and availability of varied transportation networks for both raw materials and the shipping of finished goods, ample storage and warehousing, City tax and development incentives and adaptive reuse of existing industrial infrastructure.

Project Site
The project site follows the industrial development trends of northwest and other areas of San Leandro transitioning from initial manufacturing to both light manufacturing and serviced based uses in later years. In 1939 the project site was undeveloped agricultural land and vacant as was the surrounding area. By 1946 initial site development had started. A 1946 aerial photograph shows the initial site development with a building present along the 880 Doolittle parcel north edge and grading and/or new building foundations within the main portion of the parcel. A distinct “L” shaped building or building foundation is present that probably represents the initial configuration of the administrative building near the entrance from Doolittle Drive. The 498 Hester parcel was vacant and undeveloped.

Initial use in the late 1940s included the manufacture of motor or aircraft parts possibly for use by the other industries clustered around the Oakland Airport or for use in the auto assembly plants in San Leandro (Chrysler Dodge), Oakland (GMC) or Milpitas (Ford). Kaiser Industries Corporation/Kaiser Aerospace & Electronics Corporation (KAEC) apparently took over operations in 1951 although it did not purchase the property until 1957. The project site also appears to have been occupied by the Oakland Aircraft Division of Willys Motors, Inc., San Leandro in 1955-1956/1962. KAEC manufactured aircraft bodies and parts from 1955 to 1957 but then shifted in 1957 to manufacturing nozzles for rocket engines with limited production of aircraft parts. Portions of the property were also used for employee parking and storage.

Manufacturing continued until the plant was closed in 1996. The site was used as an off-airport parking enterprise from 2002/2003 to 2018/2020.

By 1958, the 498 Hester Street property had one building and had been recently paved. The property was used for employee parking and storage associated with the adjacent 880 Doolittle property from 1963 until 1976. After 1976, KAEC leased 75% of the 498 Hester Street property to other businesses including a truck trailer repair and storage company and light manufacturing company. From 1995 to October 2002, the property was used by a cargo container repair and storage company. The parcel is currently vacant and is completely paved.

In terms of the built environment, there are multiple buildings on the 880 Doolittle Drive parcel [see Figs. 17-25]. The Administration Building was constructed first around 1946 and is freestanding, just off Doolittle Drive at the western portion of the parcel. The Northern Building, based on historic aerial photographs and maps, appears to have been built in 1946-47 with an addition constructed at its west side in 1961. The Southern Building and adjacent Breezeway Building were both built in 1964, with an addition to the east side of the Southern Building constructed in 1966. These industrial buildings were merged and connected through several building campaigns forming continuous, irregular roof coverage over a large portion of the parcel (see Historical Resource Evaluation 880 Doolittle drive & 498 Hester Street [Parcels 077A-0741-004002 & 077A-0741-004-00, San Leandro, CA [architecture + history, llc 2024]). 5 RESEARCH PROTOCOLS
A prehistoric and historic site records and literature search for a 0.25 mile radius from the project site was completed by the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University (CHRIS/NWIC File No. 20-1048 by Hagel, dated 12/8/20). Reference material from the Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro and available on the web was also consulted.

Sources included:

National Register of Historic Places listings for Alameda County, California (USNPS 2017-2020);
OHP Built Environment Resources Directory [BERD] (CAL/OHP 2020a).

Listed California Historical Resources (CAL/OHP 2020b) with the most recent updates of the National Register of Historic Places; California Historical Landmarks; and, California Points of Historical Interest as well as other evaluations of properties reviewed by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation; California History Plan (CAL/OHP 1973);
California Inventory of Historic Resources (CAL/OHP 1976); Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (CAL/OHP 1988); Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (CAL/OHP 2020c); Other regional/local lists and maps (see preceding Land Use History Section and References Cited and Consulted).

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a review of the Sacred Lands Inventory (SLF) (Busby 2020a) (see Attachments). No other agencies, departments or local historical societies were contacted regarding landmarks, potential historic sites or structures.

An archaeological and built environment review of the project site was conducted by Dr. Colin I.

Busby (RPA), an archaeologist meeting the Standards of the Secretary of the Interior, on December 14, 2020.

FINDINGS
No prehistoric, combined prehistoric/historic era, and/or historic era archaeological sites have been recorded within the project site. The OHP Built Environment Resources Directory [BERD] (CAL/OHP 2020a) has no resources listed for the project addresses.

RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
The San Leandro Fiber Optic for Broadband project (excluding California Office of Historic Preservation correspondence) has four reports with negative results within or adjacent to the project site. Twelve additional cultural resources studies are within 0.25 mile of the project site with generally negative results (see Table 1).
6 No prehistoric, combined prehistoric/historic era, and/or historic era archaeological sites have been recorded within the project site. Two historic buildings and one historic district are within 1000 feet (see Table 2). Two resources have been found ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NR), the California Register of Historical Resources (CR) or Local Listing (LL) through survey evaluation. One resource, the Davis West Historic District, has been determined ineligible for the NR by consensus through Section 106 process – not evaluated for CR or LL.

TABLE 1
STUDIES IN/ADJACENT AND WITHIN 0.25 MILE OF PROJECT SITE Report # Author Date Title Study Type Comments Resources In/Adjacent
In or Adjacent
S-046322 Heidi Koenig 2014 San Leandro Fiber Optic for Broadband Project, City of San Leandro, Alameda
County, California; Cultural Resources
Survey Report
Archaeological,
Field study
Negative None
S-046322a Heidi Koenig 2014 Addendum to the San Leandro Fiber Optic For Broadband Project, City of San
Leandro, Alameda County, California
Archaeological,
Field study
Negative None
S-046322b Heidi Koenig 2015 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report, San Leandro Fiber Optic for Broadband Project,
City of San Leandro, Alameda County,
California
Archaeological,
Monitoring
Negative None
S-046322c Heidi Koenig 2015 Addendum #2 to the San Leandro Fiber Optic for Broadband Project, City of San
Leandro, Alameda County
Archaeological,
Evaluation,
Field study
Negative None
S-046322d Carol Roland-Nawi 2015 EDA_2014_0206_001; 2nd Area of Potential Effects Revision, San Leandro
Fiber Optic Broadband Project, San
Leandro, CA
OHP
Correspondence
Negative None
Within 0.25 mile
S-000621 Richard B. Hastings 1975 Archaeological and Architectural Survey of the Davis Street Railroad Crossing,
04-Ala-112 0.0/0.5, 04209 - 393291
Archaeological,
Field study
Negative None
S-000667 David Chavez 1977 An archaeological field reconnaissance of two proposed water storage pond sites in
Oakland (letter report).

Archaeological,
Field study
Negative None
S-001308 Carol Sutton and
Cindy
Desgrandchamp
1978 An Archaeological Survey Report of a
Proposed Road Widening, 04-ALA-61
P.M. 14.8/15.9, 04204 - 350601
Archaeological,
Field study
Negative None
S-001743 Michael J. Sawyer,
Diane C. Watts,
E. Breck Parkman,
Patricia M. Ogrey,
and Robert M.

Harmon
1978 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the
Hayward-San Leandro Transportation
Corridor, Alameda County, California
Archaeological,
Field study
2 resources
outside the
project area
None
S-001786 David Chavez 1979 Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Oakland Airport Transit Connector
EIS/EIR, Alameda County, California
Archaeological,
Field study
Negative None
S-012439 David Chavez 1990 Cultural Resources Investigations for the Port of Oakland Phase I Dredging, Cultural
Resources Evaluation
Archaeological,
Field study
Negative None
S-023381 Colin I. Busby and
Stuart A. Guedon
2000 EBMUD Exploratory Boring Program,
Davis and Beecher Streets, San Leandro
(Revised), APN-077A-0675-009-00, 077A0675-005-02 and 007A-0675-013-00 (letter report)
Archaeological,
Field study
Negative None
S-029589 Adam Marlow,
Allen Estes, and
James Allan
2004 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed
San Leandro Recycled Water Master Plan,
San Leandro, Alameda County, California.

Archaeological,
Field study
Negative None
7 TABLE 1, con’t
STUDIES IN/ADJACENT AND WITHIN 0.25 MILE OF PROJECT SITE Report # Author Date Title Study Type Comments Resources In/Adjacent
Within 0.25 mile, con’t
S-033061 Nancy Sikes, Cindy
Arrington, Bryon
Bass, Chris Corey,
Kevin Hunt, Steve
O'Neil, Catherine
Pruett, Tony Sawyer,
Michael Tuma,
Leslie Wagner, and
Alex Wesson
2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of
Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest
Network Construction Project, State of
California
Archaeological,
Architectural/
historical,
Field study,
Monitoring
Numerous
resources outside
the area
None
S-033061a SWCA
Environmental
Consultants
2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of
Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest
Network Construction Project, State of
California
Archaeological,
Monitoring
Numerous
resources outside
the area
None
S-033061b Nancy E. Sikes 2007 Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction
Project (letter report)
Archaeological,
Monitoring
Numerous
resources outside
the area
None
S-052020 Paul Zimmer 2018 Alco Iron And Metal Expansion Project Alameda County, California; Cultural
Resources Study
Archaeological,
Architectural/
historical,
Field study
2 resources
outside the
project area
None
TABLE 2

CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT
FIELD REVIEW [see Figs. 4-12]
Dr. Colin I. Busby (RPA) completed an archaeological and built environment field review of the project site on December 14, 2020. The 14-acre project site is generally paved with three large size industrial buildings and an associated administrative office present. The buildings were secured and not inspected from the interior. Langan (2019) provides a number of interior building views and these were reviewed.

No surface evidence of prehistoric or historic cultural material was observed as entire area was covered with hardscape and native soil was not available for inspection.

Resource Type Recorded by Eligibility

NRHP/CRHR
Comment
In or Adjacent
None
Within 1000 feet
P-01-011497 Historic District;
Davis West Historic District;
2013 (Michael Hibma, LSA
Associates Inc.)
Evaluated as not
eligible – 6Y
Resource is a minimum of 550
feet east of the project
P-01-012125 Historic; Building
Alco Ferrous Scrap Purchasing
Building
2018 (Paul Zimmer, Environmental
Science Associates)
Evaluated as not
eligible – 6Z
Resource is ca. 700 feet
southwest of the project
P-01-012126 Historic; Building
Alco Scrap Metal Storage
Warehouse
2018 (Paul Zimmer, Environmental
Science Associates)
Evaluated as not
eligible – 6Z
Resource is ca. 1000 feet
southwest of the project
8 INDIVIDUALS, GROUP AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a review of the Sacred Lands Inventory (SLF) (Busby 2020a). The NAHC responded indicating the review of the SLF was negative and providing a list of 10 Native American tribes and individuals for consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB 52) (Fonseca 2020) (see Attachments). Consultation requires government to government contact and the City of San Leandro will undertake AB 52 consultation when the City has determined that the application for the project is complete.

BASIN did not complete any outreach to the Native American tribes and individuals due to the City’s mandate to complete AB 52 outreach.

No other agencies were contacted. However, contract was made with Ms. Cynthia Simons, President, San Leandro Historical Society, who reviewed her files on “industry” in northwest San Leandro. She provided several undated newspaper articles and advertisements concerning Kaiser Aerospace and Electronics Corporation. One articles had information regarding an award made to the firm for “Zero Defects” for machined parts provided to the United States Air Force and the other was a help wanted advertisement for machinists, heliarc welders and maintenance mechanics.

SUMMARY
• The CHRIS/NWIC records review found no record of previous cultural resources studies for the project site and did not note the presence of any prehistoric and/or historic era archaeological sites within or adjacent to the project site. • No Native American villages, traditional use areas or contemporary use areas or other features of significance have been identified in or adjacent to the project site. • No Hispanic era features have been identified in or adjacent to the project site. • No American Period archaeological sites have been recorded, reported or identified in or adjacent to the project site.
• No surface evidence of prehistoric or historic cultural material was observed as entire area was covered with hardscape.
• The built environment was reviewed by architecture + history, llc (2024) who determined that the buildings do not appear to qualify as Historical Resources under CEQA. They do not appear to be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage (Criterion 1) nor are they associated with the lives of persons important in our past (Criterion 2). None of the buildings embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3). None of the buildings meet the City of San Leandro’s criteria for a City Landmark or designation as a Merit Resource. • Research completed for the project suggests a low potential for the presence of subsurface prehistoric and/or historic deposits either within or adjacent to the project site.

The nearest known prehistoric resources are located along San Leandro Creek 0.5 mile to north. No prehistoric uses have been exposed in the general area. 9 • No listed or known potential National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources are located in or adjacent to the project site. No other significant or potentially significant local, state or federal cultural resources/historic properties, landmarks, points of interest, etc. have been identified in or immediately adjacent to the project site.

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the considered opinion of BASIN, based on a review of pertinent records, maps and other documents and a field inventory, that the proposed project can proceed as planned in regard to prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. No subsurface testing for buried archaeological resources appears warranted. The built environment does not appear to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources or as a City of San Leandro Historic Resource (see architecture + history, llc 2024).

BASIN recommends that if any unanticipated prehistoric or historic period cultural materials1 are exposed during construction grading and/or excavation, operations should stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified professional archaeologist contacted for evaluation and further recommendations consistent with CEQA and City of San Leandro requirements. Potential recommendations could include evaluation, collection, recordation, analysis, etc. of any significant cultural materials followed by a professional report.

1. Significant prehistoric cultural resources are defined as human burials, features or other clusterings of finds made, modified or used by Native American peoples in the past. The prehistoric and protohistoric indicators of prior cultural occupation by Native Americans include artifacts and human bone, as well as soil discoloration, shell, animal bone, sandstone cobbles, ashy areas, and baked or vitrified clays.

Prehistoric materials may include:
a. Human bone - either isolated or intact burials.
b. Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground depressions, differences in compaction (e.g., house floors). c . Artifacts including chipped stone objects such as projectile points and bifaces; groundstone artifacts such as manos, metates, mortars, pestles, grinding stones, pitted hammerstones; and, shell and bone artifacts including ornaments and beads. d. Various features and samples including hearths (fire-cracked rock; baked and vitrified clay), artifact caches, faunal and shellfish remains (which permit dietary reconstruction), distinctive changes in soil stratigraphy indicative of prehistoric activities. e. Isolated artifacts
Historic cultural materials may include finds from the late 19th through early 20th centuries. Objects and features associated with the Historic Period can include. a. Structural remains or portions of foundations (bricks, cobbles/boulders, stacked field stone, postholes, etc.).
b. Trash pits, privies, wells and associated artifacts. c. Isolated artifacts or isolated clusters of manufactured artifacts (e.g., glass bottles, metal cans, manufactured wood items, etc.).
d. Human remains.

In addition, cultural materials including both artifacts and structures that can be attributed to Hispanic, Asian and other ethnic or racial groups are potentially significant. Such features or clusters of artifacts and samples include remains of structures, trash pits, and privies. 10 State law shall be followed in regard to Native American burials (Chapter 1492, Section 7050.5 to the Health and Safety Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code).

REFERENCES
Architecture + history, llc
2024 historical resource evaluation 880 doolittle drive & 498 hester street parcels:
077a-0741-004-02 & 077A-0741-005-00, san leandro, ca. On file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro and Prologis, El Segundo. April 2024.

Allardt, G.F.
1874 Official Map of Alameda County, California. Compiled from Official Surveys and Records and Private Surveys. Board of Supervisors of Alameda County.

Britton and Rey Co., Lith., San Francisco.

Busby, Colin I. (Basin Research Associates, San Leandro) 2020 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request: 880 Doolittle Drive Industrial Building, San Leandro, Alameda County. Via email, December 3, 2020.

California (State of), Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation (CAL/OHP)
1973 The California History Plan. Volume One - Comprehensive Preservation Program. Volume Two - Inventory of Historic Features.
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources.
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. 1990 California Historical Landmarks.
1992 California Points of Historical Interest [with updates]. May 1, 1992. 2012a [Historic Properties Directory] Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data file for Alameda County (includes National Register of Historic Places status codes, California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest listings, etc.). Dated 4/05/2012 [most recent as of 12/8/2020].
2020a OHP Built Environment Resources Directory [BERD] for Alameda County (includes National Historical Landmarks, National Register of Historic Places, Federal (Agency Nominations, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest listings).
2020b Listed California Historical Resources – Alameda County [including National Register, State Landmark, California Register, and Point of Interest]. <http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=1> accessed 12/9/2020.
2020c Archeological Determinations of Eligibility for Alameda County [viewed by NWIC staff, 12/8/2020].
11 Fonseca, Sarah (Native American Heritage Commission) (NAHC) 2020 Response to Request for Review of Sacred Lands File, 880 Doolittle Drive, San Leandro Project, Alameda County. Dated December 10, 2020.

Hagel, Lisa C. (CHRIS/NWIC staff)
2020 Results of Records Search for Doolittle, San Leandro, Alameda County.

CHRIS/NWIC File. No. 20-1048. Dated 12/8/20. Copy on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.

Langan Engineering and Environmental Services
2019 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, 880 Doolittle Drive, San Leandro, California. Copy on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro (provided by Prologis, Inc., San Francisco). Dated 2 December, 2019.

Shaffer, Harry E.
1972 A Garden Grows in Eden. The Centennial Story of San Leandro. San Leandro Historical-Centennial Committee, San Leandro.

Thomas Brothers
1938 Map of Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, San Leandro, Piedmont, Emeryville, Albany, California. Thomas Bros, Oakland and San Francisco.

Thompson and West
1878 Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. Thompson and West, San Francisco (reprinted Valley Publishers, Fresno 1976).

United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS)
1905 San Francisco Bay, Southern Part. Washington D.C.
1923 San Francisco Bay, Southern Part. Washington D.C.

United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey (USGS) 1899 Haywards, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15 minute series. 1915 Haywards, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15 minute series. 1947 San Leandro, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. 1948 San Leandro, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. 1959 San Leandro, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. 1968 San Leandro, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. 1973 San Leandro, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. 1980 San Leandro, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USNPS) 2015-2019 National Register of Historic Places Spreadsheet listings. https://wwww.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-reserch.htm Listed properties (current to 4/2019). National Historic Landmarks (NHLs; current to 12 12/2017). Multiple Property covers (current to 2015). Web, accessed 5/30/2020.

University of California at Santa Barbara Map & Imagery Library (UCSB M&IL) 1939 Imagery Report: Flight C-5750 Dated 1/1/39, Scale 1:20,000. Frame 289-52. 1947 Imagery Report: Flight GS-CP Dated 1/1/47, Scale 1:23,600. Frame 2-94. 1958 Imagery Report: Flight BUT-1958 Dated1/1/58, Scale 1:20,000. Frame 4V25. 1965 Imagery Report: Flight CAS-65-139 Dated 5/1/65, Scale 1:40,000. Frame 7-

39. Whitney, J.D., Charles F. Hoffman, and the State Geological Survey of California 1873 Composite: Map of the Region Adjacent to the Bay of San Francisco. State Geological Survey of California. Julius Bien, New York.

Witter, Robert C., Keith L. Knudsen, Janet M. Sowers, Carl M. Wentworth, Richard D. Koehler, and Carolyn E. Randolph
2006 Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California, United States Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2006-1037, Menlo Park.

Abbreviations
n.d. no date v.d. various dates N.P. no publisher noted n.p.p. no place of publisher noted
CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park is used for material on file at the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.
13 ATTACHMENTS

FIGURES
FIGURE 1 General Project Location (ESRI World Street Map) FIGURE 2 Project Location - T2S R3W unsectioned (USGS San Leandro, CA 1993)
FIGURE 3 Project with Historic Site Features (Langan 2019) FIGURE 4 Approximate Location of Project in 1873 (Whitney et al. 1873) FIGURE 5 Project Area in 1874 (Allardt 1874)
FIGURE 6 Project Area in 1878 (Thompson and West 1878:36) FIGURE 7 Project Area in 1905 - note orchards in the vicinity of San Leandro (USCGS San Francisco Bay Southern Part 1905)
FIGURE 8 Project Location T2S R3W (USGS Haywards, Calif. 1899 and 1915)
FIGURE 9 Thomas Bros 1938 map showing Bay Shore Blvd. and Davis St., and the San Leandro and Oakland city limits (Thomas Brothers 1938)
FIGURE 10 Aerial View of Project Location in 1939 (UCSB M&IL 1939:

C-5750 Fr 289-52)
FIGURE 11 Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1947) FIGURE 12 Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1948) FIGURE 13 Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1959) FIGURE 14 Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1968) FIGURE 15 Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1973) FIGURE 16 Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1980) FIGURE 17 Aerial View of Project Parcels with Photo View Locations FIGURE 18 Former Administration Building – view north from Doolittle Drive entrance
FIGURE 19 Northern Building – west façade of 1961 addition, view to south FIGURE 20 Northern Building – view east along north façade FIGURE 21 Northern Building – view west along north side of building showing 1961 addition
FIGURE 22 Northern Building – view west along north side of building FIGURE 23 Southern, Breezeway and Northern Buildings – view to southwest
FIGURE 24 Southern Building – west façade, view to east FIGURE 25 Northern, Breezeway and Southern Buildings – view to east BASIN 14

NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
REQUEST Request to Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) RESPONSE NAHC Response

CHRIS/NWIC SEARCH
SEARCH CHRIS/NWIC File No. 20-1048. Dated 12/8/20.
[No Confidential Information]
Project Location
Figure 1: General Project Location (ESRI World Street Map) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Figure 2: Project Location - T2S R3W unsectioned (USGS San Leandro, CA 1993) Project Location
Figure 3: Project with Historic Site Features (Langan 2019) Project
Figure 4: Approximate Location of Project in 1873 (Whitney et al. 1873) Project
Figure 5: Project Area in 1874 (Allardt 1874)
Davis Street
Bay Shore Blvd
.

Davis Street
Figure 6: Project Area in 1878 (Thompson and West 1878:36) Project
Figure 7: Project Area in 1905 - note orchards in the vicinity of San Leandro (USCGS San Francisco Bay Southern Part 1905)
Project
Davis Street
Bay Shore Blvd
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
USGS Haywards 1899
USGS Haywards 1915
Figure 8: Project Location T2S R3W (USGS Haywards, Calif. 1899 and 1915) Project
Project
Figure 9: Thomas Bros 1938 map showing Bay Shore Blvd. and Davis St., and the San Leandro and Oakland city limits (Thomas Brothers 1938)
Project
Project
Figure 10: Aerial View of Project Location in 1939 (UCSB M&IL 1939:C-5750 Fr 289-52) Davis Street
Bay Shore Blvd
Figure 11: Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1947) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Project
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Project
Figure 12: Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1948) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Figure 13: Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1959) Project
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Figure 14: Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1968) Project
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Figure 15: Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1973) Project
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Figure 16: Project Location T2S R3W (USGS San Leandro, Calif. 1980) Project
0 100 200 400
Feet ±
300
Doolittle Dr
Hester St
Figure 17: Aerial View of Project Parcels with Photo View Locations 18 19
24 20
21 22
23 25
Figure 18: Former Administration Building – view north from Doolittle Drive entrance Figure 19: Northern Building – west façade of 1961 addition, view to south Figure 20: Northern Building – view east along north façade Figure 21: Northern Building – view west along north side of building showing 1961 addition Figure 22: Northern Building – view west along north side of building Figure 23: Southern, Breezeway and Northern Buildings – view to southwest Figure 24: Southern Building – west façade, view to east Figure 25: Northern, Breezeway and Southern Buildings – view to east Breezeway
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1556 Harbor Boulevard, STE 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373-3710
(916) 373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: 880 Doolittle Drive Industrial Building, San Leandro, Alameda County County: Alameda
USGS Quadrangle Name: USGS San Leandro, CA 1993
Address: 880 Doolittle Drive, San Leandro
Township: 2 South, Range: 3 West, unsectioned
Company/Firm/Agency: Basin Research Associates
Contact Person: Colin I. Busby, PhD, RPA
Street Address: 1933 Davis Street, STE 215
City/Zip: San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone: (510) 430-8441 x101
Email: Please send response to [email protected]
Project Description:

Prologis is proposing to develop a new 250,000 square foot industrial building and parking structure for the operation of a last mile delivery distribution center at 880 Doolittle Drive, City of San Leandro (APN 077A-0741-004-02; 077A-0741-005-00; USGS San Leandro, CA, 1993 T2S, R3W).

