P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: a. County: Kings County ☒ Not for Publication ☐ Unrestricted b. USGS 7.5′ Quad:Hanford, CA Date: 1950, photorev.1954 T 18S, R 21E; SW ¼ of NE ¼ of Sec. 35 MD B.M. c. Address: n/a
d. UTM: NAD 83, Zone 11; 261204 mE / 4022976 mN
e. Other Locational Data: From the intersection of 11th Street and West Lacey Blvd. in Hanford, drive west for
0.4 miles on West Lacey Blvd. Turn left (south) on Campus Drive and proceed for 0.4 miles. At this point the road terminates. The site is at 88° at 357 meters (northwest corner of site) in a vacant lot north of State Route 198. *P3a. Description: The site is a broad historical refuse scatter extending across 6 acres. It consists of domestic refuse, including, but not limited to, window glass of various colors, broken bottles, ceramic fragments, insulators, wood fragments, bricks, river cobbles with cement mortar attached, heavy metal pipe fragments, miscellaneous metal fragments, a toy marble, and a bottle base fragment showing possible pressure flaking along one edge. The scatter is most dense within the northwest corner of the site. A diffuse scatter of isolated artifacts extends beyond this concentration to the south and east site boundaries. A slight topographic rise is present along the entire northern boundary, which is elevated 2 feet high and then levels off. A total of 12 diagnostic artifacts were observed and recorded. Although not formally dated, the artifacts appear to be from the first half of the twentieth century. A 1937 aerial photograph depicts a residence in the site location (Fresno County, California, Aerial Survey 1937 13-ABJ 67-78, http:// cdmweb.lib.csufresno.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/aerial/id/1178). *P3b. Resource Attributes: AH.4
*P4. Resources Present: ☐ Building ☐ Structure ☐ Object ☒ Site ☐ District ☐ Element of District ☐ Other:
*P5a. Photograph or Drawing:
P5b. Description of Photo: View of site
from the northeast corner, looking
west.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
☐ Prehistoric ☒ Historic ☐ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
The Hanford Group
c/o Epic Management Group,
Inc. 44045 Margarita Road,
Suite #100 Temecula, CA 92592
*P8. Recorded By: Ward Stanley
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711
*P9. Date Recorded: 5/23/2020
*P10. Survey Type: ☒ Intensive
☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Other
Describe: Pedestrian survey at 15-meter
interval transects.
*P11. Report Citation: Dyste, Diana T., Jessica Jones, Dennis McDougall, Ward Stanley, and Carlos van Onna 2020 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project in the City of Hanford, Kings County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California. Prepared for The Hanford Group, c/o Epic Management Group, Inc., Temecula, California. *Attachments: ☐ NONE ☒ Location Map ☐ Sketch Map ☐ Continuation Sheet ☐ Building, Structure, ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record and Object Record ☐ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☐ Other (list):
State of California The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
TRUE NORTH
1 0.5 0 1
Miles
1 0.5 0 1
Kilometers
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Feet
Resource Name or #: AE-4167-01 Scale: 1:24,000
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
Map Name: Hanford, CA, USGS 7.5' quadrangle Date: 1950 (1954) AE-4167-01
SCALE1:24,000
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: a. County: Kings County ☒ Not for Publication ☐ Unrestricted b. USGS 7.5′ Quad: Hanford, CA Date: 1950, photorev. 1954 T 18S, R 21E; SW ¼ of NE ¼ of Sec. 35 MD B.M. c. Address: N/A
d. UTM: NAD 83, Zone 11; 2610931 mE / 4022861 mN
e. Other Locational Data: From the intersection of 11th Street and West Lacey Blvd. in Hanford, drive west for
0.4 miles on West Lacey Blvd. Turn left (south) on Campus Drive and proceed for 0.4 miles. At this point the road terminates and the isolated find was located 141° at 146 meters from this point. *P3a. Description: The isolated artifact is an aqua blue glass insulator fragment. The insulator was found on the ground surface east of the Peoples Canal. The artifact was collected.
*P3b. Resource Attributes:
*P4. Resources Present: ☐ Building ☐ Structure ☐ Object ☐ Site ☐ District ☐ Element of District ☒ Other: Isolate *P5a. Photograph or Drawing:
P5b. Description of Photo: Fragmented
aqua blue glass insulator.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
☐ Prehistoric ☒ Historic ☐ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
The Hanford Group
c/o Epic Management Group, Inc.