The project site, covering 13.72 acres on two parcels (880 Doolittle/498 Hester Street), is located within a portion of the former Expresso Airport Parking facility and includes an auxiliary building, an asphalt parking lot and former industrial buildings repurposed for indoor parking. The facility was the former location of Kaiser Industries Corporation/Kaiser Aerospace & Electronics Corporation from 1957-2001. During that time, Kaiser manufactured aircraft bodies and parts and rocket nozzles on the property and used portions of the property for employee parking and storage. The project site was occupied by the Oakland Aircraft Division of Willys Motors, Inc., San Leandro in 1955-1956.

The City of San Leandro will use the information to develop an IS/MND under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Date: 12/3/2020
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Figure 1: Project Location - T2S R3W unsectioned (USGS San Leandro, CA 1993) Project Location
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

December 10, 2020
Colin I. Busby, PhD, RPA
Basin Research Associates
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, 880 Doolittle Drive Industrial Building, San Leandro Project, Alameda County
To Dr. Busby:

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
Marshall McKay
Wintun

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

Page 2 of 2 ends

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.

3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Sarah Fonseca
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
Amah MutsunTribal Band of
Mission San Juan Bautista
Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA, 94062
Phone: (650) 851 - 7489
Fax: (650) 332-1526
[email protected]
Costanoan
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel
Tribe
Tony Cerda, Chairperson
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA, 91766
Phone: (909) 629 - 6081
Fax: (909) 524-8041
[email protected]
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD
Contact
1615 Pearson Court
San Jose, CA, 95122
Phone: (408) 673 - 0626
[email protected]
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA, 95024
Phone: (831) 637 - 4238
[email protected]
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA, 94546
Phone: (408) 464 - 2892
[email protected]
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Monica Arellano,
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA, 94546
Phone: (408) 205 - 9714
[email protected]
Costanoan
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Timothy Perez, MLD Contact
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA, 95236
Phone: (209) 662 - 2788
[email protected]
Costanoan
Northern Valley
Yokut
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
Katherine Perez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA, 95236
Phone: (209) 887 - 3415
[email protected]
Costanoan
Northern Valley
Yokut
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
Andrew Galvan,
P.O. Box 3388
Fremont, CA, 94539
Phone: (510) 882 - 0527
Fax: (510) 687-9393
[email protected]
Bay Miwok
Ohlone
Patwin
Plains Miwok
The Confederated Villages of
Lisjan
Corrina Gould, Chairperson
10926 Edes Avenue
Oakland, CA, 94603
Phone: (510) 575 - 8408
[email protected]
Bay Miwok
Ohlone
Delta Yokut
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed 880 Doolittle Drive Industrial Building, San Leandro Project, Alameda County.

PROJ-2020-
006474
12/10/2020 11:24 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Alameda County
12/10/2020
12/8/2020 NWIC File No.: 20-1048
Donna M. Garaventa
Basin Research Associates
1933 Davis Street, Suite 215
San Leandro, CA 94577
re: Doolittle
The Northwest Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the San Leandro USGS 7.5’ quad. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a 0.25 mile radius:

Resources within project area: None
Resources within 0.25 mile radius: P-01-011497, 012125, & 012126.

Reports within project area: None
Reports within 0.25 mile radius: S-46322, 33061, 23381, 621, 1786, 1743, 1308, 52020, 29589, 12439, & 667.

Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Shipwreck Inventory: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution.

If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

Sincerely,
Lisa C. Hagel
Researcher
*Notes:
** Current versions of these resources are available on‐line:

Caltrans Bridge Survey: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/historic.htm Soil Survey: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/surveylist/soils/survey/state/?stateld=CA Shipwreck Inventory: http://www.slc.ca.gov/Info/Shipwrecks.html Appendix E
Geotechnical Investigation
Type of Services Geotechnical Investigation
Project Name Doolittle Drive Warehouse
Location 880 Doolittle Drive
San Leandro, California
Client PROLOGIS
Client Address 3353 Gateway Boulevard
Fremont, California
Project Number 555-16-1
Date September 9, 2020
Prepared by Matthew J. Schaffer, P.E., G.E.

Principal Engineer
Geotechnical Project Manager
Danh T. Tran, P.E.

Senior Principal Engineer
Quality Assurance Reviewer

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
555-16-1
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

1.3 EXPLORATION PROGRAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

1.4 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM-------------------------------------------------------------- 3

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 SECTION 2: REGIONAL SETTING................................................................................................3

2.1 REGIONAL SEISMICITY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Table 1: Approximate Fault Distances ....................................................................................3 SECTION 3: SITE CONDITIONS....................................................................................................4

3.1 SURFACE DESCRIPTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

3.2.1 Plasticity/Expansion Potential......................................................................................5

3.2.2 In-Situ Moisture Contents.............................................................................................5

3.3 GROUNDWATER----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 SECTION 4: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .............................................................................................6

4.1 FAULT RUPTURE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

4.2 ESTIMATED GROUND SHAKING ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

4.3 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

4.3.1 Background....................................................................................................................6

4.3.2 Analysis..........................................................................................................................6

4.3.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................7

4.3.4 Ground Rupture Potential.............................................................................................8

4.4 LATERAL SPREADING--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

4.5 SEISMIC SETTLEMENT/UNSATURATED SAND SHAKING -------------------------------- 8

4.6 TSUNAMI/SEICHE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

4.7 FLOODING ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................9

5.1 SUMMARY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

5.1.1 Potential for Liquefaction-Induced Settlements .......................................................10

5.1.2 Potential for Significant Static Settlements from Fill Placement and Building Loads............................................................................................................................10

5.1.3 Shallow Groundwater..................................................................................................11

5.1.4 Undocumented Fill and Loose to Medium Dense Sandy Soils ...............................11

5.1.5 Expansive Soils ...........................................................................................................11

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
555-16-1
Page ii

5.1.6 Redevelopment Considerations.................................................................................12

5.2 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW--------------------------------------------------------12

5.3 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING --------------------------------------------12 SECTION 6: EARTHWORK .........................................................................................................12

6.1 SITE DEMOLITION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12

6.1.1 Demolition of Existing Slabs, Foundations and Pavements ...................................13

6.1.2 Abandonment of Existing Utilities .............................................................................13

6.2 SITE CLEARING AND PREPARATION -----------------------------------------------------------14

6.2.1 Site Stripping ...............................................................................................................14

6.2.2 Tree and Shrub Removal ............................................................................................14

6.3 REMOVAL OF EXISTING FILLS AND OVER-EXCAVATION-------------------------------14

6.3.1 High Moisture in Fills and Underlying Native Soils..................................................15

6.4 TEMPORARY CUT AND FILL SLOPES ----------------------------------------------------------15

6.5 SHALLOW GROUNDWATER------------------------------------------------------------------------15

6.6 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------16

6.7 SUBGRADE STABILIZATION MEASURES -----------------------------------------------------16

6.7.1 Chemical Treatment ....................................................................................................16

6.7.2 Removal and Replacement.........................................................................................16

6.7.3 Scarification and Drying .............................................................................................17

6.8 MATERIAL FOR FILL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------17

6.8.1 Re-Use of On-site Soils...............................................................................................17

6.8.2 Re-Use of On-Site Site Improvements.......................................................................17

6.8.3 High Moisture in Fills and Underlying Native Soils..................................................17

6.8.4 Potential Import Sources ............................................................................................17

6.8.5 Non-Expansive Fill Using Lime Treatment................................................................18

6.9 COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS-------------------------------------------------------------------18 Table 2: Compaction Requirements ......................................................................................19

6.9.1 Construction Moisture Conditioning .........................................................................19

6.10 TRENCH BACKFILL------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19

6.11 SITE DRAINAGE-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20

6.12 LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) IMPROVEMENTS ------------------------------------20

6.12.1 Storm Water Treatment Design Considerations.......................................................21

6.13 LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS -----------------------------------------------------------------23 SECTION 7: 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA................................................................24

7.1 SITE LOCATION AND PROVIDED DATA FOR 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN --------24

7.2 SITE CLASSIFICATION – CHAPTER 20 OF ASCE 7-16 ------------------------------------24

7.3 CODE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS---------------------------------------------24

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
555-16-1
Page iii
Table 3: 2019 CBC Site Categorization and Site Coefficients............................................25

7.4 GROUND MOTION HAZARD ANALYSIS--------------------------------------------------------25

7.4.1 Probabilistic MCER ......................................................................................................26

7.4.2 Deterministic MCER ....................................................................................................26

7.4.3 Site-Specific MCER ......................................................................................................27 Table 4: Development of Site-Specific MCER Spectrum......................................................27

7.4.4 Design Response Spectrum.......................................................................................27 Table 5: Development of Site-Specific Design Response Spectrum .................................28

7.5 DESIGN ACCELERATION PARAMETERS ------------------------------------------------------28 Table 6: Site-Specific Design Acceleration Parameters ......................................................29

7.6 SITE-SPECIFIC MCEG PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION----------------------------------29 SECTION 8: FOUNDATIONS.......................................................................................................29

8.1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS -----------------------------------------------------------29

8.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------29

8.2.1 Spread Footings ..........................................................................................................29

8.2.2 Footing Settlement......................................................................................................30

8.2.3 Lateral Loading............................................................................................................31

8.2.4 Spread Footing Construction Considerations..........................................................31

8.3 ALTERNATIVE FOUNDATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------32 SECTION 9: CONCRETE SLABS AND PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENTS .......................................32

9.1 OFFICE SLABS-ON-GRADE-------------------------------------------------------------------------32

9.2 WAREHOUSE SLABS-ON-GRADE ----------------------------------------------------------------33

9.3 INTERIOR SLABS MOISTURE PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS----------------------33

9.4 EXTERIOR FLATWORK-------------------------------------------------------------------------------34 SECTION 10: VEHICULAR PAVEMENTS...................................................................................34

10.1 ASPHALT CONCRETE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------34 Table 7: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Recommendations (Untreated Subgrade).............35 Table 8: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Recommendations (Chemical-Treated Subgrade) 35 Table 8: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Recommendations (Chemical-Treated Subgrade) (Continued)..................................................................................................................36

10.2 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ----------------------------------------------------------------36 Table 9: PCC Pavement Recommendations (Untreated Subgrade) ...................................37 Table 10: PCC Pavement Recommendations (Chemical-Treated Subgrade)....................37

10.3 TRASH ENCLOSURES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------37

10.4 PAVEMENT CUTOFF-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------37 SECTION 11: RETAINING WALLS..............................................................................................38

11.1 STATIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES--------------------------------------------------------38

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
555-16-1
Page iv
Table 11: Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures...............................................................38

11.2 SEISMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ------------------------------------------------------38

11.3 WALL DRAINAGE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------38

11.4 BACKFILL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------39

11.5 FOUNDATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------39 SECTION 12: LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................39 SECTION 13: REFERENCES.......................................................................................................40 FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN
FIGURE 3: REGIONAL FAULT MAP
FIGURE 4A TO 4J: LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY – CPT-1 TO CPT-10 FIGURE 5: MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA
FIGURE 6: DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA
APPENDIX A: FIELD INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM
APPENDIX C: LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES CALCULATIONS

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
555-16-1

Page 1 ends

Type of Services Geotechnical Investigation
Project Name Doolittle Drive Warehouse
Location 880 Doolittle Drive
San Leandro, California
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This geotechnical report was prepared for the sole use of PROLOGIS for the Doolittle Drive Warehouse project in San Leandro, California. The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. For our use, we were provided with the following documents:
§ A site plan titled “DCK5, San Leandro, Concept 4 Site Plan,” Sheet CS104, prepared by Langan Engineering, dated August 7, 2020.
§ A topographic survey titled “Topographic Survey of 880 Doolittle Dr, San Leandro, CA,” prepared by Kimley Horn, dated July 13, 2020.
§ An environmental remediation report titled “Remedial Design and Implementation Plan, Former Kaiser Aerotech Facilities, 880 Doolittle Drive and 498 Hester Street, San Leandro, California, 01-KAEC-001,” prepared by SGI Environmental, dated April 28, 2008.
§ A groundwater monitoring report titled “2017 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former Kaiser Aerotech Facilities, 880 Doolittle Drive and 498 Hester Street, San Leandro, California, 01-OPEX-001,” prepared by SGI Environmental, dated May 15, 2017.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will include redeveloping the approximately 16-acre site for a new commercial warehouse/distribution facility. The new building will be approximately 95,000 square feet with about 86,800 square feet of warehouse space and about 8,200 square feet of office space located on the north and south ends of the building. The new building will have interior clear height of about 32 feet and concrete tilt-up construction. Truck loading docks will be located along the north side of the building, van loading zones will be on the east side of the building, about 127,450 square feet of associate parking will be on the west side of the building, and about 210,890 square feet of van parking will be on the east and south sides of the building.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 2 ends

Appurtenant utilities, landscaping, stormwater management areas, and other improvements necessary for the overall site development are also planned.

Building loads have not been provided at this time, however are expected to be typical of this type of construction. Based on conversations with you, the finished floor elevation will likely be at Elevation 16 to 17 feet (NAVD88 datum) and the finished floor will be generally at the same elevation across the entire building width and length. The finished grade at the truck loading dock on the north side of the building will be about 4 feet below the building finished floor and therefore anticipated at about Elevation 12 to 13 feet. Finished grades around the west, south, and east sides of the building are to be at the approximate building finished floor elevation.

Based on the current site grades, to achieve the referenced finished floor elevation, the current site grades will be at approximate finished floor elevation or will need to be raised roughly 1 to 2 feet at the north end of the building. Current site grades will need to be raised roughly 3 to 4 feet in the middle portion and 4 to 5 feet at the south end of the building to achieve finished floor elevation. Cuts on the order of 3 to 5 feet are anticipated to achieve finished grade at the loading dock along the north side of the building.

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services was presented in our proposal dated October 9, 2019 and consisted of field and laboratory programs to evaluate physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soils, engineering analysis to prepare recommendations for site work and grading, building foundations, flatwork, retaining walls, and pavements, and preparation of this report. Brief descriptions of our exploration and laboratory programs are presented below.

1.3 EXPLORATION PROGRAM
Field exploration consisted of 12 borings drilled on June 1 to 5, 2020 with truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment and 10 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) advanced on May 18 to 20, 2020. The borings were drilled to depths of 7 to 35 feet; the CPTs were advanced to depths of 50 to 140 feet. Seismic shear wave velocity measurements were collected from CPT-1 and CPT-10. Borings EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-5, EB-6, EB-7, EB-8, EB-9 and EB-12 were advanced adjacent to CPT-1, CPT-2, CPT-3, CPT-5, CPT-6, CPT-7, CPT-9, CPT-10, and CPT-8, respectively, for direct evaluation of physical samples to correlated soil behavior. Boring EB-4 was also performed in proximity to CPT-4, however slightly offset.

The borings and CPTs were backfilled with cement grout in accordance with local requirements; exploration permits were obtained as required by local jurisdictions. Environmental impacts are present at the site. Drilling procedures outlined on the drilling permit and discussed with SGI Environmental including exploration locations and depths were followed. CPT rods were cleaned with Liquinox and boring augers were steam cleaned between each exploration to reduce the potential for cross contamination.

The approximate locations of our exploratory borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

Details regarding our field program are included in Appendix A.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 3 ends

1.4 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
In addition to visual classification of samples, the laboratory program focused on obtaining data for foundation design and seismic ground deformation estimates. Testing included moisture contents, dry densities, Plasticity Index tests, washed sieve analyses, consolidation tests, and triaxial compression tests. Details regarding our laboratory program are included in Appendix B.

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Environmental services, including a Phase I or II were not requested for this project.

Environmental concerns are present at the site. The project environmental consultant should review our geotechnical recommendations for compatibility with the environmental concerns.

SECTION 2: REGIONAL SETTING

2.1 REGIONAL SEISMICITY
The San Francisco Bay area region is one of the most seismically active areas in the Country.

While seismologists cannot predict earthquake events, geologists from the U.S. Geological Survey have recently updated earlier estimates from their 2015 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (Version 3) publication. The estimated probability of one or more magnitude

6.7 earthquakes (the size of the destructive 1994 Northridge earthquake) expected to occur somewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area has been revised (increased) to 72 percent for the period 2014 to 2043 (Aagaard et al., 2016). The faults in the region with the highest estimated probability of generating damaging earthquakes between 2014 and 2043 are the Hayward (33%), Rodgers Creek (33%), Calaveras (26%), and San Andreas Faults (22%). In this 30-year period, the probability of an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or larger occurring is 22 percent along the San Andreas Fault and 33 percent for the Hayward or Rodgers Creek Faults.

The faults considered capable of generating significant earthquakes are generally associated with the well-defined areas of crustal movement, which trend northwesterly. The table below presents the State-considered active faults within 25 kilometers of the site.

Table 1: Approximate Fault Distances
Fault Name
Distance
(miles) (kilometers)
Hayward (Total Length) 2.8 4.5
Calaveras 11.5 18.5
San Andreas (1906) 15.5 25.0
A regional fault map is presented as Figure 3, illustrating the relative distances of the site to significant fault zones.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 4 ends

SECTION 3: SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 SURFACE DESCRIPTION
The irregularly shaped site is located at the southern end of the Hester Street cul-de-sac and is generally surrounded by and located in an area of industrial/commercial buildings with associated parking lots and equipment yards. Railroad tracks are located directly to the west and south of the site with the adjacent buildings beyond. A storage yard with construction equipment and materials is located outside the southeast portion of the site with Carden Street and adjacent buildings beyond. Large electrical towers also run generally north-south within the storage yard. Industrial/commercial buildings and associated parking lots/equipment yards are located adjacent to the northwest, north, and northeast sides of the site. The main driveway entrance into the site is from Doolittle Drive near the southwest corner of the site. The site is generally enclosed by chain-link fencing, wrought-iron fencing, and construction fencing.

The majority of the southern half of the site is currently occupied by a large interconnected oneand two-story industrial/commercial/warehouse/office type building. Portions of the building are two-stories while other connected portions are a high-bay industrial/warehouse building. Another smaller one-story building is located in the western/southwestern portion of the site. The northern half of the site is generally an asphalt concrete parking lot. Asphalt concrete parking and driving areas are also located on the eastern and the western sides of the buildings where the irregular shaped site extends westward. Some areas of Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements/slabs are also present generally on the eastern side of the large building. Light poles are positioned throughout the parking lots and high voltage power poles run in east-west direction across the site. The site is relatively level and slopes slightly upward to the north/northeast. Existing site grades are approximately Elevation 10 to 12 feet (NAVD88 datum) along the western/southwestern side of the site, 12 to 14 feet in the southeastern corner of the site, and 15 to 17 feet in the north/northeast portion of the site.

Surface pavements at our boring locations generally consisted of 3 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 3 to 12 inches of aggregate base. Stabilization fabric was also encountered beneath the aggregate base at Boring EB-1. Based on visual observations, the existing pavements are in generally poor to very poor condition.

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Below the surface pavements, our Borings EB-3 to EB-8 and EB-11 encountered undocumented fills to depths ranging from about 1¾ to 7 feet beneath the surface. The fills consisted of medium dense to very dense clayey sand with gravel, loose silty sand with variable amounts of gravel, and stiff to very stiff sandy lean clay. Beneath the undocumented fills (except at Boring EB-8) and the surface pavements at our Borings EB-1, EB-2, EB-9, EB-10, and EB-12, an approximately 1½ to 3 foot layer of medium stiff to very stiff highly expansive clay was encountered to depths ranging from 3 to 7 feet beneath the surface. Beneath the highly expansive clay and the undocumented fills at Boring EB-8, generally stiff to very stiff lean clays with variable amounts of sand were encountered to the maximum depth explored in our borings of 35 feet beneath the surface. At some borings, the lean clays were also observed to have

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 5 ends

lower strength and be medium stiff at depths ranging from about 7 to 12 feet and 15 to 25 feet.

Beneath the highly expansive clays at Boring EB-1 and EB-9, an approximate 1-foot layer of medium dense clayey sand was encountered above the lean clays. Some 1- to 3-foot thick loose to medium dense clayey sand, silty, clayey sand, and poorly graded sand with silt layers were observed interbedded within the lean clays at various depths.

Beneath the depth of our borings, our CPTs generally interpreted stiff to very stiff clays and silts interbedded with generally thin (less than 2 feet thick) layers of sands to the maximum depths explored ranging from about 50 to 140 feet beneath the surface. A thicker sand layer was encountered within CPT-3 and CPT-5 to CPT-8 at depths ranging from about 38 to 46 feet and a depth of about 52 to 62 feet in CPT-3.

3.2.1 Plasticity/Expansion Potential
We performed five Plasticity Index (PI) tests on representative samples. Test results were used to evaluate the expansion potential of surficial soils and the plasticity of the fines in potentially liquefiable layers. The near surface PI test resulted in a PI of 33, indicating high expansion potential to wetting and drying cycles. Results of the PI tests in potentially liquefiable soils indicated PIs of 5, 10, 16, and 23.

3.2.2 In-Situ Moisture Contents
Laboratory testing indicated that the in-situ moisture contents within the upper 10 feet range from near optimum to about 20 to 25 percent over the estimated laboratory optimum moisture.

3.3 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered in our Borings EB-1, EB-2, EB-4, EB-5, EB-7, EB-8, EB-9, EB-10, and EB-11 at depths ranging from 5 to 14 feet below current grades corresponding to Elevations of -3¼ to 9½ feet (NAVD88 datum) based on the topographic survey provided by Kimley Horn. Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depths explored of 7 to 10 feet at Borings EB-3, EB-6, and EB-12. Groundwater was inferred at depths of approximately 2 to 7 feet below current grades in our CPT explorations based on pore pressure dissipation tests.

All measurements were taken at the time of drilling and may not represent the stabilized levels that can be higher than the initial levels encountered.

Historic high groundwater levels are mapped at a depth of approximately 5 feet (CGS, San Leandro Quadrangle, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 078, 2003). Based on our review of the remediation and groundwater monitoring reports by SGI Environmental in 2008 and 2017, groundwater was noted within the report language to be generally at depths of about 5 to 7 feet beneath the surface. Based on the monitoring data also provided within the reports, groundwater appears to have been observed as shallow as about 3 feet beneath site grades.

In general, fluctuations in groundwater levels occur due to many factors including seasonal fluctuation, underground drainage patterns, regional fluctuations, and other factors. Based on

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 6 ends

the above data and engineering judgement, we recommend a design groundwater depth of 5 feet beneath existing grades.

SECTION 4: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

4.1 FAULT RUPTURE
As discussed above, several significant faults are located within 25 kilometers of the site. The site is not located within a State-designated Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As shown in Figure 3, no known surface expression of fault traces is thought to cross the site; therefore, fault rupture hazard is not a significant geologic hazard at the site.

4.2 ESTIMATED GROUND SHAKING
Moderate to severe (design-level) earthquakes can cause strong ground shaking, which is the case for most sites within the Bay Area. A peak ground acceleration (PGAM) was estimated following the ground motion hazard analysis procedure presented in Chapter 21, Section 21.2 of ASCE 7-16 and Supplement No. 1 and determined in accordance with Section 21.5 of ASCE 7-

16. For our analyses we used a PGAM of 0.89g.

4.3 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
The site is within a State-designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone (CGS, San Leandro Quadrangle, 2003). Our field and laboratory programs addressed this issue by testing and sampling potentially liquefiable layers to depths of at least 50 feet, performing visual classification on sampled materials, evaluating CPT data, and performing various tests to further classify soil properties.

4.3.1 Background
During strong seismic shaking, cyclically induced stresses can cause increased pore pressures within the soil matrix that can result in liquefaction triggering, soil softening due to shear stress loss, potentially significant ground deformation due to settlement within sandy liquefiable layers as pore pressures dissipate, and/or flow failures in sloping ground or where open faces are present (lateral spreading) (NCEER 1998). Limited field and laboratory data is available regarding ground deformation due to settlement; however, in clean sand layers settlement on the order of 2 to 4 percent of the liquefied layer thickness can occur. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, non-cohesive soils that are saturated and are bedded with poor drainage, such as sand and silt layers bedded with a cohesive cap.

4.3.2 Analysis
As discussed in the “Subsurface” section above, several sand layers were encountered below the design groundwater depth of 5 feet. Following the liquefaction analysis framework in the 2008 monograph, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008), incorporating updates in CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures (Boulanger

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 7 ends

and Idriss, 2014), and in accordance with CDMG Special Publication 117A guidelines (CDMG, 2008) for quantitative analysis, these layers were analyzed for liquefaction triggering and potential post-liquefaction settlement. These methods compare the ratio of the estimated cyclic shaking (Cyclic Stress Ratio - CSR) to the soil’s estimated resistance to cyclic shaking (Cyclic Resistance Ratio - CRR), providing a factor of safety against liquefaction triggering. Factors of safety less than or equal to 1.3 are considered to be potentially liquefiable and capable of postliquefaction re-consolidation (i.e. settlement).

The CSR for each layer quantifies the stresses anticipated to be generated due to a designlevel seismic event, is based on the peak horizontal acceleration generated at the ground surface discussed in the “Estimated Ground Shaking” section above, and is corrected for overburden and stress reduction factors as discussed in the procedure developed by Seed and Idriss (1971) and updated in the 2008 Idriss and Boulanger monograph.

For the CPT liquefaction analysis, the soil’s CRR is estimated from the in-situ measurements from the CPTs and laboratory testing on samples retrieved from our boring. The tip pressures are corrected for effective overburden stresses, taking into consideration both the groundwater level at the time of exploration and the design groundwater level, and stress reduction versus depth factors. The CPT method utilizes the soil behavior type index (IC) to estimate the plasticity of the layers. Soil samples were collected from the borings that were in proximity to the CPTs to visually observe for confirmation of CPT soil behavior types.

For the boring liquefaction analysis, the soil’s CRR is estimated from the in-situ density and strength obtained from field SPT blow counts (“N” value). The “N” values are corrected for effective overburden stresses, taking into consideration both the groundwater level at the time of exploration and the design groundwater level, and stress reduction versus depth factors. The “N” values are also corrected for fines content, hammer efficiency, boring diameter, rod length, and sampler type (with or without liners).

The results of our CPT analyses (CPT-1 to CPT-10) are presented on Figures 4A to 4J of this report. Calculations for these CPTs are attached as Appendix C. As mentioned, Boring EB-4 was performed slightly offset from the adjacent CPT-4. A poorly graded sand with silt layer was encountered that was not observed in CPT-4 at a depth of about 25 to 28 feet. As such, we performed liquefaction analysis on this sand layer observed within Boring EB-4. Calculations for Boring EB-4 are attached in Appendix C.

4.3.3 Summary
Our analyses indicate that several layers could potentially experience liquefaction triggering that could result in post-liquefaction total settlement at the ground surface ranging from less than ¼ inch up to 1 inch based on the Yoshimine (2006) method. Our analyses show that locations within the currently proposed building footprint and in close proximity to the proposed building (CPT-3, CPT-4, CPT-5, CPT-6, CPT-7, CPT-8, and CPT-10) could experience total postliquefaction settlement of up to about ½ inch. As discussed in SP 117A, differential movement for level ground sites over deep soil sites will be up to about two-thirds of the total settlement between independent foundation elements. In our opinion, differential settlements are

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 8 ends

anticipated to be on the order of ⅓-inch between independent foundation elements, based on the current proposed building layout.

4.3.4 Ground Rupture Potential
The methods used to estimate liquefaction settlements assume that there is a sufficient cap of non-liquefiable material to prevent ground rupture or sand boils. For ground rupture to occur, the pore water pressure within the liquefiable soil layer will need to be great enough to break through the overlying non-liquefiable layer, which could cause significant ground deformation and settlement. The work of Youd and Garris (1995) indicates that the non-liquefiable cap at all locations except for CPT-9/EB-8 is sufficient to prevent ground rupture; therefore, the above total settlement estimates at locations other than CPT-9/EB-8 are reasonable.

The location of CPT-9/EB-8 is beyond the limits of the proposed building area. As such, ground rupture at this location would not affect the proposed building in its current planned location.

However, if desired to protect site improvements within this location, we recommend the undocumented fills at CPT-9/EB-8 to a depth of about 7 feet be removed and replaced as engineered fill.

4.4 LATERAL SPREADING
Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. As failure tends to propagate as block failures, it is difficult to analyze and estimate where the first tension crack will form.

There are no open faces within a distance considered susceptible to lateral spreading; therefore, in our opinion, the potential for lateral spreading to affect the site is low.

4.5 SEISMIC SETTLEMENT/UNSATURATED SAND SHAKING
Loose to medium dense unsaturated sandy soils can settle during strong seismic shaking. We evaluated the potential for seismic compaction of the unsaturated soils above the design groundwater depths based on the work by Robertson and Shao (2010). Based on our analysis, the unsaturated granular soils above the design groundwater depth could experience up to about ¼ inch of total settlement following strong seismic shaking.

This settlement is generally associated with the surficial undocumented fills. As to be discussed, we recommend the undocumented fills be reworked and recompacted as engineered fill with the building area. As such, the potential for significant differential seismic settlement affecting the proposed building will be low.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 9 ends

4.6 TSUNAMI/SEICHE
The terms tsunami or seiche are described as ocean waves or similar waves usually created by undersea fault movement or by a coastal or submerged landslide. Tsunamis may be generated at great distance from shore (far field events) or nearby (near field events). Waves are formed, as the displaced water moves to regain equilibrium, and radiates across the open water, similar to ripples from a rock being thrown into a pond. When the waveform reaches the coastline, it quickly raises the water level, with water velocities as high as 15 to 20 knots. The water mass, as well as vessels, vehicles, or other objects in its path create tremendous forces as they impact coastal structures.

Tsunamis have affected the coastline along the Pacific Northwest during historic times. The Fort Point tide gauge in San Francisco recorded approximately 21 tsunamis between 1854 and 1964. The 1964 Alaska earthquake generated a recorded wave height of 7.4 feet and drowned eleven people in Crescent City, California. For the case of a far-field event, the Bay area would have hours of warning; for a near field event, there may be only a few minutes of warning, if any.

A tsunami or seiche originating in the Pacific Ocean would lose much of its energy passing through San Francisco Bay. Based on the study of tsunami inundation potential for the San Francisco Bay Area (Ritter and Dupre, 1972), areas most likely to be inundated are marshlands, tidal flats, and former bay margin lands that are now artificially filled, but are still at or below sea level, and are generally within 1½ miles of the shoreline. The site is approximately ¾ miles inland from the San Francisco Bay shoreline, and the existing elevations are approximately at Elevation 11 to 17 feet (NAVD88 datum) according to the topographic survey provided by Kimley Horn. Additionally, the site is mapped by the State of California Tsunami Inundation Map as not being within an inundation area. Therefore, the potential for inundation due to tsunami or seiche is considered low.

4.7 FLOODING
Based on our internet search of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map public database, the majority of the site is located within Zone X, described as “area of minimal flood hazard.” The western portion of the site is located within Zone X, described as an area with “0.2% annual chance flood hazard, areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile.” We recommend the project civil engineer be retained to confirm this information and verify the base flood elevation, if appropriate.

SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS

5.1 SUMMARY
From a geotechnical viewpoint, the project is feasible provided the concerns listed below are addressed in the project design. Descriptions of each concern with brief outlines of our recommendations follow the listed concerns.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 10 ends

§ Potential for liquefaction-induced settlements
§ Potential for significant static settlements from fill placement and building loads § Shallow groundwater
§ Undocumented fill and loose to medium dense sandy soils § Expansive soils
§ Redevelopment considerations

5.1.1 Potential for Liquefaction-Induced Settlements
As discussed, our liquefaction analysis indicates that there is a potential for liquefaction of discontinuous sand layers across the site during a significant seismic event. Our analysis indicates total liquefaction-induced settlement up to about ½ inch could occur within proximity of the proposed building area, resulting in differential settlements on the order of about ⅓inch between independent foundation elements. The potential for liquefied sands to vent to the ground surface through cracks in the surficial soils is low in our exploration locations in proximity of the proposed building; however, there is a moderate potential for ground rupture at CPT-9/EB-8 location. Please refer to Section 4.3.4 for additional recommendations if the potential for ground rupture at this location beyond the building footprint is to be reduced.

Foundations for the building should be designed to tolerate the anticipated total and differential settlements mention above. Detailed foundation recommendations are presented in the “Foundations” section.

5.1.2 Potential for Significant Static Settlements from Fill Placement and Building Loads As part of our evaluation, we performed settlement analyses to estimate the potential static settlements due to new fill placement and building loads. As mentioned, the finished floor elevation is anticipated to be at about Elevation 16 to 17 feet. Site grades within the building area are anticipated to be raised up to about 2 feet at the northern end and up to about 5 feet at the southern end. This additional new fill would cause settlement of the existing soils in addition to settlement due to foundation loads. We estimate total settlements from raising site grades to achieve the building finished floor elevation could be up to ½ inch on the north end and on the order of 1 to 1¾ inches on the south end.

Additionally, we evaluated static settlements due to estimated static dead plus live column loading of 50 to 150 kips and wall loading of 7 to 10 kips per foot. For conventional shallow spread footings at columns and continuous strip footings at walls, provided the bottom of footing is about 3 feet below a finished floor Elevation 16 to 17 feet, total static settlements are estimated to be on the order of about ½- to 1-inch. For continuous strip footings at walls along the loading dock on the north side of the building, with a bottom of footing at about 7 feet below finished floor Elevation 16 to 17 feet, total static settlements are estimated to be on the order of about 1½ inches. The building foundations will need to be designed to tolerate total and differential settlements due to static and liquefaction-induced settlement. Detailed foundation recommendations are presented in the “Foundations” section.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 11 ends

5.1.3 Shallow Groundwater
Shallow groundwater was measured at depths ranging from approximately 5 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface in our borings. Additionally, groundwater monitoring data indicates groundwater is generally at depths of 5 to 7 feet below site grades with water occasionally as shallow as about 3 feet beneath the surface at times. Shallow groundwater could significantly impact grading and underground construction. These impacts typically consist of potentially wet and unstable pavement subgrade and subgrade for over-excavations, difficulty achieving compaction, and difficult underground utility installation. Dewatering and shoring of utility trenches may be required in some isolated areas of the site. Additional recommendations addressing this concern are presented in the “Earthwork” section of this report.

As discussed, the proposed loading dock is to be located along the north end of the building and the finished surface is anticipated to be roughly 4 to 5 feet below the existing site grades based on a finished floor Elevation 16 to 17 feet. As such, subgrade for the loading dock will be close to groundwater and may be susceptible to softening in periods with higher groundwater.

Depending on the final depth and elevation of the loading dock, additional mitigation and subgrade stabilization or sub-drainage system may need to be considered to reduce the potential for reduced subgrade support if water is present. We should be consulted to provided additional recommendation, if needed, based on the final elevation of the loading dock.

5.1.4 Undocumented Fill and Loose to Medium Dense Sandy Soils As mentioned, undocumented fills were encountered within some of our borings ranging up to 7 feet beneath the surface. Additionally, due to the previous development and site history, we anticipated fills may extend deeper in some locations. Undocumented fills are expected to be variable in thickness, density, and consistency across the site. We recommend all undocumented fills blanketing the site be completely removed from within the building areas and replaced as engineered fill.

Further, some explorations in proximity to the building encountered an approximately 1-foot thick loose to medium dense native sandy layer at a depth of about 3½ to 6 feet beneath the existing surface. Due to potential for lower bearing strength and increase differential settlement, we recommend the building area be over-excavated a minimum 3 feet beneath existing site grades to recompact the lower strength sandy soils. Additional recommendations are provided in the “Earthwork” section regarding removal and recompaction of undocumented fills and the near surface loose to medium dense native sandy layer.

Additional exploration including exploratory borings and/or test pits can be performed prior to site grading to better evaluate the undocumented fills and low-strength/soil bearing layer and lateral extent. We can provide additional recommendations if this alternative is desired.

5.1.5 Expansive Soils
As discussed, highly expansive surficial soils were encountered in the near surface soils that blanket the site. Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 12 ends

moisture content. They shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted. To reduce the potential for damage to the planned structure, slabs-on-grade should have sufficient reinforcement and be supported on a layer of non-expansive fill; footings should extend below the zone of seasonal moisture fluctuation. In addition, it is important to limit moisture changes in the surficial soils by using positive drainage away from buildings as well as limiting landscaping watering. Detailed grading and foundation recommendations addressing this concern are presented in the following sections.

5.1.6 Redevelopment Considerations
The site is currently occupied by buildings and pavements. The existing improvements will be demolished for site redeveloped. Potential issues that are often associated with redeveloping sites include demolition of existing improvements, abandonment of existing utilities, and undocumented fills. Please refer to the “Earthwork” section below for further recommendations.

5.2 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW
We recommend that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the project structural, civil, and landscape plans and specifications, allowing sufficient time to provide the design team with any comments prior to issuing the plans for construction.

5.3 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
As site conditions may vary significantly between the small-diameter borings performed during this investigation, we also recommend that a Cornerstone representative be present to provide geotechnical observation and testing during earthwork and foundation construction. This will allow us to form an opinion and prepare a letter at the end of construction regarding contractor compliance with project plans and specifications, and with the recommendations in our report.

We will also be allowed to evaluate any conditions differing from those encountered during our investigation, and provide supplemental recommendations as necessary. For these reasons, the recommendations in this report are contingent of Cornerstone providing observation and testing during construction. Contractors should provide at least a 48-hour notice when scheduling our field personnel.

SECTION 6: EARTHWORK

6.1 SITE DEMOLITION
All existing improvements not to be reused for the current development, including all foundations, flatwork, pavements, utilities, and other improvements should be demolished and removed from the site. Recommendations in this section apply to the removal of these improvements, which may be and are currently present on the site, prior to the start of mass grading or the construction of new improvements for the project.

Cornerstone should be notified prior to the start of demolition and should be present on at least a part-time basis during all backfill and mass grading as a result of demolition. Occasionally,

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 13 ends

other types of buried structures (wells, cisterns, debris pits, etc.) can be found on sites with prior development. If encountered, Cornerstone should be contacted to address these types of structures on a case-by-case basis.

6.1.1 Demolition of Existing Slabs, Foundations and Pavements All slabs, foundations, and pavements should be completely removed from within planned building areas.

As an owner value-engineered option, existing slabs, foundations, and pavements that extend into planned flatwork, pavement, or landscape areas may be left in place provided there is at least 3 feet of engineered fill overlying the remaining materials, they are shown not to conflict with new utilities, and that asphalt and concrete more than 10 feet square is broken up to allow subsurface drainage. Future distress and/or higher maintenance may result from leaving these prior improvements in place. A discussion of recycling existing improvements is provided later in this report.

Special care should be taken during the demolition and removal of existing floor slabs, foundations, utilities and pavements to minimize disturbance of the subgrade. Excessive disturbance of the subgrade, which includes either native or previously placed engineered fill, resulting from demolition activities can have serious detrimental effects on planned foundation and paving elements.

Existing foundations are typically mat-slabs, shallow footings, or piers/piles. If slab or shallow footings are encountered, they should be completely removed. If drilled piers are encountered, they should be cut off at an elevation at least 60-inches below proposed footings or the final subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper. The remainder of the drilled pier could remain in place. Foundation elements to remain in place should be surveyed and superimposed on the proposed development plans to determine the potential for conflicts or detrimental impacts to the planned construction. Following review, additional mitigation or planned foundation elements may need to be modified.

6.1.2 Abandonment of Existing Utilities
All utilities should be completely removed from within planned building areas. For any utility line to be considered acceptable to remain within building areas, the utility line must be completely backfilled with grout or sand-cement slurry (sand slurry is not acceptable), the ends outside the building area capped with concrete, and the trench fills either removed and replaced as engineered fill with the trench side slopes flattened to at least 1:1, or the trench fills are determined not to be a risk to the structure. The assessment of the level of risk posed by the particular utility line will determine whether the utility may be abandoned in place or needs to be completely removed. The contractor should assume that all utilities will be removed from within building areas unless provided written confirmation from both the owner and the geotechnical engineer.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 14 ends

Utilities extending beyond the building area may be abandoned in place provided the ends are plugged with concrete, they do not conflict with planned improvements, and that the trench fills do not pose significant risk to the planned surface improvements.

The risk for owners associated with abandoning utilities in place include the potential for future differential settlement of existing trench fills, and/or partial collapse and potential ground loss into utility lines that are not completely filled with grout.

6.2 SITE CLEARING AND PREPARATION

6.2.1 Site Stripping
The site should be stripped of all surface vegetation, and surface and subsurface improvements to be removed within the proposed development area. Demolition of existing improvements is discussed in the prior paragraphs. A detailed discussion of removal of existing fills is provided later in this report. Surface vegetation and topsoil should be stripped to a sufficient depth to remove all material greater than 3 percent organic content by weight.

6.2.2 Tree and Shrub Removal
Trees and shrubs designated for removal should have the root balls and any roots greater than ½-inch diameter removed completely. Mature trees are estimated to have root balls extending to depths of 2 to 4 feet, depending on the tree size. Significant root zones are anticipated to extend to the diameter of the tree canopy. Grade depressions resulting from root ball removal should be cleaned of loose material and backfilled in accordance with the recommendations in the “Compaction” section of this report.

6.3 REMOVAL OF EXISTING FILLS AND OVER-EXCAVATION
We recommend the entire building area be over-excavated a minimum depth of 3 feet beneath existing site grades or full depth of the undocumented fill, whichever is deeper, and replaced as engineered fill. The over-excavation and removal of fills should extend a lateral distance of at least 5 feet beyond the building footprint or to a lateral distance equal to fill depth below the perimeter footing, whichever is greater.

Once the over-excavation is completed, the exposed subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted. The minimum recommended performance specification for compaction of the base of the exposed over-excavation area should consist of a minimum of five overlapping passes with a heavy-duty, vibratory smooth drum roller (such as a Dynapac CA5000, Volvo SD160 or an approved equivalent) that will exert a minimum of 25,000 ft-lbs of energy. The above recommendations may need to be modified at the time of construction based on actual field conditions.

Subgrade preparation and compaction should be performed in accordance with the following sections. If the over-excavated materials and fills meet requirements in the “Materials for Fill” section, they can be reused as engineered fill when backfilling the building pad. If materials are

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 15 ends

encountered that do not meet the requirements, such as debris, wood, trash, those materials should be screened out of the remaining material and be removed from the site. Backfill of the over-excavation should be placed in lifts and compacted in accordance with the “Compaction” section below.

Fills extending into planned pavement and flatwork areas may be left in place provided they are determined to be a low risk for future differential settlement and that the upper 12 to 18 inches of fill below pavement subgrade is re-worked and compacted as discussed in the “Compaction” section below.

As mentioned, additional exploration can be performed to further evaluate the presence of the lower strength sandy layer at a depth of about 3½ to 6 feet beneath existing site grades and to define the limits of over-excavation and recompaction and depth of over-excavation within the building areas.

6.3.1 High Moisture in Fills and Underlying Native Soils As discussed, the in-situ moisture contents range up to about 20 to 25 percent over the estimated laboratory optimum in the upper 10 feet of the soil profile. Additionally, the soils may become significantly wetter during wet winter weather and at depths close to the groundwater.

The contractor should anticipate drying and processing soils prior to reusing them as fill. The contractors should anticipate working with and mitigating unstable soil conditions.

6.4 TEMPORARY CUT AND FILL SLOPES
The contractor is responsible for maintaining all temporary slopes and providing temporary shoring where required. Temporary shoring, bracing, and cuts/fills should be performed in accordance with the strictest government safety standards. On a preliminary basis, the upper 10 feet at the site may be classified as OSHA Soil Type C materials.

Excavations performed during site demolition and fill removal should be sloped at 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) within the upper 5 feet below building subgrade. Excavations extending more than 5 feet below building subgrade and excavations in pavement and flatwork areas should be slope at a 1:1 inclination unless the OSHA soil classification indicates that slope should not exceed 1.5:1.

6.5 SHALLOW GROUNDWATER
As previously stated, groundwater was encountered at depths of about 5 to 14 feet in our borings corresponding to approximate Elevations -3¼ to 9½ feet (NAVD88 datum) based on the topographic survey provided. Additionally, based on previous groundwater monitoring data at the site, groundwater appears to generally be about 5 to 7 feet beneath site grades but has also been observed as shallow as 3 feet beneath the existing site grades. We recommend that contractors anticipate dewatering to control water seeping into deeper excavations close to or below the groundwater. Groundwater conditions can be difficult to maintain, and if the groundwater is in a relatively widespread, continuous layer, it may be hard to dewater, requiring

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 16 ends

continuous dewatering during excavations. The contractors should anticipate working with and mitigating unstable soil conditions, especially when close to the groundwater depth.

6.6 SUBGRADE PREPARATION
After site clearing and demolition is complete, and prior to backfilling any excavations resulting from fill removal or demolition, the excavation subgrade and subgrade within areas to receive additional site fills, slabs-on-grade and/or pavements should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the “Compaction” section below.

6.7 SUBGRADE STABILIZATION MEASURES
Soil subgrade and fill materials, especially soils with high fines contents such as clays and silty soils, can become unstable due to high moisture content, whether from high in-situ moisture contents or from winter rains. As the moisture content increases over the laboratory optimum, it becomes more likely the materials will be subject to softening and yielding (pumping) from construction loading or become unworkable during placement and compaction.

As discussed in the “Subsurface” section in this report, the in-situ moisture contents range up to about 20 to 25 percent over the estimated laboratory optimum in the upper 10 of the soil profile.

The contractor should anticipate drying the soils prior to reusing them as fill. In addition, repetitive rubber-tire loading may de-stabilize the soils.

There are several methods to address potential unstable soil conditions and facilitate fill placement and trench backfill. Some of the methods are briefly discussed below.

Implementation of the appropriate stabilization measures should be evaluated on a case-bycase basis according to the project construction goals and the particular site conditions.

6.7.1 Chemical Treatment
Where the unstable area exceeds about 5,000 to 10,000 square feet and/or site winterization is desired, chemical treatment with quicklime (CaO), kiln-dust, or cement may be more costeffective than removal and replacement. Recommended chemical treatment depths will typically range from 12 to 18 inches depending on the magnitude of the instability.