44045 Margarita Road, Suite #100
Temecula, CA 92592
*P8. Recorded By: Ward Stanley
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711
*P9. Date Recorded: 5/23/2020
*P10. Survey Type: ☒ Intensive
☐ Reconnaissance ☐ Other
Describe: Pedestrian survey at 15-meter
interval transects.
*P11. Report Citation: Dyste, Diana T., Jessica Jones, Dennis McDougall, Ward Stanley, and Carlos van Onna 2020 Cultural Resource Inventory for the Hanford Place Medical and Mixed-Use Property Project in the City of Hanford, Kings County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California. Prepared for The Hanford Group, c/o Epic Management Group, Inc., Temecula, California. *Attachments: ☐ NONE ☒ Location Map ☐ Sketch Map ☐ Continuation Sheet ☐ Building, Structure, ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record and Object Record ☐ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☐ Other (list):
State of California The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
TRUE NORTH
1 0.5 0 1
Miles
1 0.5 0 1
Kilometers
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Feet
Resource Name or #: AE-4167-ISO-01 Scale: 1:24,000
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
Map Name: Hanford, CA, USGS 7.5' quadrangle Date: 1950 (1954) AE-4167-ISO-01
SCALE1:24,000
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) D-1
APPENDIX D
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND GEOLOGIC AND
SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION REPORT
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
D P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -2 This page intentionally left blank
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 1 of 2 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 121 Heron Way, Suite D, Merced, CA, 95340 p | 209.384.7552 f | 209.384.8218 June 9, 2020
Kleinfelder Project No.: 20210045.001A
Mr. Burley Wright
Vice President, Development
Epic Management Group, Inc.
44045 Margarita Rd., Suite 100
Temecula, California 92592
Direct: (951) 746-0012
Office: (951) 331-3583
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and
Geologic and Seismic Hazards Evaluation Report
Propose Hanford Place, Medical and Mixed-Use Property
Hanford, California
Dear Mr. Wright,
The attached report presents the results of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic and Seismic Hazards Evaluation performed for the proposed Hanford Place, Medical and MixedUse Property to be located in Hanford, California. The report describes the study, findings, conclusions and recommendations for use in project design.
The primary concern for development of the site is presence of compressible soils residing in the upper approximately 10 feet of native soils across the project site. These soils are subject to hydrocompaction, which is a common soil condition in the Hanford area. Hydrocompactive soil has a loose skeletal structure, which is weakly cemented by soluble salts and/or minor amounts of clay. Increases in soil moisture reduce the interparticle cementation (dry strength) of the soil resulting in a decrease in the volume of the soil structure. This condition can lead to post construction settlement of structures if soils subsequently become wetted. At the present moisture content, the on-site natural soil has sufficient strength to support the proposed preliminary improvements. However, should the soil be subject to post-construction moisture increases, moderate soil compression will likely occur below structures and related site improvements.
The effects of hydrocompactive soil can be mitigated through earthwork excavation and recompaction of the soils. Disposal of the soils is not necessary. From a development perspective, the efforts associated with the additional earthwork to mitigate the hydrocompactive soils will increase site development costs.
Kleinfelder considered an alternative option to mitigate against the settlement of the structures due to hydrocompaction, which involved the use of deep foundation systems (such as drilled pier foundations, auger cast piles, underpinning piers, etc.). However, supporting building structures on deepened foundation systems does not mitigate the occurrence of liquefaction and therefore, would invariably require the use of grade beams and structural slabs in addition to deepened foundations. The deepened foundations, grade beams, and structural would likely be cost
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 2 of 2 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 121 Heron Way, Suite D, Merced, CA, 95340 p | 209.384.7552 f | 209.384.8218 prohibitive as compared to conventional grading techniques and therefore was excluded deep foundations as an option.
Kleinfelder appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering and geologic services to Epic Management Group, Inc. during the design phase of this project. If there are any questions concerning the information presented in this report, please contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
KLEINFELDER, INC.
Adam AhTye, PE James A. Wetenkamp, CEG #2556
Project Engineer Project Engineering Geologist
Stephen P. Plauson, PE, GE
Principle Geotechnical Engineer
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page i of v June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
AND GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
EVALUATION REPORT
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE, MEDICAL AND
MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
KLEINFELDER PROJECT NO. 20190494.001A
JUNE 9, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
All Rights Reserved
ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page ii of v June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Prepared For:
Epic Management Group, Inc.