6.7.2 Removal and Replacement
As an alternative to scarification, the contractor may choose to over-excavate the unstable soils and replace them with dry on-site or import materials. A Cornerstone representative should be present to provide recommendations regarding the appropriate depth of over-excavation, whether a geosynthethic (stabilization fabric or geogrid) is recommended, and what materials are recommended for backfill.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 17 ends

6.7.3 Scarification and Drying
The subgrade may be scarified to a depth of 8 to 12 inches and allowed to dry to near optimum conditions, if sufficient dry weather is anticipated to allow sufficient drying. More than one round of scarification may be needed to break up the soil clods.

6.8 MATERIAL FOR FILL

6.8.1 Re-Use of On-site Soils
On-site soils with an organic content less than 3 percent by weight may be reused as general fill. General fill should not have lumps, clods or cobble pieces larger than 6 inches in diameter; 85 percent of the fill should be smaller than 2½ inches in diameter. Minor amounts of oversize material (smaller than 12 inches in diameter) may be allowed provided the oversized pieces are not allowed to nest together and the compaction method will allow for loosely placed lifts not exceeding 12 inches.

6.8.2 Re-Use of On-Site Site Improvements
We anticipate that significant quantities of asphalt concrete (AC) grindings and aggregate base (AB) will be generated during site demolition. If the AC grindings are mixed with the underlying AB to meet Class 2 AB specifications, they may be reused within new pavement and flatwork structural sections. Fill containing AC grindings may not be reused within building areas.

Laboratory testing will be required to confirm the grindings meet project specifications.

If the site area allows for on-site pulverization of PCC and provided the PCC is pulverized to meet the “Material for Fill” requirements of this report, it may be used as select fill within the planned building areas, excluding the capillary break layer; as typically pulverized PCC comes close to or meets Class 2 AB specifications, the recycled PCC may likely be used within the pavement structural sections. PCC grindings also make good winter construction access roads, similar to a cement-treated base (CTB) section.

6.8.3 High Moisture in Fills and Underlying Native Soils As discussed, the in-situ moisture contents range up to about 20 to 25 percent over the estimated laboratory optimum in the upper 10 feet of the soil profile. Additionally, the soils may become significantly wetter during wet winter weather and at depths close to the groundwater.

The contractor should anticipate drying and processing soils prior to reusing them as fill. The contractors should anticipate working with and mitigating unstable soil conditions.

6.8.4 Potential Import Sources
Imported and non-expansive material should be inorganic with a Plasticity Index (PI) of 15 or less, and not contain recycled asphalt concrete where it will be used within the building areas.

To prevent significant caving during trenching or foundation construction, imported material should have sufficient fines. Samples of potential import sources should be delivered to our

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 18 ends

office at least 10 days prior to the desired import start date. Information regarding the import source should be provided, such as any site geotechnical reports. If the material will be derived from an excavation rather than a stockpile, potholes will likely be required to collect samples from throughout the depth of the planned cut that will be imported. At a minimum, laboratory testing will include PI tests. Material data sheets for select fill materials (Class 2 aggregate base, ¾-inch crushed rock, quarry fines, etc.) listing current laboratory testing data (not older than 6 months from the import date) may be provided for our review without providing a sample.

If current data is not available, specification testing will need to be completed prior to approval.

Environmental and soil corrosion characterization should also be considered by the project team prior to acceptance. Suitable environmental laboratory data to the planned import quantity should be provided to the project environmental consultant; additional laboratory testing may be required based on the project environmental consultant’s review. The potential import source should also not be more corrosive than the on-site soils, based on pH, saturated resistivity, and soluble sulfate and chloride testing.

6.8.5 Non-Expansive Fill Using Lime Treatment
As discussed above, non-expansive fill should have a Plasticity Index (PI) of 15 or less. Due to the high clay content and PI of the on-site soil materials, it is not likely that sufficient quantities of non-expansive fill would be generated from cut materials. As an alternative to importing nonexpansive fill, chemical treatment can be considered to create non-expansive fill. If this option is considered, additional laboratory tests should be performed during initial site grading to further evaluate the optimum percentage of quicklime required.

6.9 COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS
All fills, and subgrade areas where fill, slabs-on-grade, and pavements are planned, should be placed in loose lifts 8 inches thick or less and compacted in accordance with ASTM D1557 (latest version) requirements as shown in the table below. In general, clayey soils should be compacted with sheepsfoot equipment and sandy/gravelly soils with vibratory equipment; opengraded materials such as crushed rock should be placed in lifts no thicker than 18 inches and consolidated in place with vibratory equipment. Each lift of fill and all subgrade should be firm and unyielding under construction equipment loading in addition to meeting the compaction requirements to be approved. The contractor (with input from a Cornerstone representative) should evaluate the in-situ moisture conditions, as the use of vibratory equipment on soils with high moistures can cause unstable conditions. General recommendations for soil stabilization are provided in the “Subgrade Stabilization Measures” section of this report. Where the soil’s PI is 20 or greater, the expansive soil criteria should be used.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 19 ends

Table 2: Compaction Requirements
Description Material Description
Minimum Relative1
Compaction
(percent)
Moisture2
Content
(percent)
General Fill On-Site Expansive Soils 87 – 92 >3
(within upper 5 feet) Low Expansion Soils 90 >1
General Fill On-Site Expansive Soils 95 >3
(below a depth of 5 feet) Low Expansion Soils 95 >1
Trench Backfill On-Site Expansive Soils 87 – 92 >3
Trench Backfill Low Expansion Soils 90 >1
Trench Backfill (upper 6 inches of
pavement subgrade)
On-Site Low Expansion Soils 95 >1
Crushed Rock Fill ¾-inch Clean Crushed Rock Consolidate In-Place NA Non-Expansive Fill Imported Non-Expansive Fill 90 Optimum Flatwork Subgrade On-Site Expansive Soils 87 - 92 >3
Flatwork Subgrade Low Expansion Soils 90 >1
Flatwork Aggregate Base Class 2 Aggregate Base3 90 Optimum Pavement Subgrade On-Site Expansive Soils 87 - 92 >3
Pavement Subgrade Low Expansion Soils 95 >1
Pavement Aggregate Base Class 2 Aggregate Base3 95 Optimum Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Concrete 95 (Marshall) NA
1 – Relative compaction based on maximum density determined by ASTM D1557 (latest version) 2 – Moisture content based on optimum moisture content determined by ASTM D1557 (latest version) 3 – Class 2 aggregate base shall conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition, except that the relative compaction should be determined by ASTM D1557 (latest version)

6.9.1 Construction Moisture Conditioning
Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change when dried then wetted. The contractor should keep all exposed expansive soil subgrade (and also trench excavation side walls) moist until protected by overlying improvements (or trenches are backfilled). If expansive soils are allowed to dry out significantly, re-moisture conditioning may require several days of re-wetting (flooding is not recommended), or deep scarification, moisture conditioning, and re-compaction.

6.10 TRENCH BACKFILL
Utility lines constructed within public right-of-way should be trenched, bedded and shaded, and backfilled in accordance with the local or governing jurisdictional requirements. Utility lines in private improvement areas should be constructed in accordance with the following requirements unless superseded by other governing requirements.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 20 ends

All utility lines should be bedded and shaded to at least 6 inches over the top of the lines with crushed rock (⅜-inch-diameter or greater) or well-graded sand and gravel materials conforming to the pipe manufacturer’s requirements. Open-graded shading materials should be consolidated in place with vibratory equipment and well-graded materials should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction with vibratory equipment prior to placing subsequent backfill materials.

General backfill over shading materials may consist of on-site native materials provided they meet the requirements in the “Material for Fill” section, and are moisture conditioned and compacted in accordance with the requirements in the “Compaction” section.

Where utility lines will cross perpendicular to strip footings, the footing should be deepened to encase the utility line, providing sleeves or flexible cushions to protect the pipes from anticipated foundation settlement, or the utility lines should be backfilled to the bottom of footing with sandcement slurry or lean concrete. Where utility lines will parallel footings and will extend below the “foundation plane of influence,” an imaginary 1:1 plane projected down from the bottom edge of the footing, either the footing will need to be deepened so that the pipe is above the foundation plane of influence or the utility trench will need to be backfilled with sand-cement slurry or lean concrete within the influence zone. Sand-cement slurry used within foundation influence zones should have a minimum compressive strength of 75 psi.

On expansive soils sites it is desirable to reduce the potential for water migration into building and pavement areas through the granular shading materials. We recommend that a plug of low-permeability clay soil, sand-cement slurry, or lean concrete be placed within trenches just outside where the trenches pass into building and pavement areas.

6.11 SITE DRAINAGE
Ponding should not be allowed adjacent to building foundations, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.

Hardscape surfaces should slope at least 2 percent towards suitable discharge facilities; landscape areas should slope at least 3 percent towards suitable discharge facilities. Roof runoff should be directed away from building areas in closed conduits, to approved infiltration facilities, or on to hardscaped surfaces that drain to suitable facilities. Retention, detention or infiltration facilities should be spaced at least 10 feet from buildings, and preferably at least 5 feet from slabs-on-grade or pavements. However, if retention, detention or infiltration facilities are located within these zones, we recommend that these treatment facilities meet the requirements in the Storm Water Treatment Design Considerations section of this report.

6.12 LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) IMPROVEMENTS
The Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) requires regulated projects to treat 100 percent of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d from a regulated project’s drainage area with low impact development (LID) treatment measures onsite or at a joint stormwater treatment facility.

LID treatment measures are defined as rainwater harvesting and use, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. A biotreatment system may only be used if it is infeasible to implement harvesting and use, infiltration, or evapotranspiration at a project site.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 21 ends

Technical infeasibility of infiltration may result from site conditions that restrict the operability of infiltration measures and devices. Various factors affecting the feasibility of infiltration treatment may create an environmental risk, structural stability risk, or physically restrict infiltration. The presence of any of these limiting factors may render infiltration technically infeasible for a proposed project. To aid in determining if infiltration may be feasible at the site, we provide the following site information regarding factors that may aid in determining the feasibility of infiltration facilities at the site.
§ The near-surface soils at the site are generally clayey, and categorized as Hydrologic Soil Group D, and is expected to have infiltration rates of less than 0.2 inches per hour.

In our opinion, these clayey soils will significantly limit the infiltration of stormwater. § Locally, seasonal high groundwater is mapped at a depth of about 5 to 7 feet, and based on groundwater data at the site we anticipate may be as shallow as 3 feet beneath existing site grades. Therefore, groundwater is expected to be within 10 feet of the base of the infiltration measure.
§ In our opinion, infiltration locations within 10 feet of the buildings would create a geotechnical hazard.
§ Infiltration measures, devices, or facilities may conflict with the location of existing or proposed underground utilities or easements. Infiltration measures, devices, or facilities should not be placed on top of or very near to underground utilities such that they discharge to the utility trench, restrict access, or cause stability concerns.

6.12.1 Storm Water Treatment Design Considerations
If storm water treatment improvements, such as shallow bio-retention swales, basins or pervious pavements, are required as part of the site improvements to satisfy Storm Water Quality (C.3) requirements, we recommend the following items be considered for design and construction.

6.12.1.1 General Bioswale Design Guidelines
§ If possible, avoid placing bioswales or basins within 10 feet of the building perimeter or within 5 feet of exterior flatwork or pavements. If bioswales must be constructed within these setbacks, the side(s) and bottom of the trench excavation should be lined with 10- mil visqueen to reduce water infiltration into the surrounding expansive clay. § Bioswales constructed within 3 feet of proposed buildings may be within the foundation zone of influence for perimeter wall loads. Therefore, where bioswales will parallel foundations and will extend below the “foundation plane of influence,” an imaginary 1:1 plane projected down from the bottom edge of the foundation, the foundation will need to be deepened so that the bottom edge of the bioswale filter material is above the foundation plane of influence.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 22 ends

§ The bottom of bioswale or detention areas should include a perforated drain placed at a low point, such as a shallow trench or sloped bottom, to reduce water infiltration into the surrounding soils near structural improvements, and to address the low infiltration capacity of the on-site clay soils.

6.12.1.2 Bioswale Infiltration Material
§ Gradation specifications for bioswale filter material, if required, should be specified on the grading and improvement plans.
§ Compaction requirements for bioswale filter material in non-landscaped areas or in pervious pavement areas, if any, should be indicated on the plans and specifications to satisfy the anticipated use of the infiltration area.
§ If required, infiltration (percolation) testing should be performed on representative samples of potential bioswale materials prior to construction to check for general conformance with the specified infiltration rates.
§ It should be noted that multiple laboratory tests may be required to evaluate the properties of the bioswale materials, including percolation, landscape suitability and possibly environmental analytical testing depending on the source of the material. We recommend that the landscape architect provide input on the required landscape suitability tests if bioswales are to be planted.
§ If bioswales are to be vegetated, the landscape architect should select planting materials that do not reduce or inhibit the water infiltration rate, such as covering the bioswale with grass sod containing a clayey soil base.
§ If required by governing agencies, field infiltration testing should be specified on the grading and improvement plans. The appropriate infiltration test method, duration and frequency of testing should be specified in accordance with local requirements. § Due to the relatively loose consistency and/or high organic content of many bioswale filter materials, long-term settlement of the bioswale medium should be anticipated. To reduce initial volume loss, bioswale filter material should be wetted in 12 inch lifts during placement to pre-consolidate the material. Mechanical compaction should not be allowed, unless specified on the grading and improvement plans, since this could significantly decrease the infiltration rate of the bioswale materials. § It should be noted that the volume of bioswale filter material may decrease over time depending on the organic content of the material. Additional filter material may need to be added to bioswales after the initial exposure to winter rains and periodically over the life of the bioswale areas, as needed.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 23 ends

6.12.1.3 Bioswale Construction Adjacent to Pavements
If bio-infiltration swales or basins are considered adjacent to proposed parking lots or exterior flatwork, we recommend that mitigative measures be considered in the design and construction of these facilities to reduce potential impacts to flatwork or pavements. Exterior flatwork, concrete curbs, and pavements located directly adjacent to bio-swales may be susceptible to settlement or lateral movement, depending on the configuration of the bioswale and the setback between the improvements and edge of the swale. To reduce the potential for distress to these improvements due to vertical or lateral movement, the following options should be considered by the project civil engineer:
§ Improvements should be setback from the edge of a bioswale (assuming a sloping bioswale) such that there is at least 1 foot of horizontal distance between the edge of improvements and the top edge of the bioswale excavation for every 1 foot of vertical bioswale depth, or
§ Concrete curbs for pavements, or lateral restraint for exterior flatwork, located directly adjacent to a bioswale, or not meeting the above setback, should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures in accordance with the recommendations in the “Retaining Walls” section of this report, or concrete curbs or edge restraint should be adequately keyed into the native soil or engineered to reduce the potential for rotation or lateral movement of the curbs.

6.13 LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS
Since the near-surface soils are moderately to highly expansive, we recommend greatly reducing the amount of surface water infiltrating these soils near foundations and exterior slabson-grade. This can typically be achieved by:
§ Using drip irrigation
§ Avoiding open planting within 3 feet of the building perimeter or near the top of existing slopes
§ Regulating the amount of water distributed to lawns or planter areas by using irrigation timers
§ Selecting landscaping that requires little or no watering, especially near foundations.

We recommend that the landscape architect consider these items when developing landscaping plans.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 24 ends

SECTION 7: 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA
We developed site-specific seismic design parameters in accordance with Chapter 16, Chapter 18 and Appendix J of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and Chapters 11, 12, 20, and 21 and Supplement No. 1 of ASCE 7-16.

7.1 SITE LOCATION AND PROVIDED DATA FOR 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN The project is located at latitude 37.719966° and longitude -122.187908°, which is based on Google Earth (WGS84) coordinates at the approximate center of the site at 880 Doolittle Drive in San Leandro, California. We have assumed that a Seismic Importance Factor (Ie) of 1.00 has been assigned to the structure in accordance with Table 1.5-2 of ASCE 7-16 for structures classified as Risk Category II. The building period has not been provided by the project structural engineer.

7.2 SITE CLASSIFICATION – CHAPTER 20 OF ASCE 7-16
Code-based site classification and ground motion attenuation relationships are based on the time-weighted average shear wave velocity of the top approximately 100 feet (30 meters) of the soil profile (VS30).

Shear wave velocity (VS) measurements were performed while advancing CPT-1 and CPT-10, resulting in a time-averaged shear wave velocity for the top 30 meters (VS30) of 217 meters per second (m/s) and 225 m/s, respectively. In accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16, we recommend the site be classified as Soil Classification D, which is described as a “stiff soil” profile. Because we used site specific data from our explorations and laboratory testing, the site class should be considered as “determined” for the purposes of estimating the seismic design parameters from the code outlined below. Our site-specific ground motion hazard analysis considered a VS30 of 217 m/s (712 ft/s).

7.3 CODE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Code-based spectral acceleration parameters were determined based on mapped acceleration response parameters adjusted for the specific site conditions. Mapped Risk-Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral acceleration parameters (SS and S1) were determined using the ATC Hazards by Location website (https://hazards.atcouncil.org).

The mapped acceleration parameters were adjusted for local site conditions based on the average soil conditions for the upper 100 feet (30 meters) of the soil profile. Code-based MCER spectral response acceleration parameters adjusted for site effects (SMS and SM1) and design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) are presented in Table 3.

In accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, structures on Site Class D sites with mapped 1-second period spectral acceleration (S1) values greater than or equal to 0.2 require a sitespecific ground motion hazard analysis be performed in accordance with Section 21.2 of ASCE 7-16. Design seismic parameters determined by performing a Ground Motion

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 25 ends

Hazard Analysis per Section 21.2 of ASCE 7-16 are presented in Table 6. Recommended values in Table 3 should not be used for design unless in the judgement of the structural engineer an exception can be taken in accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16.

Values summarized in Table 3 are only used to determine Seismic Design Category and comparison with minimum code requirements for further use in our ground motion hazard analysis (GMHA).

Table 3: 2019 CBC Site Categorization and Site Coefficients Classification/Coefficient Design Value
Site Class D
Site Latitude 37.719966°
Site Longitude -122.187908°
Risk Category II
Short Period Mapped Spectral Acceleration – SS 1.818g
1-second Period Mapped Spectral Acceleration – S1 0.692g Short-Period Site Coefficient – Fa 1.0
Long-Period Site Coefficient – Fv *null
Short Period MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
Adjusted for Site Effects – SMS 1.818g
1-second Period MCE Spectral Response
Acceleration Adjusted for Site Effects – SM1
*null
Short Period, Design Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration – SDS

1.212g
1-second Period, Design Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration – SD1
*null
Long-Period Transition – TL 8 seconds
Site Coefficient – FPGA 1.1
Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration – PGAM 0.840g
*null – per section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16

7.4 GROUND MOTION HAZARD ANALYSIS
Following Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, we performed a ground motion hazards analysis (GMHA) in accordance with Chapter 21, Section 21.2 of ASCE 7. We evaluated both Probabilistic MCER Ground Motions in accordance with Method 1 and Deterministic MCER Ground Motions to generate our recommended design response spectrum for the project.

Our analyses were performed using the USGS interface Unified Hazard Tool (UHT) based on the UCERF 3 Data Set, Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) Scenario Catalog 2014 event set (BSSC 2014), and the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Maps – Source Parameters (NSHMP deterministic event set). Additionally, we utilized the USGS program Response Spectra Plotter with combined models (Combined: WUS 2014 (4.1)).

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 26 ends

Our analysis utilized the mean ground motions predicted by four of the Next Generation Attenuation West 2 (NGA-West 2) relationships: Boore-Atkinson (2013), Campbell-Bozorgnia (2013), Chiou-Youngs (2013), and Abrahamson-Silva (2013). Rotation factors (scale factors) were determined as specified in ASCE 7-16 Chapter 21, Section 21.2, to calculate the maximum rotated component of ground motions (ASCE, 2016).

7.4.1 Probabilistic MCER
We performed a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) per ASCE 7-16 Section 21.2.1.

The probabilistic MCE acceleration response spectrum is defined as the 5 percent damped acceleration response spectrum having a 2 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year period (2,475-year return period). The probabilistic MCE spectrum was multiplied by Risk Coefficients (CR) to determine the probabilistic MCER. We used Risk Coefficients (CRS and CR1) of 0.923 and 0.910, respectively, based on ASCE 7-16 Section 21.2.1.1 – Method 1 and the ATC website. Risk coefficients for the various periods are presented in Table 4, Column 3.

The resulting probabilistic MCER is presented on Figure 5 (red line). Spectral ordinates are tabulated in Table 4, Column 6.

7.4.2 Deterministic MCER
We performed deterministic seismic hazard analyses in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section

21.2.2 and ASCE 7-16 Supplement No. 1. The deterministic MCER acceleration response spectrum is calculated as the largest 84th percentile ground motion in the direction of maximum horizontal response for each period for characteristic earthquakes on all known active faults within the region. The largest deterministic ground motion resulted from a Mw 7.58 earthquake on the Hayward Fault (RC+HN+HS+HE segments), located at a distance of approximately

5.91 km from the site.

In accordance with Supplement No.1 of ASCE 7-16, when the largest spectral response acceleration of the resulting deterministic ground motion response spectrum is less than 1.5Fa then the largest 84th percentile rotated response spectrum (Table 4, Column 4) shall be scaled by a single factor such that the maximum response spectral acceleration equals 1.5Fa. For Site Classes A, B, C and D, Fa is determined using Table 11.4.1 with the value of Ss taken as 1.5; for Site Class E, Fa shall be taken as 1.0. When the largest spectral response acceleration of the probabilistic ground motion response of 21.2.1 is less than 1.2Fa, the deterministic ground motion response spectrum does not need to be calculated.

As the largest probabilistic spectral response acceleration was determined to be 2.659 which is greater than 1.2Fa, where Fa is taken as 1.000 from Table 11.4-1 in ASCE 7-16 Supplement No.1, the 84th percentile rotated response spectrum was calculated as part of the deterministic analyses. The maximum spectral acceleration from the 84th percentile rotated response spectrum was then compared to 1.5Fa to determine if a scale factor needed to be applied. The deterministic MCE spectrum are tabulated in Table 4, Column 5. The deterministic MCER is presented graphically on Figure 5 (blue line).

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 27 ends

7.4.3 Site-Specific MCER
The site-specific MCER is defined by ASCE 7-16 Section 21.2.3 as the lesser of the deterministic and probabilistic MCER’s at each period. Spectral ordinates for the site-specific MCER are tabulated in Table 4, Column 7 and shown graphically on Figure 5 (dashed black line).

Table 4: Development of Site-Specific MCER Spectrum
Period
(seconds)
CBC
General
Spectrum
(g)
Risk
Coefficient
Det. 84th
Percentile
Rotated
Deterministic
MCER
(g)
Probabilistic
MCER
(g)
SiteSpecific
MCER
(g)

0.000 0.485 0.923 0.976 0.976 0.996 0.976

0.050 0.676 0.923 0.978 0.978 1.316 0.978

0.100 0.867 0.923 1.421 1.421 1.636 1.421

0.150 1.058 0.923 1.752 1.752 1.907 1.752

0.190 1.211 0.923 1.892 1.892 2.124 1.892

0.200 1.212 0.923 1.927 1.927 2.179 1.927

0.250 1.212 0.922 2.058 2.058 2.361 2.058

0.300 1.212 0.921 2.133 2.133 2.543 2.133

0.400 1.212 0.920 2.245 2.245 2.601 2.245

0.500 1.212 0.918 2.281 2.281 2.659 2.281

0.750 1.212 0.914 2.001 2.001 2.339 2.001

0.952 1.211 0.911 1.844 1.844 2.114 1.844

1.000 1.153 0.910 1.807 1.807 2.061 1.807

2.000 0.577 0.910 1.083 1.083 1.197 1.083

3.000 0.384 0.910 0.743 0.743 0.806 0.743

4.000 0.288 0.910 0.526 0.526 0.581 0.526

5.000 0.231 0.910 0.402 0.402 0.446 0.402

7.4.4 Design Response Spectrum
The Design Response Spectrum (DRS) is defined in ASCE 7-16 Section 21.3 as:
§ two-thirds of the site-specific MCER, but
§ not less than 80% of the general design response spectrum Spectral accelerations corresponding to two-thirds of the MCER are tabulated in Table 5, Column 2. Ordinates corresponding to 80% of the general Site Class D response spectrum are tabulated below in Table 5, Column 3. Ordinates of the site-specific DRS are tabulated in

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 28 ends

Table 5, Column 4. Development of the site-specific DRS is presented graphically on Figure 6 (dashed black line).

Table 5: Development of Site-Specific Design Response Spectrum Period
(seconds)
2/3 SiteSpecific
MCER
(g)
80% CBC
General
Spectrum
(g)
Design
Response
Spectrum
(g)

0.000 0.651 0.388 0.651

0.050 0.652 0.541 0.652

0.100 0.947 0.694 0.947

0.150 1.168 0.846 1.168

0.190 1.261 0.969 1.261

0.200 1.285 0.970 1.285

0.250 1.372 0.970 1.372

0.300 1.422 0.970 1.422

0.400 1.497 0.970 1.497

0.500 1.521 0.970 1.521

0.750 1.334 0.970 1.334

0.952 1.229 0.969 1.229

1.000 1.205 0.923 1.205

2.000 0.722 0.461 0.722

3.000 0.495 0.308 0.495

4.000 0.351 0.231 0.351

5.000 0.268 0.185 0.268

7.5 DESIGN ACCELERATION PARAMETERS
Design acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) were determined in accordance with Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-16. SDS is defined as the design spectral acceleration at 90% of the maximum spectral acceleration, Sa, obtained from the site-specific spectrum, at any period within the range from 0.2 to 5 seconds, inclusive. SD1 is defined as the maximum value of the product, TSa, for periods from 1 to 2 seconds for sites with vs,30 > 1,200 ft/s (vs,30 > 365.76 m/s) and for periods from 1 to 5 seconds for sites with vs,30 ≤1,200ft/s(vs,30 ≤365.76m/s).

Site-specific MCER spectral response acceleration parameters (SMS and SM1) are calculated as:
§ 1.5 times the SDS and SD1 values, respectively, but
§ not less than 80% of the code-based values presented in Table 3.

Recommended design acceleration parameters are summarized in Table 6.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 29 ends

When using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure, ASCE 7-16 Section 21.4 allows using the spectral acceleration at any period (T) in lieu of SD1/T in Eq. 12.8-3 and SD1TL/T2 in Eq. 12.8-4.

The site-specific spectral acceleration at any period may be calculated by interpolation of the spectral ordinates in Table 5, Column 4.

Table 6: Site-Specific Design Acceleration Parameters
Parameter Value
SDS 1.369
SD1 1.485
SMS 2.053
SM1 2.228

7.6 SITE-SPECIFIC MCEG PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
We calculated the Site-Specific MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) per ASCE 7-16 Section 21.5. The Site-Specific PGAM is calculated as the lesser of probabilistic and deterministic geometric mean PGA. The 2% in 50-year probabilistic geometric mean PGA is

0.981g. The deterministic PGA is considered the greater of the largest 84th percentile deterministic geometric mean PGA (0.887g) or one-half of the tabulated FPGA value from ASCE 7-16 Table 11.8.1 with the value of PGA taken as 0.5g. For Site Class D, FPGA is 1.100 and one-half of the FPGA is 0.55g; therefore, the deterministic PGA is 0.887g. Additionally, the Site-Specific PGAM may not be less than 80% of the mapped PGAM determined from ASCE 7-16 Equation 11.8-1. The mapped PGAM for the site is 0.840g; 80% of PGAM is 0.672g.

Based on the above, the recommended Site-Specific PGAM for the site is 0.887g.

SECTION 8: FOUNDATIONS

8.1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
In our opinion, the proposed structures may be supported on shallow foundations provided the recommendations in the “Earthwork” section and the sections below are followed.

8.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

8.2.1 Spread Footings
Provided the structures can tolerate the estimated static and seismic total and differential settlements, conventional spread footings can be considered for building support. Spread footings should bear entirely on natural, undisturbed soil or engineered fill, be at least 15 inches wide, and extend at least 21 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Lowest adjacent grade is

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 30 ends

defined as the deeper of the following: 1) bottom of the adjacent interior slab-on-grade, or 2) finished exterior grade, excluding landscaping topsoil.

Footings constructed to the above dimensions and in accordance with the “Earthwork” recommendations of this report are capable of supporting maximum allowable bearing pressures of 2,000 psf for dead loads, 3,000 psf for combined dead plus live loads, and 4,000 psf for all loads including wind and seismic. These pressures are based on factors of safety of 3.0, 2.0, and 1.5 applied to the ultimate bearing pressure for dead, dead plus live, and all loads, respectively. These pressures are net values; the weight of the footing may be neglected for the portion of the footing extending below grade (typically, the full footing depth).

Top and bottom mats of reinforcing steel should be included in continuous footings to help span irregularities and differential settlement.

8.2.2 Footing Settlement
Structural loads were not provided to us at the time this report was prepared. Based on estimated building loads (up to 150 kips dead plus live column loads and up to 10 kips per foot dead plus live wall loads), the allowable bearing pressures presented above, and assumed bottom of interior column footings and non-loading dock continuous wall footings at about 3 feet below finished floor at about Elevation 13 to 14 feet and loading dock continuous wall footings at about 7 feet below finished floor at about Elevation 9 to 10 feet, we estimated the following total static footing settlements:
§ ½ to 1 inch for column square spread footings and non-loading dock continuous strip wall footings.
§ 1¼ to 1½ inches for loading dock continuous strip wall footings.

Due to foundation loads only, post-construction differential settlements between adjacent foundation elements or over about 30 feet along continuous strip footings are estimated to be:
§ ½ inch or less for column square spread footings and non-loading dock continuous strip wall footings.
§ ⅔to¾inchforloadingdockcontinuousstripwallfootings.

In addition to the estimated static footing settlements presented above, we estimate differential seismic movement between independent foundation elements will be on the orderof⅓inch (provided all undocumented fills are over-excavated and replaced as engineered fill as previously discussed).

Furthermore, based on a finished floor Elevation 16 to 17 feet across the building, existing grades will be raised about 0 to 2 feet along the north end of the building and about 4 to 5 feet along the south end of the building to achieve finished floor. In addition to the static foundation and seismic settlements discussed above, the building should be designed to accommodate the

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 31 ends

following estimated settlements due to additional fill to raise existing grades up to the finished floor elevation:
§ 0 to ½ inch in the northern end of the building (grades raised 0 to 2 feet). § ¾ to 1¼ inches in the middle portion of the building (grades raised 3 to 4 feet). § 1 to 1¾ inches in the southern end of the building (grades raised 4 to 5 feet).

Total differential footing movement is estimated to range from:
§ ¾to1⅓inches for column square spread footings and non-loading dock continuous strip wall footings.
§ 1to1⅓inchesforloadingdockcontinuousstripwallfootings.

These static plus seismic differential movements are anticipated between independent foundation elements, or over about 30 feet along the continuous perimeter foundations. We recommend we be retained to review the final footing layout and loading, and verify the settlement estimates above.

8.2.3 Lateral Loading
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the bottom of footing and the supporting subgrade, and also by passive pressures generated against footing sidewalls. An ultimate frictional resistance of 0.4 applied to the footing dead load, and an ultimate passive pressure based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 450 pcf may be used in design. The structural engineer should apply an appropriate factor of safety (such as 1.5) to the ultimate values above.

Where footings are adjacent to landscape areas without hardscape, the upper 18 inches of soil should be neglected when determining passive pressure capacity.

8.2.4 Spread Footing Construction Considerations
Where utility lines will cross perpendicular to strip footings, the footing should be deepened to encase the utility line, providing sleeves or flexible cushions to protect the pipes from anticipated foundation settlement, or the utility lines should be backfilled to the bottom of footing with sandcement slurry or lean concrete. Where utility lines will parallel footings and will extend below the “foundation plane of influence,” an imaginary 1:1 plane projected down from the bottom edge of the footing, either the footing will need to be deepened so that the pipe is above the foundation plane of influence or the utility trench will need to be backfilled with sand-cement slurry or lean concrete within the influence zone. Sand-cement slurry used within foundation influence zones should have a minimum compressive strength of 75 psi.

Footing excavations should be filled as soon as possible or be kept moist until concrete placement by regular sprinkling to prevent desiccation. A Cornerstone representative should observe all footing excavations prior to placing reinforcing steel and concrete. If there is a

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 32 ends

significant schedule delay between our initial observation and concrete placement, we may need to re-observe the excavations.

Some pockets of sandy soils may be encountered within footing excavations. If encountered, excavation walls may not stand vertical and may need to be sloped to a minimum 1:1 inclination or Stay-Form or similar be placed within the footing excavations as they are excavated during construction of the foundation elements. If granular material is encountered in the footing bottoms, the material may also be disturbed to a depth of 6 to 8 inches following excavation and may need to be compacted prior to steel placement. Care should be taken to not disturb the compacted granular material during steel placement. We should re-observe the footing excavations in granular materials after reinforcing steel has been placed and just prior to concrete placement. Footing excavations should also be kept moist by regular sprinkling with water to prevent desiccation and potential raveling of the granular materials. As an alternative, a rat slab can be placed over the granular material after we have observed the footing excavation to protect the granular material prior to steel placement.

Further, groundwater is anticipated to be shallow and the existing soils are highly wet in locations. Footing excavations, especially deeper excavations (i.e. loading dock wall footings) may encounter groundwater or highly wet soils. Contractors should anticipate encountering these conditions and needing to remove groundwater and stabilize excavation bottoms prior to steel placement and concrete.

8.3 ALTERNATIVE FOUNDATIONS
If the above settlements exceed structural requirements and a shallow spread footing system is determined not feasible or if an alternative foundation system is desired by the design team, we should be consulted to provided additional foundation recommendations.

SECTION 9: CONCRETE SLABS AND PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENTS

9.1 OFFICE SLABS-ON-GRADE
As Plasticity Index (PI) tests of the surficial soils indicate high expansion potential, the proposed slabs-on-grade should be supported on 18 inches of non-expansive fill (NEF) over subgrade prepared in accordance with the recommendations in the “Earthwork” section of this report. If moisture-sensitive floor coverings are planned, the recommendations in the “Interior Slabs Moisture Protection Considerations” section below may be incorporated in the project design if desired. If significant time elapses between initial subgrade preparation and NEF and slab-ongrade construction, the subgrade should be proof-rolled to confirm subgrade stability, and if the soil has been allowed to dry out, the subgrade should be re-moisture conditioned in accordance with the “Compaction” section of this report.

The structural engineer should determine the appropriate slab reinforcement for the loading requirements and considering the expansion potential of the underlying soils. Consideration should be given to limiting the control joint spacing to a maximum of about 2 feet in each direction for each inch of concrete thickness.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 33 ends

9.2 WAREHOUSE SLABS-ON-GRADE
Warehouse slabs-on-grade should be at least 6 inches thick, should have a minimum compressive strength of 3,500 psi, and should be designed for the specific warehouse loading (ie. Forklifts, rack loads, etc.). At this time, rack loading information, etc. was not available.

During design of the slab, we should be consulted to provide subgrade modulus for design of the slab based on anticipated loading conditions (e.g. rack, forklift, etc.), if needed. The slab should also be designed to accommodate potential slab settlement beneath heavily loaded slab areas. We recommend we be retained to review the final heavily loaded (i.e. rack loading) layout and loading, and provide estimated settlements.

Warehouse slabs-on-grade should also be supported on at least 6 inches of crushed granular base having an R-value of at least 50 and no more than 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, such as Class 2 aggregate base. Due to the high plasticity of the surficial soils, an additional 12 inches of non-expansive fill (NEF) should underlie the upper granular base. All base and subbase materials should be placed and compacted in accordance with the “Compaction” section of this report. If there will be areas within the warehouse that are moisture sensitive, such as equipment and elevator rooms, a vapor barrier may be placed over the upper granular base prior to slab construction. Please refer to the recommendations in the “Interior Slabs Moisture Protection Considerations” section for vapor barrier construction. Consideration should be given to limiting the control joint spacing to a maximum of about 2 feet in each direction for each inch of concrete thickness.

9.3 INTERIOR SLABS MOISTURE PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS
The following general guidelines for concrete slab-on-grade construction where floor coverings are planned are presented for the consideration by the developer, design team, and contractor.

These guidelines are based on information obtained from a variety of sources, including the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and are intended to reduce the potential for moisture-related problems causing floor covering failures, and may be supplemented as necessary based on project-specific requirements. The application of these guidelines or not will not affect the geotechnical aspects of the slab-on-grade performance.
§ Place a minimum 10-mil vapor retarder conforming to ASTM E 1745, Class C requirements or better directly below the concrete slab; the vapor retarder should extend to the slab edges and be sealed at all seams and penetrations in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and ASTM E 1643 requirements. A 4-inch-thick capillary break, consisting of crushed rock should be placed below the vapor retarder and consolidated in place with vibratory equipment. The mineral aggregate shall be of such size that the percentage composition by dry weight as determined by laboratory sieves will conform to the following gradation:

Sieve Size Percentage Passing Sieve
1” 100
¾” 90 – 100
No. 4 0 - 10

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 34 ends

The capillary break rock may be considered as the upper 4 inches of the non-expansive fill previously recommended.
§ The concrete water:cement ratio should be 0.45 or less. Mid-range plasticizers may be used to increase concrete workability and facilitate pumping and placement. § Water should not be added after initial batching unless the slump is less than specified and/or the resulting water:cement ratio will not exceed 0.45. § Polishing the concrete surface with metal trowels is not recommended. § Where floor coverings are planned, all concrete surfaces should be properly cured. § Water vapor emission levels and concrete pH should be determined in accordance with ASTM F1869-98 and F710-98 requirements and evaluated against the floor covering manufacturer’s requirements prior to installation.

9.4 EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Exterior concrete flatwork subject to pedestrian and/or occasional light pick up loading should be at least 4 inches thick and supported on at least 12 inches of non-expansive fill (NEF) overlying subgrade prepared in accordance with the “Earthwork” recommendations of this report. In addition, the upper 4 inches of NEF should also meet Class 2 aggregate base requirements. Flatwork that will be subject to heavier or frequent vehicular loading should be designed in accordance with the recommendations in the “Vehicular Pavements” section below.

To help reduce the potential for uncontrolled shrinkage cracking, adequate expansion and control joints should be included. Consideration should be given to limiting the control joint spacing to a maximum of about 2 feet in each direction for each inch of concrete thickness.

Flatwork should be isolated from adjacent foundations or retaining walls except where limited sections of structural slabs are included to help span irregularities in retaining wall backfill at the transitions between at-grade and on-structure flatwork.

SECTION 10: VEHICULAR PAVEMENTS

10.1 ASPHALT CONCRETE
The following asphalt concrete pavement recommendations tabulated below are based on the Procedure 608 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, estimated traffic indices for various pavement-loading conditions, and on a design R-value of 5. The design R-value was chosen based on engineering judgement considering the existing surface conditions and potential variable surface conditions following site grading. We have also included pavement structural section alternatives for chemical-treated (lime/cement) subgrade soil with an estimated design R-value of 50 for your consideration. If it is desired to chemical-treat, we recommend that the upper 12 inches of subgrade soil be treated. Additional testing will need to be performed to determine the appropriate lime/cement percentage to be mixed with the subgrade soil.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 35 ends

Table 7: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Recommendations (Untreated Subgrade) Design
Traffic Index
(TI)
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Class 2
Aggregate
Base* (inches)
Total Pavement
Section Thickness
(inches)

4.0 2.5 7.5 10.0

4.5 2.5 9.5 12.0

5.0 3.0 10.0 13.0

5.5 3.0 12.0 15.0

6.0 3.5 13.0 16.5

6.5 4.0 14.0 18.0

7.0 4.0 16.0 20.0

7.5 4.5 17.0 21.5

8.0 5.0 18.0 23.0

8.5 5.0 20.0 25.0

9.0 5.5 21.0 26.5

9.5 6.0 22.0 28.0

10.0 6.5 23.0 29.5

10.5 6.5 25.0 31.5

11.0 7.0 26.0 33.0
*Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base; minimum R-value of 78.

Table 8: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Recommendations (Chemical-Treated Subgrade) Design Traffic
Index
(TI)
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Class 2
Aggregate
Base* (inches)
Total Pavement
Section Thickness
(inches)

4.0/4.5 2.5 4.0 6.5

5.0/5.5 3.0 4.0 7.0

6.0 3.5 4.0 7.5

6.5 4.0 4.0 8.0

7.0 4.0 4.5 8.5

7.5 4.5 5.0 9.5

8.0 5.0 5.0 10.0

8.5 5.0 6.5 11.5

9.0 5.5 6.5 12.0

9.5 6.0 7.0 13.0
Table 8 Continues

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 36 ends

Table 8: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Recommendations (Chemical-Treated Subgrade) (Continued)
Design Traffic
Index
(TI)
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Class 2
Aggregate
Base* (inches)
Total Pavement
Section Thickness
(inches)

10.0 6.0 8.0 14.0

10.5 6.5 8.5 15.0

11.0 7.0 8.5 15.5
*Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base with minimum R-value of 78; minimum chemical-treated subgrade R-value assumed to be 50
Frequently, the full asphalt concrete section is not constructed prior to construction traffic loading. This can result in significant loss of asphalt concrete layer life, rutting, or other pavement failures. To improve the pavement life and reduce the potential for pavement distress through construction, we recommend the full design asphalt concrete section be constructed prior to construction traffic loading. Alternatively, a higher traffic index may be chosen for the areas where construction traffic will be using the pavements.

Asphalt concrete pavements constructed on expansive subgrade where the adjacent areas will not be irrigated for several months after the pavements are constructed may experience longitudinal cracking parallel to the pavement edge. These cracks typically form within a few feet of the pavement edge and are due to seasonal wetting and drying of the adjacent soil. The cracking may also occur during construction where the adjacent grade is allowed to significantly dry during the summer, pulling moisture out of the pavement subgrade. Any cracks that form should be sealed with bituminous sealant prior to the start of winter rains. One alternative to reduce the potential for this type of cracking is to install a moisture barrier at least 24 inches deep behind the pavement curb.

10.2 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
The exterior Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement recommendations tabulated below are based on methods presented in the Portland Cement Association (PCA) design manual (PCA, 1984). We have provided a few pavement alternatives as an anticipated Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT) was not provided. An allowable ADTT should be chosen that is greater than what is expected for the development. PCC alternatives for chemical-treated (lime/cement) subgrade are also provided in the tables below.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 37 ends

Table 9: PCC Pavement Recommendations (Untreated Subgrade) Allowable ADTT
Minimum PCC
Thickness
(inches)
13 5.5
130 6.0
Table 10: PCC Pavement Recommendations (Chemical-Treated Subgrade) Allowable ADTT
Minimum PCC
Thickness
(inches)
13 5.0
150 5.5
The PCC thicknesses above are based on a concrete compressive strength of at least 3,500 psi, supporting the PCC on at least 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base compacted as recommended in the “Earthwork” section, and laterally restraining the PCC with curbs or concrete shoulders. Adequate expansion and control joints should be included. Consideration should be given to limiting the control joint spacing to a maximum of about 2 feet in each direction for each inch of concrete thickness. Due to the expansive surficial soils present, we recommend that the construction and expansion joints be dowelled.

10.3 TRASH ENCLOSURES
Trash enclosures and the associated stress pads should consist of at least 8 inches of Portland cement concrete (PCC) over at least 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base, where the aggregate base should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction. The top 6 inches of the underlying subgrade should be moisture conditioned and compacted according to the “Compaction” section of this report. The compressive strength and construction details should be consistent with the above recommendations for PCC pavements.

10.4 PAVEMENT CUTOFF
Surface water penetration into the pavement section can significantly reduce the pavement life, due to the native expansive clays. While quantifying the life reduction is difficult, a normal 20- year pavement design could be reduced to less than 10 years; therefore, increased long-term maintenance may be required.

It would be beneficial to include a pavement cut-off, such as deepened curbs, redwood-headers, or “Deep-Root Moisture Barriers” that are keyed at least 4 inches into the pavement subgrade.

This will help limit the additional long-term maintenance.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 38 ends

SECTION 11: RETAINING WALLS

11.1 STATIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
The structural design of any site retaining wall should include resistance to lateral earth pressures that develop from the soil behind the wall, any undrained water pressure, and surcharge loads acting behind the wall. Provided a drainage system is constructed behind the wall to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures as discussed in the section below, we recommend that the walls with level backfill be designed for the following pressures:

Table 11: Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures
Wall Condition Lateral Earth Pressure* Additional Surcharge Loads Unrestrained – Cantilever Wall 45 pcf ⅓of vertical loads at top of wall Restrained – Braced Wall 45 pcf + 8H** psf ½ of vertical loads at top of wall * Lateral earth pressures are based on an equivalent fluid pressure for level backfill conditions ** H is the distance in feet between the bottom of footing and top of retained soil If adequate drainage cannot be provided behind the wall, an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf should be added to the values above for both restrained and unrestrained walls for the portion of the wall that will not have drainage. Damp proofing or waterproofing of the walls may be considered where moisture penetration and/or efflorescence are not desired.

11.2 SEISMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
The 2019 CBC states that lateral pressures from earthquakes should be considered in the design of basements and retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height. At this time, we are not aware of any retaining walls 6 feet or greater in height and have not provided seismic earth pressures with this report. If retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height are proposed, we should be retained to provide seismic earth pressures, if warranted. In our opinion, seismic earth pressures are not warranted for design of minor landscape retaining walls (i.e. walls 6 feet or less in height).

11.3 WALL DRAINAGE
Adequate drainage should be provided by a subdrain system behind all walls. This system should consist of a 4-inch minimum diameter perforated pipe placed near the base of the wall (perforations placed downward). The pipe should be bedded and backfilled with Class 2 Permeable Material per Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition. The permeable backfill should extend at least 12 inches out from the wall and to within 2 feet of outside finished grade.

Alternatively, ½-inch to ¾-inch crushed rock may be used in place of the Class 2 Permeable Material provided the crushed rock and pipe are enclosed in filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. The upper 2 feet of wall backfill should consist of compacted on-site soil.

The subdrain outlet should be connected to a free-draining outlet or sump.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 39 ends

Miradrain, Geotech Drainage Panels, or equivalent drainage matting can be used for wall drainage as an alternative to the Class 2 Permeable Material or drain rock backfill. Horizontal strip drains connecting to the vertical drainage matting may be used in lieu of the perforated pipe and crushed rock section. The vertical drainage panel should be connected to the perforated pipe or horizontal drainage strip at the base of the wall, or to some other closed or through-wall system such as the TotalDrain system from AmerDrain. Sections of horizontal drainage strips should be connected with either the manufacturer’s connector pieces or by pulling back the filter fabric, overlapping the panel dimples, and replacing the filter fabric over the connection. At corners, a corner guard, corner connection insert, or a section of crushed rock covered with filter fabric must be used to maintain the drainage path.