44045 Margarita Rd., Suite 100
Temecula, California 92592
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND
GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION REPORT
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE, MEDICAL AND MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
Adam AhTye, PE
Project Engineer
Stephen P. Plauson, PE, GE
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
James A. Wetenkamp, PG, CEG #2556
Project Engineering Geologist
KLEINFELDER, INC.
3731 W. Ashcroft Avenue
Fresno, California 93722
Phone: 559.486.0750
Fax: 559.442.5081
June 9, 2020
Kleinfelder Project No.: 20190494.001A
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page iii of v June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .............................................................. 2 2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................. 5
2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION .......................................................................................... 5
2.2 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................. 5 3 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 7
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 7
3.2 EARTH MATERIALS ............................................................................................. 7
3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 8 4 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 9
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 9
4.2 AREA AND SITE GEOLOGY ................................................................................ 9
4.3 FAULTS LOCAL TO THE PROPOSED SITE ..................................................... 10
4.4 SIGNIFICANT FAULTS ....................................................................................... 10
4.5 HISTORICAL SEISMICITY.................................................................................. 11
4.6 SOIL SITE CLASS .............................................................................................. 12
4.7 POTENTIAL SEISMIC HAZARDS....................................................................... 14
4.7.1 Surface Fault Rupture.............................................................................. 14
4.7.2 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement ....................................................... 14
4.7.3 Lateral Spreading .................................................................................... 15
4.7.4 Dynamic Compaction ............................................................................... 16
4.7.5 Cyclic Softening ....................................................................................... 16
4.8 POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................. 16
4.8.1 Flooding ................................................................................................... 16
4.8.1.1 Tsunamis, Seiches, Earthquake Induced Flooding .......... 16
4.8.1.2 Potential for Dam Failure ................................................. 17
4.8.1.3 Flood Insurance Rate Maps ............................................. 17
4.8.2 Expansive Soils ....................................................................................... 17
4.8.3 Hydrocompaction (Soil Collapse) ............................................................ 17
4.8.4 Corrosive Soils......................................................................................... 18
4.8.5 Regional Subsidence ............................................................................... 18
4.8.6 Naturally-Occurring Asbestos .................................................................. 18
4.9 RADON GAS ....................................................................................................... 19 5 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................ 20
5.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................... 20
5.2 HYDROCOMPACTION ....................................................................................... 20
5.3 SITE PREPARATION .......................................................................................... 22
5.3.1 Stripping .................................................................................................. 22
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page iv of v June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
5.3.2 Disturbed Soil, Undocumented Fill, and Subsurface Obstructions .......... 22
5.3.3 Over-excavation and Scarification ........................................................... 23
5.4 ENGINEERED FILL ............................................................................................ 24
5.4.1 Materials .................................................................................................. 24
5.4.2 Benching .................................................................................................. 25
5.4.3 Compaction Criteria ................................................................................. 26
5.4.4 Construction Considerations .................................................................... 26
5.5 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS ........................................................................... 27
5.5.1 General .................................................................................................... 27
5.5.2 Excavations and Slopes .......................................................................... 27
5.5.3 Construction Considerations .................................................................... 27
5.6 PIPELINE AND TRENCH BACKFILL .................................................................. 28
5.6.1 Materials .................................................................................................. 28
5.6.2 Compaction Criteria ................................................................................. 28
5.6.3 Pipeline Thrust ......................................................................................... 29
5.7 ESTIMATED VOLUME LOSS ............................................................................. 30 6 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 31
6.1 SPREAD FOUNDATIONS .................................................................................. 31
6.1.1 General .................................................................................................... 31
6.1.2 Allowable Vertical Bearing Pressures and Settlements ........................... 31
6.1.3 Lateral Resistance ................................................................................... 32
6.2 EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES .................................................................. 33
6.3 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE ....................................................................... 34
6.3.1 Subgrade Preparation.............................................................................. 34
6.3.2 Capillary and Moisture/Vapor Break ........................................................ 34
6.3.3 Conventional Slab Design ....................................................................... 35
6.4 PIER/POLE FOUNDATIONS .............................................................................. 35