Drainage panels should terminate 18 to 24 inches from final exterior grade. The Miradrain panel filter fabric should be extended over the top of and behind the panel to protect it from intrusion of the adjacent soil.

11.4 BACKFILL
Where surface improvements will be located over the retaining wall backfill, backfill placed behind the walls with a PI less than 20 should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction using light compaction equipment. If the soil’s PI is 20 or greater, expansive soil criteria should be used as discussed in the “Compaction” section of this report. Where no surface improvements are planned, backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent for soils with a PI less than 20. Expansive soil criteria should be followed for soils with a PI of 20 or greater. If heavy compaction equipment is used, the walls should be temporarily braced.

11.5 FOUNDATIONS
Retaining walls may be supported on a continuous spread footing designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the “Foundations” section of this report.

SECTION 12: LIMITATIONS
This report, an instrument of professional service, has been prepared for the sole use of PROLOGIS specifically to support the design of the 880 Doolittle Drive Warehouse project in San Leandro, California. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report have been formulated in accordance with accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in Northern California at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or should be inferred.

Recommendations in this report are based upon the soil and groundwater conditions encountered during our subsurface exploration. If variations or unsuitable conditions are encountered during construction, Cornerstone must be contacted to provide supplemental recommendations, as needed.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 40 ends

PROLOGIS may have provided Cornerstone with plans, reports and other documents prepared by others. PROLOGIS understands that Cornerstone reviewed and relied on the information presented in these documents and cannot be responsible for their accuracy.

Cornerstone prepared this report with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representatives to see that the recommendations contained in this report are presented to other members of the design team and incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and that appropriate actions are taken to implement the geotechnical recommendations during construction.

Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present time for the development as currently planned. Changes in the condition of the property or adjacent properties may occur with the passage of time, whether by natural processes or the acts of other persons. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur through legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes beyond Cornerstone’s control. This report should be reviewed by Cornerstone after a period of three (3) years has elapsed from the date of this report. In addition, if the current project design is changed, then Cornerstone must review the proposed changes and provide supplemental recommendations, as needed.

An electronic transmission of this report may also have been issued. While Cornerstone has taken precautions to produce a complete and secure electronic transmission, please check the electronic transmission against the hard copy version for conformity.

Recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Cornerstone will be retained to provide observation and testing services during construction to confirm that conditions are similar to that assumed for design, and to form an opinion as to whether the work has been performed in accordance with the project plans and specifications. If we are not retained for these services, Cornerstone cannot assume any responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during or after construction as a result of misuse or misinterpretation of Cornerstone’s report by others. Furthermore, Cornerstone will cease to be the GeotechnicalEngineer-of-Record if we are not retained for these services.

SECTION 13: REFERENCES
Aagaard, B.T., Blair, J.L., Boatwright, J., Garcia, S.H., Harris, R.A., Michael, A.J., Schwartz, D.P., and DiLeo, J.S., 2016, Earthquake outlook for the San Francisco Bay region 2014–2043 (ver. 1.1, August 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2016–3020, 6 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20163020.
"ATC Hazards". Hazards.Atcouncil.Org, 2019, https://hazards.atcouncil.org/.

Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M., 2004, Evaluating the Potential for Liquefaction or Cyclic Failure of Silts and Clays, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at Davis.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 41 ends

Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M., 2014, CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at Davis, Report No. UCD/GCM-14/01, April 2014 California Building Code, 2019, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Vol. 2.

California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, International Conference of Building Officials, February, 1998.

California Division of Mines and Geology (2008), “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, September.

California Geological Survey, 2003, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, San Leandro 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, California: Seismic Hazard Zone Report 078.

California Geological Survey, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California, County of Alameda, San Leandro Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000.

Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), 2009 and 2018, FIRM City of San Leandro, California, Community Panel #’s 06001C0252H and 06001C0256G.

GitHub, usgs/shakemap-scenarios, 2020, https://github.com/usgs/shakemapscenarios/tree/master/rupture_sets/BSSC2014.

Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W., 2008, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 237 p.

Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes: Proceedings Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco.

Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, 32 (1): 173-188.

Knudsen et al., 2000, Preliminary Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility, Nine-County San Francisco Bay Region, California.

Portland Cement Association, 1984, Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements: report.

Pradell, D., 1988, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, April 1998, p. 364 – 368 and Errata October 1998 p. 1048.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 42 ends

Robertson, P.K., Shao, Lisheng, 2010, Estimation of Seismic Compression in Dry Soils Using the CPT, 5th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Paper No. 4.05a, May 24-29, 2010.

Ritter, J.R., and Dupre, W.R., 1972, Map Showing Areas of Potential Inundation by Tsunamis in the San Francisco Bay Region, California: San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study, USGS Basic Data Contribution 52, Misc. Field Studies Map MF-480.

Seed, H.B. and I.M. Idriss, 1971, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluation soil Liquefaction Potential: JSMFC, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM 9, pp. 1249 – 1274.

Seed, H.B. and I.M. Idriss, 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes:

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

Seed, Raymond B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, Ann Marie, Wu, J., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.F., Sancio, R.B., Bray, Jonathan D., Kayen, Robert E., and Faris, A., 2003, Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework., University of California, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report 2003-06.

Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, March.

State of California Department of Transportation, 2018, Highway Design Manual, Sixth Edition, December 14, 2018.

U.S. Geological Survey, Unified Hazard Tool, 2020,
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/.

U.S. Geological Survey, Building Seismic Safety Council 2014 Event Set, ArcGIS Web Application, 2020,
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=14d2f75c7c4f4619936dac0d1 4e1e468.

U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, 2020, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/nshmp-haz-ws/apps/spectra-plot.html.

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2015, The Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF), U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2013-1165 (CGS Special Report 228). KMZ files available at:
www.scec.org/ucerf/images/ucerf3_timedep_30yr_probs.kmz.

Yoshimine, M., Nishizaki, H., Amano, Kl, and Hosono, Y., 2006, Flow Deformation of Liquefied Sand Under Constant Shear Load and Its Application to Analysis of Flow Slide in Infinite Slope, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Eng. 26, 253-264.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
55-16-1

Page 43 ends

Youd, T.L. and C.T. Garris, 1995, Liquefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Disruption: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 11, pp. 805 - 809.

Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M., et al, 1997, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER - 97-0022, January 5, 6, 1996.

Youd et al., 2001, “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vo. 127, No. 10, October, 2001.

Youd, T. Leslie, Hansen, Corbett M., and Bartlett, Steven F., 2002, Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement: ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 128, December 2002, p 1007-1017.

N
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
555-16-1
Figure 1
RRN
Vicinity Map
Doolittle Drive Warehouse
San Leandro, CA
June 2020
SITE
Hester Dr
dA
ma s
vA e
Carden
St
Doolittle Drive
Hester Street
Approximate
Site Boundary
Base by Google Earth, dated 10/26/2018Overlay by Langan, Concept 4 Site Plan - CS104, dated 06/07/2020 rebmuNtcej orP
rebmuNerugiF
yBnwarD
etaD
2erugiF
1-61-555
NRR
nalPetiS
esuoheraWevirDelttilooD
AC,ordnaeLnaS
0202tsuguA
Approximate location of exploratory boring ( )Approximate location of cone penetration test ( ) EB
CPT
Legend
0 120 240

APPROXIMATE SCALE FEET ( )
N
EB-1
CPT-4
CPT-9
CPT-10
CPT-8
CPT-5
CPT-7 CPT-6
CPT-3
CPT-2
CPT-1
EB-4
EB-8EB-9
EB-12
EB-11
EB-5
EB-6
EB-7
EB-10
EB-3
EB-2
SITE
Base by California Geological Survey - 2010 Fault Activity Map of California (Jennings and Bryant, 2010) Displacement during historic time (e.g. San Andreas fault 1906).Includes areas of known fault creep.Displacement during Holocenetime.

Fault offsets seafloor sedimentsor strata of Holocene age.

Faults showing evidence ofdisplacement during lateQuaternary time.

Fault cuts strata of LatePleistocene age.

Undivided Quaternary faults -most faults in this category showevidence of displacement duringthe last 1,600,000 years;possible exceptions are faultswhich displace rocks ofundifferentiated Pilo-Pleistoceneage.

Fault cuts strata of Quaternaryage.

Faults without recognizedQuaternary displacement orshowing evidence of nodisplacement during Quaternarytime. Not necessarily inactive.

Fault cuts strata of Pliocene orolder age.
0 5 10

APPROXIMATE SCALE MILES ( )
N
rebmuNtcej orP
rebmuNerugiF
yBnwarD
etaD
3erugiF
NRR
paMtluaFlanoigeR
1-61-555020
2enuJ
esuoheraWevirDelttilooD
AC,ordnaeLnaS
© 2014 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Project Title 5 FEET
Project No. 0.16 (Inches)
Project Manager 50 FEET

0.36 (Inches)
Controlling Fault
Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) 7.58
PGA (Amax) 0.89 (g)
LDI2 0.14 L/H 164.6
Ground Water Depth at Time of Drilling (feet) 14 LDI1
Corrected for Distance 0.01 (4 < L/H < 40)
Design Water Depth (feet) 5
Ave. Unit Weight Above GW (pcf) 120 0.0 to 0.0 feet
Ave. Unit Weight Below GW (pcf) 120 1
Not Valid for L/H Values < 4 and > 40.
2 LDI Values Only Summed to 2H Below Grade.

EXPECTED RANGE OF DISPLACEMENT

POTENTIAL LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

DRY SAND SETTLEMENT FROM
TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 0.5 INCHES

SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Hayward

SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

MJS LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT FROM
4A

PROJECT/CPT DATA
Doolittle Drive Warehouse
555-16-1
CPT NO. 1
FIGURE

CPT ANALYSIS RESULTS
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Depth (feet)
Cumulative (Liquefaction) Settlement…
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 1 2
Depth (feet)
Factor of Safety
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Depth (feet)
qcN
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth (feet)
No Liquefaction

CSR CRR
© 2014 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Project Title 5 FEET
Project No. 0.15 (Inches)
Project Manager 50 FEET

0.37 (Inches)
Controlling Fault
Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) 7.58
PGA (Amax) 0.89 (g)
LDI2 0.36 L/H 91.3
Ground Water Depth at Time of Drilling (feet) 8 LDI1
Corrected for Distance 0.06 (4 < L/H < 40)
Design Water Depth (feet) 5
Ave. Unit Weight Above GW (pcf) 120 0.0 to 0.1 feet
Ave. Unit Weight Below GW (pcf) 120 1
Not Valid for L/H Values < 4 and > 40.
2 LDI Values Only Summed to 2H Below Grade.
4B

PROJECT/CPT DATA
Doolittle Drive Warehouse
555-16-1
CPT NO. 2
FIGURE

CPT ANALYSIS RESULTS

SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Hayward

SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

MJS LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT FROM

EXPECTED RANGE OF DISPLACEMENT

POTENTIAL LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

DRY SAND SETTLEMENT FROM
TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 0.5 INCHES
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Depth (feet)
Cumulative (Liquefaction) Settlement…
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 1 2
Depth (feet)
Factor of Safety
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Depth (feet)
qcN
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth (feet)
No Liquefaction

CSR CRR
© 2014 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Project Title 5 FEET
Project No. 0.27 (Inches)
Project Manager 50 FEET

0.36 (Inches)
Controlling Fault
Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) 7.58
PGA (Amax) 0.89 (g)
LDI2 0.06 L/H 164.6
Ground Water Depth at Time of Drilling (feet) 10 LDI1
Corrected for Distance 0.01 (4 < L/H < 40)
Design Water Depth (feet) 5
Ave. Unit Weight Above GW (pcf) 120 0.0 to 0.0 feet
Ave. Unit Weight Below GW (pcf) 120 1
Not Valid for L/H Values < 4 and > 40.
2 LDI Values Only Summed to 2H Below Grade.
4C

PROJECT/CPT DATA
Doolittle Drive Warehouse
555-16-1
CPT NO. 3
FIGURE

CPT ANALYSIS RESULTS

SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Hayward

SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

MJS LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT FROM

EXPECTED RANGE OF DISPLACEMENT

POTENTIAL LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

DRY SAND SETTLEMENT FROM
TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 0.6 INCHES
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Depth (feet)
Cumulative (Liquefaction) Settlement…
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 1 2
Depth (feet)
Factor of Safety
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Depth (feet)
qcN
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth (feet)
No Liquefaction

CSR CRR
© 2014 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Project Title 5 FEET
Project No. 0.10 (Inches)
Project Manager 50 FEET

0.07 (Inches)
Controlling Fault
Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) 7.58
PGA (Amax) 0.89 (g)
LDI2 0.07 L/H 164.6
Ground Water Depth at Time of Drilling (feet) 14 LDI1
Corrected for Distance 0.01 (4 < L/H < 40)
Design Water Depth (feet) 5
Ave. Unit Weight Above GW (pcf) 120 0.0 to 0.0 feet
Ave. Unit Weight Below GW (pcf) 120 1
Not Valid for L/H Values < 4 and > 40.
2 LDI Values Only Summed to 2H Below Grade.
4D

PROJECT/CPT DATA
Doolittle Drive Warehouse
555-16-1
CPT NO. 4
FIGURE

CPT ANALYSIS RESULTS

SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Hayward

SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

MJS LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT FROM

EXPECTED RANGE OF DISPLACEMENT

POTENTIAL LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

DRY SAND SETTLEMENT FROM
TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 0.2 INCHES
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Depth (feet)
Cumulative (Liquefaction) Settlement…
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 1 2
Depth (feet)
Factor of Safety
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Depth (feet)
qcN
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth (feet)
No Liquefaction

CSR CRR
© 2014 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Project Title 5 FEET
Project No. 0.16 (Inches)
Project Manager 50 FEET

0.19 (Inches)
Controlling Fault
Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) 7.58
PGA (Amax) 0.89 (g)
LDI2 0.11 L/H 164.6
Ground Water Depth at Time of Drilling (feet) 7 LDI1
Corrected for Distance 0.01 (4 < L/H < 40)
Design Water Depth (feet) 5
Ave. Unit Weight Above GW (pcf) 120 0.0 to 0.0 feet
Ave. Unit Weight Below GW (pcf) 120 1
Not Valid for L/H Values < 4 and > 40.
2 LDI Values Only Summed to 2H Below Grade.

EXPECTED RANGE OF DISPLACEMENT

POTENTIAL LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

DRY SAND SETTLEMENT FROM
TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 0.4 INCHES

SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Hayward

SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

MJS LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT FROM
4E

PROJECT/CPT DATA
Doolittle Drive Warehouse
555-16-1
CPT NO. 5
FIGURE

CPT ANALYSIS RESULTS
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3
Depth (feet)
Cumulative (Liquefaction) Settlement…
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 1 2
Depth (feet)
Factor of Safety
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Depth (feet)
qcN
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth (feet)
No Liquefaction

CSR CRR
© 2014 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Project Title 5 FEET
Project No. 0.04 (Inches)
Project Manager 50 FEET

0.34 (Inches)
Controlling Fault
Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) 7.58
PGA (Amax) 0.89 (g)
LDI2 0.00 L/H 164.6
Ground Water Depth at Time of Drilling (feet) 7 LDI1
Corrected for Distance 0.00 (4 < L/H < 40)
Design Water Depth (feet) 5
Ave. Unit Weight Above GW (pcf) 120 0.0 to 0.0 feet
Ave. Unit Weight Below GW (pcf) 120 1
Not Valid for L/H Values < 4 and > 40.
2 LDI Values Only Summed to 2H Below Grade.
4F

PROJECT/CPT DATA
Doolittle Drive Warehouse
555-16-1
CPT NO. 6
FIGURE

CPT ANALYSIS RESULTS

SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Hayward

SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

MJS LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT FROM

EXPECTED RANGE OF DISPLACEMENT

POTENTIAL LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

DRY SAND SETTLEMENT FROM
TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 0.4 INCHES
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Depth (feet)
Cumulative (Liquefaction) Settlement…
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 1 2
Depth (feet)
Factor of Safety
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Depth (feet)
qcN
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth (feet)
No Liquefaction

CSR CRR
© 2014 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Project Title 5 FEET
Project No. 0.03 (Inches)
Project Manager 50 FEET

0.17 (Inches)
Controlling Fault
Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) 7.58
PGA (Amax) 0.89 (g)
LDI2 0.10 L/H 164.6
Ground Water Depth at Time of Drilling (feet) 10 LDI1
Corrected for Distance 0.01 (4 < L/H < 40)
Design Water Depth (feet) 5
Ave. Unit Weight Above GW (pcf) 120 0.0 to 0.0 feet
Ave. Unit Weight Below GW (pcf) 120 1
Not Valid for L/H Values < 4 and > 40.
2 LDI Values Only Summed to 2H Below Grade.
4G

PROJECT/CPT DATA
Doolittle Drive Warehouse
555-16-1
CPT NO. 7
FIGURE

CPT ANALYSIS RESULTS

SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Hayward

SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

MJS LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT FROM

EXPECTED RANGE OF DISPLACEMENT

POTENTIAL LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

DRY SAND SETTLEMENT FROM
TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 0.2 INCHES
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Depth (feet)
Cumulative (Liquefaction) Settlement…
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 1 2
Depth (feet)
Factor of Safety
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Depth (feet)
qcN
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth (feet)
No Liquefaction

CSR CRR
© 2014 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Project Title 5 FEET
Project No. 0.00 (Inches)
Project Manager 50 FEET

0.14 (Inches)
Controlling Fault
Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) 7.58
PGA (Amax) 0.89 (g)
LDI2 0.00 L/H 164.6
Ground Water Depth at Time of Drilling (feet) 7.5 LDI1
Corrected for Distance 0.00 (4 < L/H < 40)
Design Water Depth (feet) 5
Ave. Unit Weight Above GW (pcf) 120 0.0 to 0.0 feet
Ave. Unit Weight Below GW (pcf) 120 1
Not Valid for L/H Values < 4 and > 40.
2 LDI Values Only Summed to 2H Below Grade.
4H

PROJECT/CPT DATA
Doolittle Drive Warehouse
555-16-1
CPT NO. 8
FIGURE

CPT ANALYSIS RESULTS

SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Hayward

SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

MJS LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT FROM

EXPECTED RANGE OF DISPLACEMENT

POTENTIAL LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

DRY SAND SETTLEMENT FROM
TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 0.1 INCHES
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Depth (feet)
Cumulative (Liquefaction) Settlement…
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 1 2
Depth (feet)
Factor of Safety
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Depth (feet)
qcN
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth (feet)
No Liquefaction

CSR CRR
© 2014 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Project Title 5 FEET
Project No. 0.01 (Inches)
Project Manager 50 FEET

0.46 (Inches)
Controlling Fault
Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) 7.58
PGA (Amax) 0.89 (g)
LDI2 0.23 L/H 164.6
Ground Water Depth at Time of Drilling (feet) 5.5 LDI1
Corrected for Distance 0.02 (4 < L/H < 40)
Design Water Depth (feet) 5
Ave. Unit Weight Above GW (pcf) 120 0.0 to 0.0 feet
Ave. Unit Weight Below GW (pcf) 120 1
Not Valid for L/H Values < 4 and > 40.
2 LDI Values Only Summed to 2H Below Grade.
4I

PROJECT/CPT DATA
Doolittle Drive Warehouse
555-16-1
CPT NO. 9
FIGURE

CPT ANALYSIS RESULTS

SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Hayward

SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

MJS LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT FROM

EXPECTED RANGE OF DISPLACEMENT

POTENTIAL LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

DRY SAND SETTLEMENT FROM
TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 0.5 INCHES
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Depth (feet)
Cumulative (Liquefaction) Settlement…
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 1 2
Depth (feet)
Factor of Safety
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Depth (feet)
qcN
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth (feet)
No Liquefaction

CSR CRR
© 2014 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Project Title 5 FEET
Project No. 0.07 (Inches)
Project Manager 50 FEET

0.06 (Inches)
Controlling Fault
Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) 7.58
PGA (Amax) 0.89 (g)
LDI2 0.00 L/H 164.6
Ground Water Depth at Time of Drilling (feet) 5 LDI1
Corrected for Distance 0.00 (4 < L/H < 40)
Design Water Depth (feet) 5
Ave. Unit Weight Above GW (pcf) 120 0.0 to 0.0 feet
Ave. Unit Weight Below GW (pcf) 120 1
Not Valid for L/H Values < 4 and > 40.
2 LDI Values Only Summed to 2H Below Grade.
4J

PROJECT/CPT DATA
Doolittle Drive Warehouse
555-16-1
CPT NO. 10
FIGURE

CPT ANALYSIS RESULTS

SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Hayward

SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

MJS LIQUEFACTION SETTLEMENT FROM

EXPECTED RANGE OF DISPLACEMENT

POTENTIAL LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

DRY SAND SETTLEMENT FROM
TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 0.1 INCHES
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Depth (feet)
Cumulative (Liquefaction) Settlement…
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 1 2
Depth (feet)
Factor of Safety
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Depth (feet)
qcN
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth (feet)
No Liquefaction

CSR CRR

References:

ASCE/SEI 7-16: Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Strutures with Supplement No. 1. 2019 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 PROJECT NO. 555-16-1

0.00 0.976
Site-Specific MCER
Period
(Seconds)
Spectral
Acceleration
(g)

0.19 1.892

0.15 1.752

0.05 0.978

0.10 1.421

0.30 2.133

0.20 1.927

0.25 2.058

0.75 2.001

0.95 1.844

0.40 2.245

0.50 2.281

3.00 0.743

4.00 0.526

1.00 1.807

2.00 1.083
880 Doolittle Drive
San Leandro, CA September 8, 2020 MJS

5.00 0.402
MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA FIGURE 5
Doolittle Drive Warehouse

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (seconds)
Deterministic MCE(R)
Probabilistic MCE(R)
Site-Specific MCE(R)
The Site-Specific Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) is defined as the lesser of the following at all periods:
■ Deterministic MCER – maximum 84th percentile deterministic, or ■ Probabilistic MCER – defined as the 2,475–year ground motion.

References:

ASCE/SEI 7-16: Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Strutures with Supplement No. 1. 2019 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 PROJECT NO. 555-16-1
FIGURE 6
September 8, 2020 MJS
1 Site Specific PGAM (g) 0.89
1 Lower of Deterministic and Probabilistic, but not less than 80% of mapped value of FM x PGA, determined in accordance with Section 21.5 of ASCE 7-16.

Doolittle Drive Warehouse
880 Doolittle Drive
San Leandro, CA

DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA
Site Design Design Values
1 Site Longitude (degrees)
Unknown

37.719966
II
Site Latitude (degrees)
Site Class (Per Chapter 20 ASCE 7-16)
Shear Wave Velocity, VS30 (m/sec)
D
217
-122.187908

0.30 0.40

0.50 1.422

1.497

1.521

1.334

1.229

1.205

0.722
Design Response Spectra

0.00 0.05
Period
(Seconds)

0.10 0.651

0.652
Spectral
Acceleration
(g)

0.15 0.19

0.20 0.25
Importance Factor, Ie
Risk Category
Building Period (sec)

0.95 0.75

4.00 5.00

3.00 1.00

2.00 0.351

0.268

0.947

1.168

1.261

1.285

1.372

0.495
Design
Acceleration
Parameters1
SDS
SD1
SMS
SM1

1.369

1.485

2.053

2.228

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (seconds)
2/3 Site-Specific MCE(R)
80% CBC General Spectrum
Design Response Spectrum
The Site-Specific Design Response Spectrum per Section 21.2, 21.3 and 21.4 of ASCE 7-16 is defined as the greater of the following at all periods:
■ 2/3 of the Site-Specific MCER, or
■ 80% of the CBC General Spectrum.