6.4.1 Allowable Vertical Axial Capacity and Settlement ................................... 35
6.4.2 Lateral Resistance ................................................................................... 36
6.4.3 Design and Construction Considerations ................................................ 37
6.5 PAVEMENT DESIGN .......................................................................................... 37
6.5.1 General .................................................................................................... 37
6.5.2 Flexible Pavement ................................................................................... 38
6.5.3 Moisture Considerations .......................................................................... 39
6.5.4 Construction Considerations .................................................................... 40
6.5.5 Construction Observation and Testing .................................................... 40
6.6 CORROSION POTENTIAL ................................................................................. 40
6.7 SITE DRAINAGE ................................................................................................. 42
6.7.1 General .................................................................................................... 42
6.7.2 On-Site Infiltration Basin .......................................................................... 43 7 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................................................................... 44
7.1 ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATIONS .............................................. 44
7.2 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW .......................................................... 44
7.3 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ........................................... 44 8 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 45 9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 46
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page v of v June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURES
1 Site Vicinity Map
2 Exploration Location Map
3 Site Plan and Geology Map
4 Area Geology Map
5 Regional Geology Map
6 Cross Section A-A’
7 Cross Section B-B’
8 Regional Fault Map And Earthquake Epicenters
9 Fema Flood Map
10 Dam Inundation Map
APPENDICES
A Boring Logs
B Laboratory Results
C Liqefaction Analysis
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 1 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
1 INTRODUCTION
___________________________________________________________________________________
1.1 GENERAL
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation and geologic and seismic hazards evaluation for the proposed Hanford Place medical and mixed-use property to be located in Hanford, California. The purpose of the investigation was to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site, identify and assess potential geologic hazards, and develop preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations to aid in project design. The Site Vicinity Map, presented on Figure 1, shows the location of the project and the Exploration Location Map, presented on Figure 2, shows the approximate boring locations.
This report includes preliminary recommendations related to the geotechnical and geologic aspects of project design. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as the provisions and requirements outlined in the “Additional Services” and “Limitations” Sections of this report.
Recommendations presented herein should not be extrapolated to other areas or used for other projects without prior review.
1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
An understanding of the project is based on an email correspondence with representatives of the developer’s design team, Zumwalt-Hansen and Associates (Zumwalt) and Epic Management Group, and a conceptual site plan of the proposed building locations. It is understood that approximately 43 acres of undeveloped land are part of a preliminary plan for development of a medical and mixed-use facilities project.
The development is anticipated to include multi-story (up to 4-story) care and treatment facilities, multifamily residential, a hospitality/conference center, 1 to 2 story medical offices and retail buildings, and a storm water infiltration basin. The structures are anticipated to consist of wood, steel, or concrete structures supported on shallow spread foundations and concrete slab-ongrade floors. For the preliminary study, maximum wall and column loads are assumed to be less than 5 kips per foot and 200 kips, respectively.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 2 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Appurtenant improvements are anticipated to include off-site asphalt concrete pavements, on-site asphalt and Portland cement concrete pavements, underground utilities, sound walls, hardscape, and landscaping. It is assumed that other improvements may include covered parking and storm water basins. Grading plans were not available at the time of this proposal. However, cuts and fills of up to 3 feet in vertical extent are anticipated to create parking/pad grades and positive site drainage. The infiltration basin is anticipated to be a depth of approx. 15 feet.
The project scope also includes relocating the existing open-cut Peoples Ditch to an underground reinforced concrete pipe. Th exiting ditch is approx. 3.5 deep, measured from the original ground, with approx. 2.5-foot tall embankments. The proposed pipe is anticipated to be a diameter of 5.5 feet and maintain the existing alignment.
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to explore the site subsurface conditions and develop recommendations and professional opinions to assist in project design. The scope of our services was outlined in Kleinfelder’s proposal dated May 21, 2019 and included the following:
• A description of the proposed project, including a vicinity map showing the location of the site, a site plan showing the locations of the exploration points for this study, and a geologic cross-section
• A description of the site surface and subsurface conditions encountered during the field investigation, including boring logs
• A summary of the field exploration and laboratory testing program • Comments on depth to groundwater and potential impact on design and construction • Recommendations for site preparation and earthwork grading, including a discussion concerning the use of on-site soils for engineered fill • Recommendations for conventional foundation design, including available bearing capacity of foundation soil for sustained and total combined loading and estimated settlement
• Recommendations for frictional coefficient and passive pressure for resistance of lateral loads
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 3 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
• Recommendations to aid in design of concrete slabs-on-grade, including modulus of subgrade reaction
• Recommendations for earth retaining structures
• Recommendations to aid in design of pier/pole foundations for miscellaneous sign, light, and canopy structures
• Recommendations for asphalt and Portland cement concrete pavement sections paced on a range of truck traffic indexes
• Discussion of the general corrosion characteristics of the site soils, and • Comments to aid in the design of site drainage.
The purpose of the geologic and seismic hazards assessment is to identify and assess potential geologic and seismic hazards at the site. We understand that the facility does not fall under the jurisdiction of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD); however, to meet the standard of care for medical facilities this report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements for such studies set forth by the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act of 1986 and defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2019 California Building Code (CBC) using guidelines outlined by the California Geological Survey (CGS). In addition to these documents, this report is prepared in accordance with the guidelines established in the following documents:
• CGS Note 48 (Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings), • CGS Note 44 (Recommended Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geologic Reports), • CGS Note 42 (Guidelines to Geologic/Seismic Reports), • CGS Special Publication 42 (Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California), • CGS Note 41 (Guidelines for Reviewing Geologic Reports), and • CGS Special Publication 117A (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California).
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 4 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The geologic and seismic hazards evaluation includes the following items:
• Research and review of pertinent geologic, geotechnical, and seismologic publications and maps covering the site and vicinity in Kleinfelder’s library; • Evaluation of geologic conditions including the results of the boring and laboratory testing of soil samples completed during the geotechnical investigation; • Estimate of Site Class per Table 1613A.5.2 of 2019 CBC; • Provide seismic design parameters per Chapter 1613A of 2019 CBC; • Conclusions regarding fault rupture, ground accelerations, and ground failure potential; • Conclusions regarding the potential for liquefaction, seismic settlement and compaction, flooding, tsunamis, seiches, seismically induced landsliding, lurching and lateral spreading; and
• Preparation of this written report for the site with conclusions and recommendations as required regarding geologic and seismic hazards.
The references reviewed for compilation of this report are listed in the “References” section of this report. Observations and conclusions presented herein specifically exclude the assessment of environmental characteristics, particularly those involving hazardous substances.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 5 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
___________________________________________________________________________________
2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration, conducted on April 20 and 21, 2020 consisted of drilling nine (9) exploratory test borings. The test borings were drilled with a CME-75 truck-mounted drill rig utilizing hollow stem auger techniques. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 16.5 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Additionally, seven (7) bulk samples of the near surface soils in areas of proposed pavements were collected for R-value testing. The approximate locations of the test borings and R-values are indicated on the Exploration Location Map, Figure 2.
The soils encountered in the borings were visually classified in the field and a continuous log was recorded. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected from the test borings at selected depths by driving a 2.5-inch I.D. split barrel sampler containing brass liners into the undisturbed soil with a 140-pound automatic hammer free falling a distance of 30 inches and having an energy efficiency rating of 89 percent. In addition, samples of the subsurface material were obtained using a 1.5-inch I.D. standard penetrometer, driven 18 inches in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1586 test procedures. The sampler was used without liners. Resistance to sampler penetration was noted on the boring logs as the number of blows per foot over the last 12 inches of sampler penetration. The blow counts listed in the boring logs have not been corrected for the effects of overburden pressure, rod length, sampler size, or hammer efficiency. Bulk samples were also obtained from auger cuttings at one boring location.
2.2 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING
Penetration rates, determined in general accordance with ASTM D1586, were used to aid in evaluating the consistency, relative density, compression and strength characteristics of the foundation soils. Extensive experience in the central and southern San Joaquin Valley has shown correlations and design methodologies utilizing the standard penetration test (SPT) data best defines performance in the local unsaturated soil.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples to evaluate certain physical characteristics.
The following laboratory tests were used to develop the design geotechnical parameters:
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 6 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
• Unit weight (ASTM D2937)
• Moisture content (ASTM D2216)
• Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than the No. 200 Sieve (ASTM D1140) • Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)
• Collapse Potential (ASTM D5333)
• Direct Shear (ASTM 3080)
• Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557)
• Soluble Sulfate Content (California Test Method No. 417) • Soluble Chloride Content (California Test Method No. 422) • pH and Minimum Resistivity (California Test Method No. 532) • R-Value (ASTM D2844)
The dry density and moisture content test results are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A.
The soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, pH and minimum resistivity are discussed in the “Corrosion Potential” section (Section 6.7). The remaining test results are provided in Appendix B.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 7 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
3 SITE CONDITIONS
___________________________________________________________________________________
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The project site consists of approximately 43 acres of undeveloped land located between 11th and 12 th Avenues, and Highway 198 and Union Pacific railroad tracks. The western approx. third and eastern approx. two thirds of the site are currently divided by Peoples Ditch, an open-cut canal traversing the site. It is understood that the People’s Ditch is anticipated to be converted to an underground reinforced concrete pipe within the project limits. Based on Google Earth imagery, it appears Peoples Ditch traversed the site along the western boundary of the project site. This alignment was abandoned circa early- to mid-2000s, coincident with the construction of the Adventist Health Medical Center located north, north-west of the project site.
At the time of field reconnaissance, the project site supported a moderate growth of annual grasses and weeds. The project site appeared to be relatively flat and at the same relative elevation of the nearby roads. It is understood the project site is periodically plowed for fire hazard mitigation.
At the time of the investigation, loose sediments within Peoples Ditch was probed to a depth of approximately 2 to 2.5 feet below the ditch bottom.
3.2 EARTH MATERIALS
The following description provides a general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered during the field exploration and as further evaluated through the laboratory testing program. For a more thorough description of the actual conditions encountered at specific boring locations, refer to the boring logs presented in Appendix A. The soils were classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487).
The subsurface soils consist Holocene aged Great Valley fan deposits. The general soil profile encountered by the subsurface exploration consisted primarily of silty sand and sandy silt to depth of approximately 10 to 15 feet bgs underlain by laterally discontinuous layers of silty clay, sandy silt, silty sand, and poorly graded sand. The granular soils had a relative consistency of medium dense to very dense and the fine-grained soils had a relative consistency of stiff to very stiff.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 8 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Geologic cross sections, interpreted from the test borings, are presented on Figure 6. The site geology and locations of the cross sections are presented on Figure 3.
3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Groundwater was not encountered in the explorations. However, perched water was encountered within boring B-7 at a depth of approximately 45 feet bgs at the time of investigation. It is anticipated that the observed groundwater at the time of drilling was a perched on a dense layer of silty clay. Research utilizing the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Water Data Library website indicate groundwater levels to be greater than 50 feet bgs in 2011 (Well No. 18S21E34B002M) located approximately ½ mile northwest of the site. Additional research utilizing the DWR website indicated that the historic high groundwater depth was recorded at 15 feet in the late 1960’s. However, a steady decline in the depth to groundwater can be observed to current depths shown on the DWR website.
It is possible that groundwater conditions at the site could change at some time in the future due to variations in rainfall, groundwater withdrawal, regional agricultural production, construction activities, groundwater recharge practices, or other factors not apparent at the time our test borings were performed. However, groundwater is not anticipated to impact design or construction. Considering the elevated groundwater levels in the early 1970’s due to reservoir management practices (15 feet) and elevated groundwater levels in the mid-1980’s due to precipitation (51 feet), it is suggested that the high groundwater level of 15 feet will not realistically occur in the future. It is understood that recharge programs such as Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) may increase the current groundwater levels. However, it is anticipated the City will limit the amount of recharge and subsequent rise in groundwater due to potential damage to underground infrastructure. Therefore, Kleinfelder recommends a design high groundwater depth to be 25 feet bgs.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 9 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
4 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS
___________________________________________________________________________________
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The proposed facility lies in the southern portion of the Great Valley geomorphic province near its boundary with the Sierra Nevada geomorphic province in Central California. The filling of a large structural trough or downwarp in the underlying bedrock formed the Great Valley province of California. The trough is situated between the Sierra Nevada Range on the east and the Coast Range on the west. Both of these mountain ranges were initially formed by uplifts, which occurred during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods (greater than 65 million years ago). Renewed uplift began in the Sierra Nevada during late Tertiary time and is continuing today. The trough, which underlies the Valley, is asymmetrical with the greatest depth of sediments near the western margin. The sediments, which fill the trough, originated as erosional material from the adjacent mountains and foothills. The upper and youngest sediments in the basin are continental deposits consisting of alluvial fan deposits and flood-basin, lake, and marsh deposits. Figure 5 provides a detailed regional geologic map of the area by the California Geologic Survey (CGS) (Geologic Map of California, v. 2.0, 2010).