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
555-16-1
Page A-1
APPENDIX A: FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program using truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment and 20-ton truck-mounted Cone Penetration Test equipment. Twelve 8-inch-diameter exploratory borings were drilled on June 1 to 5, 2020 to depths of 7 to 35 feet. Ten CPT soundings were also performed in accordance with ASTM D 5778-95 (revised, 2002) on May 18 to 20, 2020, to depths ranging from about 50 to 140 feet. The approximate locations of exploratory borings and CPTs are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The soils encountered were continuously logged in the field by our representative and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488). Boring logs, as well as a key to the classification of the soil, are included as part of this appendix.

Boring and CPT locations were approximated using existing site boundaries, a hand held GPS unit, and other site features as references. Boring elevations were based on interpolation of the topographic survey performed by Kimley Horn. The locations and elevations of the borings and CPTs should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.

Representative soil samples were obtained from the borings at selected depths. All samples were returned to our laboratory for evaluation and appropriate testing. The standard penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall. The 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler was driven 18 inches and the number of blows was recorded for each 6 inches of penetration (ASTM D1586). 2.5-inch I.D. samples were obtained using a Modified California Sampler driven into the soil with the 140-pound hammer previously described. Relatively undisturbed samples were also obtained with 2.875-inch I.D. Shelby Tube sampler which were hydraulically pushed. Unless otherwise indicated, the blows per foot recorded on the boring log represent the accumulated number of blows required to drive the last 12 inches. The various samplers are denoted at the appropriate depth on the boring logs.

The CPT involved advancing an instrumented cone-tipped probe into the ground while simultaneously recording the resistance at the cone tip (qc) and along the friction sleeve (fs) at approximately 5-centimeter intervals. Based on the tip resistance and tip to sleeve ratio (Rf), the CPT classified the soil behavior type and estimated engineering properties of the soil, such as equivalent Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count, internal friction angle within sand layers, and undrained shear strength in silts and clays. A pressure transducer behind the tip of the CPT cone measured pore water pressure (u2). Graphical logs of the CPT data is included as part of this appendix.

Field tests included an evaluation of the unconfined compressive strength of the soil samples using a pocket penetrometer device. The results of these tests are presented on the individual boring logs at the appropriate sample depths.

Attached boring and CPT logs and related information depict subsurface conditions at the locations indicated and on the date designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring and CPT locations. The passage of time may result in altered subsurface conditions due to environmental changes. In addition,

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
555-16-1
Page A-2
any stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types and the transition may be gradual.

Poorly-Graded Gravelly Sand
>50% OF COARSE

FRACTION PASSES
ON NO 4. SIEVE

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL

POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL

SILTY GRAVEL

CLAYEY GRAVEL

WELL-GRADED SAND

POORLY-GRADED SAND

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

LEAN CLAY
SILT

ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT

FAT CLAY

ELASTIC SILT

ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
*
NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D. (1-3/8 INCH I.D.) SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER THE LAST 12 INCHES OF AN 18-INCH DRIVE (ASTM-1586 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST).
*
Modified California (2.5" I.D.)
Well-Graded Gravel
with Clay
-
-
-
-
-
Boulders and Cobble
Artificial/Undocumented Fill
Asphalt
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
CL
ML
OL
CH
MH
OH
Well-Graded Gravel
with Silt -

CLEAN GRAVELS
<5% FINES

GRAVELS WITH FINES

PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR >12% FINES
* UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH IN KIPS/SQ. FT. AS DETERMINED BY LABORATORY

TESTING OR APPROXIMATED BY THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, POCKET PENETROMETER, TORVANE, OR VISUAL OBSERVATION.

Well Graded Gravelly Sand
Gravelly Silt ADDITIONAL TESTS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
C
O
A
RSE-G
R

AINED SOILS
>50%

RETAINED ON
NO. 200 SIEVE
FINE-G
R

AINED SOILS
>50% PASSES
NO. 200 SIEVE
"A" LINE
PEAT

SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT<50

SILTS AND CLAYS
Clayey Sand
LIQUID LIMIT>50
Silt
Sand

OTHER MATERIAL SYMBOLS
LIQUID LIMIT (%)
CH

CL OH & MH
-
-

CLEAN SANDS
<5% FINES

SANDS AND FINES
>12% FINES

INORGANIC
>50% OF COARSE

FRACTION RETAINED
ON NO 4. SIEVE

SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND

SWELL TEST

CYCLIC TRIAXIAL

TORVANE SHEAR

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION

PLASTICITY CHART
CL-ML
SANDS
No Recovery

PLASTICITY INDEX
0 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0

2.0 - 4.0
OVER 4.0
(RECORDED AS BLOWS / FOOT)

VERY SOFT
SOFT

MEDIUM STIFF
STIFF

VERY STIFF
HARD
0 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
OVER 30
0 - 4
4 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
OVER 50

SILT & CLAY

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

SAND & GRAVEL

VERY LOOSE
LOOSE

MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE

VERY DENSE
PT

WATER LEVEL
RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS/FOOT* CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FOOT*
Topsoil
PLASTICITY INDEX (%) Sandy Silt
Poorly-Graded Sand
with Clay
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487-98)
Figure Number
A-1

FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL

FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
PI>7 AND PLOTS>"A" LINE
PI>4 AND PLOTS<"A" LINE
LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75
PI PLOTS >"A" LINE
PI PLOTS <"A" LINE
LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Cu>4 AND 1<Cc<3
Cu>4 AND 1>Cc>3

FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL

FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
Cu>6 AND 1<Cc<3
Cu>6 AND 1>Cc>3

ORGANIC

INORGANIC

ORGANIC

GRAVELS
0 10 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (CORROSIVITY)

CONSOLIDATED DRAINED TRIAXIAL

CONSOLIDATION

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL

DIRECT SHEAR

POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)
(WITH SHEAR STRENGTH IN KSF)

R-VALUE
SIEVE ANALYSIS: % PASSING
#200 SIEVE

MATERIAL

TYPES CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES GROUPSYMBOL CA
CD
CN
CU
DS
PP
(3.0)
RV
SA
Shelby Tube

LEGEND TO SOIL

DESCRIPTIONS

UU UNCONSOLIDATED

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
(WITH SHEAR STRENGTH

IN KSF)
SW
TC
TV
UC
(1.5)
PI

SAMPLER TYPES
SPT
STRENGTH** (KSF)
Rock Core Grab Sample

10.5 9.9

7.3 6.3
-3.3
-6.3
MC-1B
MC-2B
MC-3C
ST
MC-5C
MC-6B
ST
MC-8B
3inchesasphaltconcreteover8inches
aggregatebaseandstabilizationfabric
FatClaywithSand(CH)
stiff,moist,darkgray,finetomediumsand,
highplasticity
ClayeySand(SC)
mediumdense,moist,darkgray,fineto
mediumsand
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
stiff,moist,darkgraytogray,finetocoarse
sand,moderateplasticity
ClayeySand(SC)
mediumdense,moist,verylightgray,fineto
mediumsand,somefinesubangularto
subroundedgravel
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
stiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,fine
sand,moderateplasticity
becomesverystiff
32 20
22 22
21 22
25 26
26 51
37 78
91 102
110
110
108
48 40
NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/1/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/1/20 GROUNDELEVATION 10.75FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 35ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING 14ft.

ATENDOFDRILLING 14ft.

LATITUDE 37.720132° LONGITUDE -122.190352°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
ContinuedNextPage
-15.3

10.8 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-1
PAGE1OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

NATURAL
N-Value(uncorrected)
MOISTURECONTENT
PLASTICITYINDEX,%
blowsperfoot
DRYUNITWEIGHT
PCF
PERCENTPASSING
No.200SIEVE
CORNERSTONEEARTHGROUP2-CORNERSTONE0812.GDT-9/8/2010:34-P:\DRAFTING\GINTFILES\555-16-1DOOLITTLEWH.GPJ

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
-24.3
MC-9
MC-10B
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
stiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,fine
sand,moderateplasticity
BottomofBoringat35.0feet.
24 22
46 29
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
-15.3 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-1
PAGE2OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
30 35
40 45
50 55

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL

11.3 10.3

7.0 5.0
-4.5
-9.5
MC-1B
MC-2C
MC-3B
MC
MC-5B
MC-6B
MC-7B
ST
MC-9
3inchesasphaltconcreteover12inches
aggregatebase
FatClaywithSand(CH)
mediumstifftostiff,moist,darkgray,fineto
mediumsand,highplasticity
SandyLeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,gray,finetomediumsand,low
plasticity
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
verystiff,moist,gray,finesand,moderate
plasticity
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
mediumstiff,moist,lightgray,finetomedium
sand,moderateplasticity
LeanClay(CL)
verystiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,
somefinesand,moderateplasticity
33 32
20 28
21 33
22 16
21 20
34 28
44 24
46 96
91 112
100
106
88 NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/2/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/2/20 GROUNDELEVATION 11.5FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 35ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING 13ft.

ATENDOFDRILLING 13ft.

LATITUDE 37.720152° LONGITUDE -122.189560°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
ContinuedNextPage
-14.5

11.5 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-10
PAGE1OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
-15.5
-23.5
MC-10B
MC-11
SandyLeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,fineto
mediumsand,lowtomoderateplasticity
BottomofBoringat35.0feet.
22 24
35 54
109
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
-14.5 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-10
PAGE2OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
30 35
40 45
50 55

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL

15.2 14.6

12.0 10.0

7.5 -3.0
-6.5
MC-1B
MC-2C
MC-3B
4A
MC
4B
MC-5B
MC-6B
MC-7A
4inchesofasphaltconcreteover6inchesof
aggregatebase
SandyLeanClay(CL)[Fill]
stiff,moist,darkgrayandbrownmottled,fine
tocoarsesand,lowplasticity
FatClay(CH)
stiff,moist,darkgray,tracefinesand,high
plasticity
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
verystiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,fine
tocoarsesand,moderateplasticity
LeanClay(CL)
mediumstiff,moist,gray,somefinesand,
moderateplasticity
becomesstiff
FatClay(CH)
stiff,moist,darkgray,tracefinesand,high
plasticity
LeanClay(CL)
verystiff,moist,gray,somefinesand,
moderateplasticity
17 31
21 36
38 33
40 26
38 13
22 10
30 25
33 104
90 104
87 88
95 82
103
NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/4/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/4/20 GROUNDELEVATION 15.5FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 35ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING 12ft.

ATENDOFDRILLING 6ft.

LATITUDE 37.720747° LONGITUDE -122.188002°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
ContinuedNextPage
-10.5

15.5 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-11
PAGE1OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
-19.5
MC-8B
MC-9B
LeanClay(CL)
verystiff,moist,gray,somefinesand,
moderateplasticity
becomesstiff
BottomofBoringat35.0feet.
25 25
58 33
102
103
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
-10.5 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-11
PAGE2OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
30 35
40 45
50 55

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL

12.7 11.8

9.5 8.5

5.5 MC-1B
MC-2B
NR
MC-3C
4inchesofasphaltconcreteover10inches
ofaggregatebase
FatClay(CH)
verystiff,moist,darkgray,tracefinesand,
highplasticity
SandyLeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,darkgray,finetomediumsand,
lowplasticity
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
mediumstiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,
finesand,moderateplasticity
BottomofBoringat7.5feet.
29 23
32 23
20 15
16 85
99 87
NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/5/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/5/20 GROUNDELEVATION 13.0FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 7.5ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING NotEncountered
ATENDOFDRILLING NotEncountered
LATITUDE 37.720532° LONGITUDE -122.187730°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION

13.0 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-12
PAGE1OF1
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL

11.3 10.3

8.0 6.5

5.5 -3.0
-4.0
-6.5
-11.0
MC-1B
MC-2C
MC-3A
MC-4
MC-5B
MC-6A
MC
ST-8
MC-9B
3inchesofasphaltconcreteover12inches
ofaggregatebase
FatClay(CH)
stiff,moist,darkgray,tracefinesand,high
plasticty
LiquidLimit=52,PlasticLimit=19
SandyLeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,darkgray,finetocoarsesand,
moderateplasticity
Silty,ClayeySand(SC-SM)
loose,moist,gray,finetocoarsesand
LiquidLimit=21,PlasticLimit=16
LeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,gray,somefinesand,moderate
plasticity
ClayeySandwithGravel(CL)
mediumdense,moist,verylightgray,fineto
coarsesand,finesubangulargravel
LiquidLimit=39,PlasticLimit=16
SandyLeanClay(CL)
verystiff,moist,lightgray,finetocoarse
sand,moderateplasticity
LeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,gray,somefinesand,moderate
plasticity
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
verystiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,fine
sand,moderateplasticity
33 16
20 32
22 28
30 23
33 5
23 10
18 19
28 38
40 44
88 109
107
104
98 91
103
31 38
NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/1/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/1/20 GROUNDELEVATION 11.5FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 35ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING 8ft.

ATENDOFDRILLING 8ft.

LATITUDE 37.719839° LONGITUDE -122.189665°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
ContinuedNextPage
-14.5

11.5 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-2
PAGE1OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
-23.5
ST
MC-11B
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
verystiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,fine
sand,moderateplasticity
BottomofBoringat35.0feet.
2051 110
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
-14.5 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-2
PAGE2OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
30 35
40 45
50 55

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL

11.7 11.4

9.0 7.5

4.0 2.0
MC-1
MC-2B
MC-3C
MC-4C
MC-5B
4inchesofasphaltconcreteover3inchesof
aggregatebase
ClayeySandwithGravel(SC)[Fill]
verydense,moist,reddishbrown,fineto
mediumsand,finetocoarsesubangularto
subroundedgravel
FatClay(CH)
stiff,moist,darkgray,tracefinesand,high
plasticity
LeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,graybrown,somefinesand,
moderateplasticity
SandyLeanClay(CL)
verystiff,moist,gray,finetocoarsesand,
somefinesubroundedgravel,lowplasticity
BottomofBoringat10.0feet.
9 31
25 30
21 50
6"
40 48
38 43
124
90 95
97 108
NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/1/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/1/20 GROUNDELEVATION 12.0FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 10ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING NotEncountered
ATENDOFDRILLING NotEncountered
LATITUDE 37.720102° LONGITUDE -122.189279°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION

12.0 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-3
PAGE1OF1
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL

11.3 10.5

9.8 8.5

7.0 6.3
-0.5
-3.3
-4.5
MC-1B
MC-2B
3A
MC
3C
MC-4B
MC-5C
MC-6B
MC-7B
MC-8B
4inchesasphaltconcreteover8inches
aggregatebase
ClayeySandwithGravel(SC)[Fill]
FatClay(CH)
verystiff,moist,darkgray,somefinesand,
highplasticity
SandyLeanClay(CL)
verystiff,moist,darkgray,finetomedium
sand,moderateplasticity
ClayeySand(SC)
mediumdense,moist,darkgray,fineto
mediumsand,somefinesubangularto
subroundedgravel
LiquidLimit=25,PlasticLimit=15
LeanClay(CL)
verystiff,moist,gray,somefinesand,
moderateplasticity
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
verystiff,moist,gray,finetocoarsesand,
moderateplasticity
ClayeySand(SC)
mediumdense,moist,verylightgray,fineto
mediumsand,somefinesubangularto
subroundedgravel
LiquidLimit=29,PlasticLimit=13
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
verystiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,fine
sand,moderateplasticity
26 18
18 29
29 21
22 23
22 10
16 39
36 22
34 44
24 38
64 101
102
112
95 92
114
109
105
110
38 49
NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/2/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/2/20 GROUNDELEVATION 11.5FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 30ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING 14ft.

ATENDOFDRILLING 14ft.

LATITUDE 37.719370° LONGITUDE -122.188447°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
ContinuedNextPage
-13.5

11.5 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-4
PAGE1OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
-13.5
-16.5
-18.5
MC-9B
MC
MC-11
PoorlyGradedSandwithSilt(SP-SM)
mediumdense,moist,gray,finetomedium
sand,somefinesubroundedgravel
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
stiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,fine
sand,moderateplasticity
BottomofBoringat30.0feet.
15 23
39 60
33 118
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
-13.5 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-4
PAGE2OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
25 30
35 40
45 50

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL

12.2 11.6

9.5 7.5

4.5 -6.0
-8.5
MC-1B
MC-2B
MC-3C
MC-4B
MC-5B
ST
MC-7C
MC-8B
4inchesofasphaltconcreteover7inchesof
aggregatebase
ClayeySandwithGravel(SC)[Fill]
mediumdense,moist,reddishbrown,fineto
mediumsand,finetocoarsesubangularto
subroundedgravel
FatClay(CH)
verystiff,moist,darkgray,tracefinesand,
highplasticty
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
verystiff,moist,graybrown,finetocoarse
sand,moderateplasticity
LeanClay(CL)
verystiff,moist,gray,somefinesand,
moderateplasticity
SandyLeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,gray,finetocoarsesand,some
finesubroundedgravel,lowplasticity
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
stiff,moist,gray,finesand,moderate
plasticity
becomesverystiff
9 27
21 28
33 32
22 36
38 36
26 38
29 36
131
91 105
87 94
92 106
NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/3/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/3/20 GROUNDELEVATION 12.5FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 30ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING 12ft.

ATENDOFDRILLING 7ft.

LATITUDE 37.720398° LONGITUDE -122.188623°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
ContinuedNextPage
-13.5

12.5 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-5
PAGE1OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
-13.5
-17.5
MC-9B
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
verystiff,moist,gray,finesand,moderate
plasticity
BottomofBoringat30.0feet.
2049 113
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
-13.5 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-5
PAGE2OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
30 35
40 45
50 55

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL

14.7 13.9

11.5 9.0

8.0 MC-1B
MC-2C
MC
SPT-4B
4inchesofasphaltconcreteover9inchesof
aggregatebase
ClayeySandwithGravel(SC)[Fill]
mediumdense,moist,darkgrayandbrown
mottled,finetomediumsand,finetocoarse
subangulartosubroundedgravel
SiltySandwithGravel(SM)[Fill]
loose,moist,darkbrown,finetomedium
sand
FatClay(CH)
verystiff,moist,darkgray,tracefinesand,
highplasticty
BottomofBoringat7.0feet.
6 9
31 41
49 11
10 121
112
NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/4/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/4/20 GROUNDELEVATION 15FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 7ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING NotEncountered
ATENDOFDRILLING NotEncountered
LATITUDE 37.720962° LONGITUDE -122.188783°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION

15.0 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-6
PAGE1OF1
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL

16.7 16.1

14.0 12.0

10.0 8.0

6.0 4.5
-3.0
MC-1B
MC-2B
MC-3C
MC-4C
ST
MC-6B
MC-7B
ST
MC-9C
4inchesofasphaltconcreteover6inchesof
aggregatebase
ClayeySandwithGravel(SC)[Fill]
mediumdense,moist,darkgrayandbrown
mottled,finetomediumsand,finetocoarse
subangulartosubroundedgravel
SandyLeanClay(CL)[Fill]
stiff,moist,darkgrayandbrownmottled,fine
tocoarsesand,lowplasticity
FatClay(CH)
stiff,moist,darkgray,tracefinesand,high
plasticty
SandyLeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,gray,finetocoarsesand,low
plasticity
ClayeySand(SC)
mediumdense,moist,gray,finetocoarse
sand
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
stiff,moist,graybrown,finetocoarsesand,
subangulargravel,moderateplasticity
LeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,gray,tracefinesand,moderate
plasticity
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
mediumstiff,moist,brown,finesand,
moderateplasticity
12 19
26 18
35 27
31 46
24 32
38 34
44 17
128
100
100
108
88 95
94 29
NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/4/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/4/20 GROUNDELEVATION 17FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 30ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING 13ft.

ATENDOFDRILLING 10ft.

LATITUDE 37.721133° LONGITUDE -122.187715°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
ContinuedNextPage
-9.0

17.0 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-7
PAGE1OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
-10.0
-13.0
MC-10B
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
verystiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,fine
tocoarsesand,moderateplasticity
BottomofBoringat30.0feet.
2337 105
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION
-9.0 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-7
PAGE2OF2
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
30 35
40 45
50 55

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL

13.2 12.4

10.5 8.5

6.5 1.5
-3.0
-6.5
MC-1B
MC-2C
MC
4A
MC
4C
ST-5
MC-6B
MC-7
3inchesofasphaltconcreteover10inches
ofaggregatebase
SandyLeanClay(CL)[Fill]
verystiff,moist,darkgrayandbrownmottled,
finetocoarsesand,lowplasticity
ClayeySandwithGravel(SC)[Fill]
mediumdense,moist,darkgrayandbrown
mottled,finetomediumsand,finetocoarse
subangulartosubroundedgravel
SiltySand(SM)[Fill]
loose,moist,gray,finetocoarsesand
LeanClay(CL)
mediumstiff,moist,gray,tracefinesand,
moderateplasticity
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
stiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,fine
sand,moderateplasticity
LeanClay(CL)
mediumstiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,
somefinesand,moderateplasticity
BottomofBoringat20.0feet.
21 17
17 33
35 29
27 30
35 9
8 37
14 112
107
116
89 85
95 93
32 14
NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/5/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/5/20 GROUNDELEVATION 13.5FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 20ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING 8.5ft.

ATENDOFDRILLING 5.5ft.

LATITUDE 37.720604° LONGITUDE -122.187173°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION

13.5 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-8
PAGE1OF1
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL

13.5 12.9

10.3 9.3
-1.3
-2.8
-8.3
-11.3
MC-1B
MC-2C
MC-3C
MC-4B
MC-5B
MC-6B
SPT
MC-8
MC-9B
3inchesasphaltconcreteover8inches
aggregatebase
FatClay(CH)
stiff,moist,darkgray,somefinesand,high
plasticity
ClayeySand(SC)
mediumdense,moist,darkgray,fineto
mediumsand
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
stiff,moist,gray,finesand,moderate
plasticity
becomesverystiff
SandyLeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,lightgray,finetocoarsesand,low
plasticity
LeanClaywithSand(CL)
verystiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,fine
sand,moderateplasticity
LeanClay(CL)
stiff,moist,graywithbrownmottles,some
finesand,moderateplasticity
BottomofBoringat25.0feet.
28 18
32 26
24 18
26 24
15 29
20 27
37 38
26 31
28 96
104
89 97
102
113
104
63 NOTES
LOGGEDBY BCG
DRILLINGMETHOD MobileB-61,8inchHollow-StemAuger
DRILLINGCONTRACTOR ExplorationGeoservices
GROUNDWATERLEVELS:

DATESTARTED 6/5/20 DATECOMPLETED 6/5/20 GROUNDELEVATION 13.75FT+/- BORINGDEPTH 25ft.

ATTIMEOFDRILLING 6.5ft.

ATENDOFDRILLING 5ft.

LATITUDE 37.720000° LONGITUDE -122.187009°
SYMBOL
UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSION

13.8 ELEVATION(ft)
PROJECTNAME DoolittleDriveWarehouse
PROJECTNUMBER 555-16-1
PROJECTLOCATION SanLeandro,CA
BORINGNUMBEREB-9
PAGE1OF1
ThislogisapartofareportbyCornerstoneEarthGroup,andshouldnotbeusedas astand-alonedocument.Thisdescriptionappliesonlytothelocationofthe explorationatthetimeofdrilling.Subsurfaceconditionsmaydifferatotherlocations andmaychangeatthislocationwithtime.Thedescriptionpresentedisa simplificationofactualconditionsencountered.Transitionsbetweensoiltypesmaybe gradual.

UNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH,
ksf

SAMPLES
TYPEANDNUMBER
DEPTH(ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HANDPENETROMETER

DESCRIPTION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
Cornerstone Earth Group
Project 880 Doolittle Drive Operator BH-GH Filename SDF(111).cptJob Number 555-16-1 Cone Number DDG1496 GPSHole Number CPT-01 Date and Time 5/18/2020 7:26:30 AM Maximum Depth 140.42 ftEST GW Depth During Test 4.20 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 7

FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 120
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Cornerstone Earth Group
Project 880 Doolittle Drive Operator BH-GH Filename SDF(112).cptJob Number 555-16-1 Cone Number DDG1496 GPSHole Number CPT-02 Date and Time 5/18/2020 11:32:52 AM Maximum Depth 75.46 ftEST GW Depth During Test 4.80 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 7

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Cornerstone Earth Group
Project 880 Doolittle Drive Operator BH-GH Filename SDF(113).cptJob Number 555-16-1 Cone Number DDG1496 GPSHole Number CPT-03 Date and Time 5/18/2020 2:09:01 PM Maximum Depth 100.88 ftEST GW Depth During Test 5.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 7

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Cornerstone Earth Group
Project 880 Doolittle Drive Operator BH-GH Filename SDF(123).cptJob Number 555-16-1 Cone Number DDG1496 GPSHole Number CPT-04 Date and Time 5/20/2020 12:45:27 PM Maximum Depth 51.18 ftEST GW Depth During Test 5.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 7

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Cornerstone Earth Group
Project 880 Doolittle Drive Operator BH-GH Filename SDF(115).cptJob Number 555-16-1 Cone Number DDG1496 GPSHole Number CPT-05 Date and Time 5/19/2020 8:01:58 AM Maximum Depth 50.52 ftEST GW Depth During Test 3.70 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 7

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Cornerstone Earth Group
Project 880 Doolittle Drive Operator BH-GH Filename SDF(116).cptJob Number 555-16-1 Cone Number DDG1496 GPSHole Number CPT-06 Date and Time 5/19/2020 9:00:50 AM Maximum Depth 50.52 ftEST GW Depth During Test 6.75 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 7

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Cornerstone Earth Group
Project 880 Doolittle Drive Operator BH-GH Filename SDF(120).cptJob Number 555-16-1 Cone Number DDG1496 GPSHole Number CPT-07 Date and Time 5/19/2020 2:04:54 PM Maximum Depth 100.88 ftEST GW Depth During Test 5.60 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 7

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Cornerstone Earth Group
Project 880 Doolittle Drive Operator BH-GH Filename SDF(119).cptJob Number 555-16-1 Cone Number DDG1496 GPSHole Number CPT-08 Date and Time 5/19/2020 11:51:11 AM Maximum Depth 75.62 ftEST GW Depth During Test 5.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 7

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Cornerstone Earth Group
Project 880 Doolittle Drive Operator BH-GH Filename SDF(117).cptJob Number 555-16-1 Cone Number DDG1496 GPSHole Number CPT-09 Date and Time 5/19/2020 10:05:35 AM Maximum Depth 50.69 ftEST GW Depth During Test 5.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 7

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Cornerstone Earth Group
Project 880 Doolittle Drive Operator BH-GH Filename SDF(121).cptJob Number 555-16-1 Cone Number DDG1496 GPSHole Number CPT-10 Date and Time 5/20/2020 8:30:40 AM Maximum Depth 100.72 ftEST GW Depth During Test 5.50 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 7

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
CornerstoneEarthGroup
Depth 4.99ftRef*
Arrival 13.36mSVelocity*
Depth 10.01ftRef 4.99ft
Arrival 24.76mSVelocity 342.67ft/S
Depth 15.03ftRef 10.01ft
Arrival 33.51mSVelocity 518.44ft/S
Depth 20.77ftRef 15.03ft
Arrival 43.90mSVelocity 524.80ft/S
Depth 25.03ftRef 20.77ft
Arrival 50.54mSVelocity 622.28ft/S
Depth 30.02ftRef 25.03ft
Arrival 56.72mSVelocity 790.36ft/S
Depth 35.76ftRef 30.02ft
Arrival 64.37mSVelocity 738.35ft/S
Depth 40.03ftRef 35.76ft
Arrival 70.70mSVelocity 666.16ft/S
Depth 45.01ftRef 40.03ft
Arrival 76.87mSVelocity 800.53ft/S
Depth 50.03ftRef 45.01ft
Arrival 83.51mSVelocity 750.31ft/S
Depth 55.02ftRef 50.03ft
Arrival 89.92mSVelocity 773.72ft/S
Depth 60.04ftRef 55.02ft
Arrival 95.70mSVelocity 863.89ft/S
Depth 65.03ftRef 60.04ft
Arrival 100.31mSVelocity 1077.28ft/S
Depth 70.05ftRef 65.03ft
Arrival 105.54mSVelocity 955.48ft/S
Depth 75.03ftRef 70.05ft
Arrival 110.77mSVelocity 949.71ft/S
Depth 80.05ftRef 75.03ft
Arrival 115.85mSVelocity 985.77ft/S
Depth 85.04ftRef 80.05ft
Arrival 120.38mSVelocity 1097.88ft/S
Depth 90.06ftRef 85.04ft
Arrival 124.52mSVelocity 1209.70ft/S
Depth 95.05ftRef 90.06ft
Arrival 128.98mSVelocity 1117.71ft/S
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Depth 100.07ftRef 95.05ft
Arrival 134.05mSVelocity 986.79ft/S
Time (mS)
Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83
* = Not Determined
COMMENT:

CPT-01 880 Doolittle Drive

SEISMIC TEST
Depth 105.05ftRef 100.07ft
Arrival 139.29mSVelocity 951.24ft/S
Depth 110.07ftRef 105.05ft
Arrival 144.37mSVelocity 987.10ft/S
Depth 114.99ftRef 110.07ft
Arrival 149.29mSVelocity 998.60ft/S
Depth 119.98ftRef 114.99ft
Arrival 154.76mSVelocity 910.82ft/S
Depth 125.00ftRef 119.98ft
Arrival 160.30mSVelocity 903.99ft/S
Depth 130.02ftRef 125.00ft
Arrival 166.40mSVelocity 822.94ft/S
Depth 135.01ftRef 130.02ft
Arrival 169.36mSVelocity 1678.27ft/S
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Depth 140.03ftRef 135.01ft
Arrival 175.85mSVelocity 773.47ft/S
Time (mS)
Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83
* = Not Determined
COMMENT:

CPT-01 880 Doolittle Drive
CornerstoneEarthGroup
Depth 4.99ftRef*
Arrival 8.98mSVelocity*
Depth 10.01ftRef 4.99ft
Arrival 20.94mSVelocity 326.99ft/S
Depth 15.03ftRef 10.01ft
Arrival 29.30mSVelocity 542.67ft/S
Depth 20.01ftRef 15.03ft
Arrival 35.31mSVelocity 785.86ft/S
Depth 25.03ftRef 20.01ft
Arrival 44.61mSVelocity 522.53ft/S
Depth 30.02ftRef 25.03ft
Arrival 50.47mSVelocity 832.51ft/S
Depth 35.01ftRef 30.02ft
Arrival 57.81mSVelocity 668.37ft/S
Depth 40.03ftRef 35.01ft
Arrival 65.07mSVelocity 682.69ft/S
Depth 45.01ftRef 40.03ft
Arrival 68.67mSVelocity 1374.82ft/S
Depth 50.03ftRef 45.01ft
Arrival 76.48mSVelocity 637.76ft/S
Depth 55.02ftRef 50.03ft
Arrival 82.26mSVelocity 857.37ft/S
Depth 60.04ftRef 55.02ft
Arrival 88.04mSVelocity 863.89ft/S
Depth 65.03ftRef 60.04ft
Arrival 92.88mSVelocity 1025.16ft/S
Depth 70.05ftRef 65.03ft
Arrival 97.81mSVelocity 1016.15ft/S
Depth 75.03ftRef 70.05ft
Arrival 103.27mSVelocity 909.01ft/S
Depth 80.05ftRef 75.03ft
Arrival 107.26mSVelocity 1256.37ft/S
Depth 85.04ftRef 80.05ft
Arrival 113.35mSVelocity 816.37ft/S
Depth 90.06ftRef 85.04ft
Arrival 116.01mSVelocity 1885.70ft/S
Depth 95.05ftRef 90.06ft
Arrival 119.91mSVelocity 1274.19ft/S
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Depth 100.07ftRef 95.05ft
Arrival 124.60mSVelocity 1069.02ft/S
Time (mS)
Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83
* = Not Determined
COMMENT:

CPT-10 880 Doolittle Drive

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
555-16-1
Page B-1
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM
The laboratory testing program was performed to evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of the soils retrieved from the site to aid in verifying soil classification.

Moisture Content: The natural water content was determined (ASTM D2216) on 89 samples of the materials recovered from the borings. These water contents are recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths.

Dry Densities: In place dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on 80 samples to measure the unit weight of the subsurface soils. Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths.

Washed Sieve Analyses: The percent soil fraction passing the No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140) was determined on 10 samples of the subsurface soils to aid in the classification of these soils.

Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths.

Plasticity Index: Five Plasticity Index determinations (ASTM D4318) were performed on samples of the subsurface soils to measure the range of water contents over which the material exhibits plasticity. The Plasticity Index was used to classify the soil in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and to evaluate the soil expansion potential. Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths.

Undrained-Unconsolidated Triaxial Shear Strength: The undrained shear strength was determined on three relatively undisturbed sample(s) by unconsolidated-undrained triaxial shear strength testing (ASTM D2850). The results of this test are included as part of this appendix.

Consolidation: Two consolidation tests (ASTM D2435) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface clayey soils to assist in evaluating the compressibility property of this soil. Results of the consolidation tests are presented graphically in this appendix.

Doolittle Drive Warehouse
San Leandro, CA
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
555-16-1
Figure B1
June 2020 FLL
Plasticity Index Testing Summary
60 0
10 20
30 40
50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CL ML - OL ML or
OH MH or
CH
CL
Pla
sticity In
d
e
x (%)
Liquid Limit (%)
Group Name ( - D2487) USCS ASTM Boring No.

S
y
m
b
ol
Depth
(ft)
Natural
Water
Content
(%)
Liquid
Limit
(%)
Plastic
Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index
Passing
No. 200
(%)
“A” line
Plasticity Index ( D4318) Testing Summary ASTM
EB-2 52 1.5 33 19 33 — Fat Clay ) (CH
EB-2 21 5.0 31 20 16 5 Silty Clayey Sand (SC-SM)(CL-ML fines) EB-2 39 15.5 38 28 16 23 Clayey Sand (SC) (CL fines)
EB-4 25 4.5 38 18 15 10 Clayey Sand (SC) (CL fines)
EB-4 29 15.0 49 22 13 16 Clayey Sand (SC) (CL fines)
Samples prepared in accordance with ASTM D421
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
FLL
Strain-Log Curve - EB-8 @ 9.5’
Consolidation Test ASTM D2435
Boring:_______ Sample:______ Depth:_______
Description:____________________________
EB-8 5 9.5’
Lean Clay (CL)
Figure B3 Doolittle Drive Warehouse
San Leandro, CA
555-16-1
June 2020
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
FLL
Strain-Log Curve - EB-8 @ 9.5’
Consolidation Test ASTM D2435
Boring:_______ Sample:______ Depth:_______
Description:____________________________
EB-8 5 9.5’
Lean Clay (CL)
Figure B3 880 Doolittle Drive Warehouse
San Leandro, CA
555-16-1
June 2020
Cooper Testing Labs, Inc.
937 Commercial Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303
1 2 3 4
Moisture % 16.4 33.4 35.7
Dry Den,pcf 109.2 89.2 86.6
Void Ratio 0.572 0.924 0.982
Saturation % 79.1 99.6 99.8
Height in 5.01 5.00 4.99
Diameter in 2.38 2.40 2.42
Cell psi 2.4 3.6 4.1
Strain % 15.00 15.00 15.00
Deviator, ksf 2.128 1.062 1.173
Rate %/min 1.00 1.00 1.00
in/min 0.050 0.050 0.050
Job No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring: EB-2 EB-8 EB-11
Sample: 2C 4C 4A
Depth ft: 4.5 7.0 9.0
Sample #
1 2
3 4
Olive Gray Sandy CLAY
Note: Strengths are picked at the peak deviator stress or 15% strain which ever occurs first per ASTM D2850.

Remarks:

Sample Data
Visual Soil Description
Dark Brown Sandy CLAY w/ Gravel
Olive Brown CLAY w/ Sand
640-1407
Cornerstone Earth Group
555-16-1

0.0 2.0

4.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Shear Stress, ksf
Total Normal Stress, ksf

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0
Deviator Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Stress-Strain Curves
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test
ASTM D2850

DOOLITTLE DRIVE WAREHOUSE
555-16-1 Page C-1
APPENDIX C: LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES CALCULATIONS
1 0.89 Total Settlement: 0.36 (Inches)
© 2014 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Depth (ft) qc (tsf) fs (tsf) svc (psf) Insitu s'vc (psf) Q F (%) Ic Layer "Plastic" PI > 7 Flag Soil Type Fines (%) qcN near interfaces (soft layer) Thin Layer Factor (KH) Interpreted qcN CN qc1N qc1N-CS Stress Reduction Coeff, rd CSR Ks for Sand CRRM=7.5, s'vc = 1 atm CRR Factor of Safety (CRR/CSR) Vertical Strain ev Settlement (Inches)

0.160 596.210 0.790 19.2 19.2 5915.804 0.132 0.46 Unsaturated 0.0 563.53 1.70 957.99 957.99 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.000.330 446.020 1.042 39.6 39.6 3081.482 0.234 0.59 Unsaturated 0.0 421.57 1.70 716.67 716.67 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.000.490 351.020 0.943 58.8 58.8 1990.119 0.269 0.67 Unsaturated 0.0 331.78 1.70 564.02 564.02 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.000.660 249.060 1.042 79.2 79.2 1216.591 0.418 0.93 Unsaturated 0.0 235.41 1.70 400.19 400.19 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.000.820 215.720 0.800 98.4 98.4 945.292 0.371 0.93 Unsaturated 0.0 203.89 1.70 346.62 346.62 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.000.980 168.570 0.857 117.6 117.6 675.612 0.508 1.13 Unsaturated 0.0 159.33 1.70 270.86 270.86 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.001.150 89.050 0.989 138.0 138.0 329.329 1.111 1.58 Unsaturated 0.0 84.17 1.70 143.09 143.09 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.001.310 54.570 0.996 157.2 157.2 188.962 1.827 1.90 Unsaturated 15.2 51.58 1.70 87.68 110.34 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.001.480 29.750 0.948 177.6 177.6 96.770 3.196 2.28 Unsaturated 45.0 28.12 1.70 47.80 104.17 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.001.640 18.570 0.777 196.8 196.8 57.249 4.204 2.52 Unsaturated 64.3 17.55 1.70 29.84 87.96 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.001.800 13.870 0.603 216.0 216.0 64.260 4.382 2.50 Unsaturated 62.7 13.11 1.70 22.29 77.89 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.001.970 11.580 0.522 236.4 236.4 50.243 4.553 2.58 Unsaturated 69.4 10.95 1.70 18.61 74.54 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.002.130 10.620 0.518 255.6 255.6 43.546 4.932 2.65 Unsaturated 74.8 10.04 1.70 17.06 73.45 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.002.300 10.340 0.642 276.0 276.0 40.126 6.289 2.75 Unsaturated 82.9 9.77 1.70 16.61 73.98 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.002.460 9.720 0.738 295.2 295.2 64.854 7.704 2.68 Unsaturated 77.5 9.19 1.70 15.62 71.97 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.002.620 9.360 0.786 314.4 314.4 58.542 8.541 2.74 Unsaturated 82.5 8.85 1.70 15.04 71.88 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.002.790 9.150 0.788 334.8 334.8 53.659 8.776 2.78 Unsaturated 85.1 8.65 1.70 14.70 71.75 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.002.950 9.620 0.823 354.0 354.0 53.350 8.714 2.78 Unsaturated 85.1 9.09 1.70 15.46 72.73 1.00 0.579 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.003.120 12.340 0.881 374.4 374.4 64.919 7.250 2.66 Unsaturated 75.8 11.66 1.70 19.83 77.18 1.00 0.578 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.003.280 14.370 0.897 393.6 393.6 43.482 6.327 2.73 Unsaturated 81.2 13.58 1.70 23.09 82.19 1.00 0.578 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.003.440 17.990 0.928 412.8 412.8 52.769 5.219 2.61 Unsaturated 71.7 17.00 1.70 28.91 88.26 1.00 0.578 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.003.610 18.370 0.935 433.2 433.2 52.078 5.150 2.61 Unsaturated 71.7 17.36 1.70 29.52 89.05 1.00 0.578 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.003.770 18.050 0.895 452.4 452.4 49.603 5.022 2.62 Unsaturated 72.2 17.06 1.70 29.00 88.47 1.00 0.578 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.003.940 18.150 0.850 472.8 472.8 48.337 4.743 2.60 Unsaturated 71.4 17.16 1.70 29.16 88.53 1.00 0.577 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.004.100 18.120 0.781 492.0 492.0 46.905 4.370 2.59 Unsaturated 70.0 17.13 1.70 29.12 88.22 1.00 0.577 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.004.270 16.500 0.729 512.4 512.4 41.432 4.485 2.63 Unsaturated 73.7 15.60 1.70 26.51 85.50 1.00 0.577 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.004.430 14.500 0.656 531.6 531.6 35.383 4.609 2.69 Unsaturated 78.2 13.71 1.70 23.30 82.04 1.00 0.577 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.004.590 13.110 0.409 550.8 550.8 31.122 3.186 2.62 Unsaturated 72.8 12.39 1.70 21.07 78.31 1.00 0.576 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.004.760 12.170 0.564 571.2 571.2 41.612 4.747 2.65 Unsaturated 75.0 11.50 1.70 19.55 76.70 1.00 0.576 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.004.920 11.720 0.532 590.4 590.4 38.702 4.656 2.67 Unsaturated 76.3 11.08 1.70 18.83 75.96 1.00 0.576 1.100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.005.090 9.460 0.457 610.8 610.8 29.976 4.993 2.77 Clay 84.3 8.94 1.39 n.a. n.a. 1.00 0.581 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.005.250 12.220 0.403 630.0 630.0 26.276 3.382 2.70 plastic Clay 78.6 11.55 1.38 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.590 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.005.410 12.610 0.537 649.2 649.2 37.848 4.372 2.65 Clay 75.3 11.92 1.37 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.599 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.005.580 15.500 0.642 669.6 669.6 32.074 4.231 2.70 plastic Clay 78.6 14.65 1.35 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.608 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.005.740 17.640 0.834 688.8 688.8 35.863 4.824 2.70 plastic Clay 79.0 16.67 1.34 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.616 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.005.910 14.450 0.874 709.2 709.2 39.750 6.203 2.75 Clay 82.8 13.66 1.33 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.625 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.006.070 14.530 0.890 728.4 728.4 38.896 6.283 2.76 Clay 83.7 13.73 1.32 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.632 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.006.230 14.270 0.876 747.6 747.6 37.175 6.306 2.77 Clay 84.8 13.49 1.32 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.640 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.006.400 14.210 0.813 768.0 768.0 36.005 5.881 2.76 Clay 83.8 13.43 1.31 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.648 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.006.560 13.570 0.751 787.2 787.2 33.477 5.701 2.77 Clay 84.8 12.83 1.30 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.655 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.006.730 13.050 0.750 807.6 807.6 31.318 5.928 2.81 Clay 87.4 12.33 1.29 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.662 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.006.890 13.330 0.820 826.8 826.8 31.245 6.349 2.83 Clay 89.2 12.60 1.28 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.669 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.007.050 14.130 0.932 846.0 846.0 32.404 6.796 2.84 Clay 90.0 13.36 1.27 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.675 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.007.220 14.540 0.952 866.4 866.4 32.564 6.751 2.83 Clay 89.7 13.74 1.27 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.682 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.007.380 14.220 0.948 885.6 885.6 31.114 6.877 2.85 Clay 91.3 13.44 1.26 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.688 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.007.550 13.600 0.908 906.0 906.0 29.022 6.910 2.88 Clay 93.1 12.85 1.25 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.694 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.007.710 12.990 0.867 925.2 925.2 27.080 6.921 2.90 Clay 94.8 12.28 1.24 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.700 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.007.870 12.450 0.828 944.4 944.4 25.366 6.911 2.92 Clay 96.4 11.77 1.24 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.706 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.008.040 12.110 0.766 964.8 964.8 24.104 6.588 2.92 Clay 96.5 11.45 1.23 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.711 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.008.200 11.900 0.731 984.0 984.0 23.187 6.403 2.92 Clay 96.7 11.25 1.22 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.717 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.008.370 12.050 0.739 1004.4 1004.4 22.994 6.400 2.92 Clay 96.9 11.39 1.22 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.722 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.008.530 12.330 0.773 1023.6 1023.6 23.091 6.542 2.93 Clay 97.4 11.65 1.21 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.727 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.008.690 12.960 0.794 1042.8 1042.8 23.856 6.387 2.91 Clay 96.0 12.25 1.21 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.732 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.008.860 13.220 0.760 1063.2 1063.2 23.868 5.986 2.89 Clay 94.4 12.50 1.20 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.737 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.009.020 13.210 0.747 1082.4 1082.4 23.409 5.897 2.89 Clay 94.5 12.49 1.19 n.a. n.a. 0.99 0.742 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.009.190 12.980 0.756 1102.8 1102.8 22.540 6.079 2.91 Clay 96.2 12.27 1.19 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.747 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.009.350 13.290 0.775 1122.0 1122.0 22.690 6.092 2.91 Clay 96.1 12.56 1.18 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.751 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.009.510 13.660 0.793 1141.2 1141.2 22.940 6.055 2.91 Clay 95.7 12.91 1.18 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.756 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.009.680 13.990 0.851 1161.6 1161.6 23.087 6.345 2.92 Clay 96.6 13.22 1.17 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.760 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.009.840 14.310 0.850 1180.8 1180.8 23.238 6.194 2.91 Clay 95.9 13.53 1.17 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.764 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.00

10.010 14.310 0.810 1201.2 1201.2 22.826 5.907 2.90 Clay 95.2 13.53 1.16 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.768 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.0010.170 14.190 0.788 1220.4 1220.4 22.255 5.805 2.91 Clay 95.4 13.41 1.16 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.772 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.0010.330 13.930 0.790 1239.6 1239.6 21.475 5.935 2.92 Clay 96.9 13.17 1.15 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.776 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.0010.500 14.610 0.737 1260.0 1260.0 22.190 5.271 2.88 Clay 93.2 13.81 1.15 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.780 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.0010.660 15.200 0.765 1279.2 1279.2 22.765 5.251 2.87 Clay 92.5 14.37 1.14 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.784 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.0010.830 15.910 0.810 1299.6 1299.6 23.484 5.305 2.86 Clay 91.9 15.04 1.14 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.788 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.0010.990 16.120 0.853 1318.8 1318.8 23.446 5.517 2.87 Clay 92.9 15.24 1.13 n.a. n.a. 0.98 0.791 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.00 CPT No. PGA (Amax)

Page 1 ends

San Leandro City CouncilMay 5, 2025

San Leandro City Council
May 5, 2025