4.2 AREA AND SITE GEOLOGY
The majority of the native sediments in the project area have been mapped (Fresno geologic sheet) by CGS (Geologic Map of California, Fresno Sheet, Matthews and Burnett 1965). The site is located within the Holocene age Recent Alluvial Fan Deposits in the Great Valley (map symbol Qf). The soil subgrade characteristics encountered during the field investigation (i.e. soil type, blow count, etc.) appear to be consistent with this mapped unit. Figure 4 presents a site-specific geologic map of the project. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the soils on the entire project site as Nord Complex (149). Based on the map unit description of the NRCS, soils designated with map units of 149 consist of alluvial deposits derived from igneous rock sources which corresponds to Unified Soil Classification group symbol of SM (Silty Sand) and ML (Sandy Silt).
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 10 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
4.3 FAULTS LOCAL TO THE PROPOSED SITE
Based on the information provided in the California Geological Survey Special Publication 42 (CGS, 2018), the site is not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, where site-specific studies addressing the potential for surface fault rupture are required.
No known active faults traverse the site. The project site is situated within a region traditionally characterized by few active faults and a low to moderate potential for seismic activity.
An active fault is a fault that has experienced seismic activity during historic time (since roughly 1800) or exhibits evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (CGS, 2018). The terms “sufficiently active” and “well-defined” are used by the CGS as criteria for zoning faults under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Act. A “sufficiently active fault” is a fault that shows evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments and branches, while a “welldefined fault” is a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The definition “inactive” generally implies that a fault has not been active since the beginning of the Pleistocene Epoch (older than 2.6 million years).
Locations of the significant active and well-defined faults are shown on Figure 7. The site is located approximately 94 km east from the San Andreas fault and 42 km east of the Great Valley fault. A major seismic event on these fault segments may cause significant ground shaking at the site.
4.4 SIGNIFICANT FAULTS
The faults within 100 km of the site, and their seismic parameters are listed in Table 4.4-1. For faults with multiple segmentation scenarios, Kleinfelder has only listed parameters for the scenario rupturing the most segments (i.e., the most severe scenario). The locations of the faults, presented on Figure 7, and associated parameters, presented on Table 4.4-1, are based on the USGS 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps (Petersen et al., 2008). The maximum earthquake magnitudes presented in this table are based on the moment magnitude scale developed by Kanamori (1977).
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 11 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 4.4-1
Significant Faults
Fault Name
Fault
Length
(km)
Closest
Distance1
(km)
Maximum
Earthquake
Magnitude2
Slip Rate
(mm/yr)
Great Valley 14 24 42 7.2 1.5
Great Valley 13 32 45 7.1 1.5
Great Valley 12 17 62 6.4 1.5
Great Valley 11 24 73 6.6 1.5
San Andreas 245 85 8.0 34
San Juan 68 91 7.1 1.5
Great Valley 10 22 95 6.5 1.5
1Closest distance to the potential rupture.
2Moment magnitude: An estimate of an earthquake’s magnitude based on the seismic moment (measure of an earthquake’s size utilizing rock rigidity, amount of slip, and area of rupture).
Table 4.4-1 represents the scenarios of rupturing all the segments for these faults. Other rupture scenarios can be found in Field et al. (2008).
4.5 HISTORICAL SEISMICITY
The project site and vicinity are located in an area characterized by historically low seismicity. A number of earthquakes have occurred within a 100 km radius of the site during historic time (since 1800). Some of the significant regional earthquake events include the 1857 (M7.9) Fort Tejon earthquake, located approximately 90 km to the southwest of the site; the 1983 (M6.7) Coalinga earthquake, located about 59 km to the southwest; and the 1922 (M6.5) Parkfield earthquake, located about 83 km to the southwest.
Epicenters of some significant earthquakes (M ≥ 4.0) within the vicinity of the site are shown on Figure 7. The earthquake database used in the search contains in excess of 5,500 seismic events and covers the period from 1800 through May 2020. The earthquake database is primarily comprised of an earthquake catalog for the State of California prepared by the CGS (formerly Division of Mines and Geology, DMG). The catalog contains earthquake records from January 1, 1900 through December 31, 1974. Updates prepared by the CGS in 1979 and 1982 extend the coverage through 1982. In addition to the CGS updates, the data for earthquakes that occurred during the period between 1910 through May 2020 has been obtained from a composite catalog
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 12 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
by the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). The ANSS catalog is a worldwide earthquake catalog which is created by merging the master earthquake catalogs from contributing ANSS member networks and then removing duplicate events, or non-unique solutions from the same event. The ANSS network includes the Northern and Southern California Seismic Networks, the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, the University of Nevada, Reno Seismic Network, the University of Utah Seismographic Stations, and the United States National Earthquake Information Service. The earthquake database also consists of earthquake records between 1800 and 1900 from Seeburger and Bolt (1976) and Toppozada et al. (1978, 1981). In addition, we have also utilized the data from DMG Map Sheet 49 (Toppozada et al., 2000).
The parameters used to define the limits of the historical earthquake search include geographical limits (within 100 km of the site), dates (1800 through May 2020), and magnitudes (M ≥ 4). A summary of the results of the historical search is presented in Table 4.5-1.
Table 4.5-1
Historical Seismicity
Time Period (1800 to May 2020) 220+ years
Maximum Magnitude1 7.9
Approximate distance to nearest historical M ≥ 4 earthquake 20 km Number of events exceeding magnitude 4 within search area 170 1Moment magnitude
4.6 SOIL SITE CLASS
Based on the borings in the above referenced report, the supplemental borings performed, and a review of the geologic conditions within the vicinity of the project site, Site Class D would be appropriate for the seismic design of the new facility using the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The parameters provided below are based on the 2019 CBC. The 2019 CBC is based on the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE 7-16. For a 2019 CBC based design, the estimated Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) mapped spectral accelerations for 0.2 second and 1 second periods (SS and S1), associated soil amplification factor (Fa), and mapped peak ground acceleration (PGA) are presented in Table 4.6-1. Corresponding site modified (SMS) and design (SDS) spectral accelerations, PGA modification coefficient (FPGA), PGAM, risk coefficients (CRS and CR1), and long-period transition period (TL) are also presented in the table below. Presented values were estimated using Section 1613.3 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), chapters 11 and 22 of ASCE 7-16, and the Structural Engineers Association of
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 13 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
California (SEAOC) and California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) U.S. seismic design maps.
Table 4.6-1
2019 CBC/ASCE 7-16 seismic design parameters
Parameter Value1 ASCE 7-16 Reference
Latitude 36.321241° -
Longitude -119.664210° -
SS 0.750g Fig 22-1
S1 0.271g Fig 22-2
Site Class D Table 20.3-1
Fa 1.200 Table 11.4-1
Fv NA Table 11.4-2, Supplement 1
PGA 0.325g Fig 22-9
SMS 0.900g Eq. 11.4-1
SM1 NA Eq. 11.4-2
SDS 0.600g Eq. 11.4-3
SD1 NA Eq. 11.4-4
FPGA 1.275 Table 11.8-1
PGAM 0.414g Eq. 11.8-1
CRS 0.922 Fig 22-18A
CR1 0.927 Fig 22-19A
TL 12 seconds
1N/A* = Not Applicable (refer to explanation below)
It should be noted that Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 requires a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis be performed for Site Class D sites with S1 values greater than or equal to 0.2g unless structural design exceptions are taken. The subject site meets these criteria. We understand that CGS will assume the structural design exceptions will not be taken and that a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis will be performed. If exceptions are taken, then an FV value of 2.058 can be used only to calculate the TS, SM1, and SD1 values and only for the purpose of invoking the exceptions in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16. The calculated SM1 and SD1 values based on the FV value of 2.058 shall not be used for any other calculations. The structural engineer is required to prepare a letter for submittal to OSHPD and CGS that confirms the exceptions will be taken, otherwise if the exceptions are not taken, a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis will be required.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 14 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
4.7 POTENTIAL SEISMIC HAZARDS
A discussion of specific seismic hazards that could impact the site is included below. The hazards considered include: surface fault rupture; liquefaction and seismic settlement; lateral spreading; dynamic compaction; and cyclic softening.
4.7.1 Surface Fault Rupture
Earthquakes are caused by the sudden displacement of earth along faults with a consequent release of stored strain energy. The fault slippage can often extend to the ground surface where it is manifested by sudden and abrupt relative ground displacement. Damage resulting from fault rupture occurs where structures are located astride the fault traces that move. The subject site is not located within, nor is it adjacent to, a state designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2018). Based on the reviewed geologic/seismologic reports and maps, no known active, or potentially active faults cross or project toward the site. Therefore, the potential for fault-related surface rupture at the site is considered very low.
4.7.2 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement
A common secondary hazard of strong ground shaking is the potential for soil liquefaction.
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which saturated soil loses shear strength and deforms as a result of increased pore water pressure induced by strong ground shaking during an earthquake. Dissipation of the excess pore pressures will produce volume changes within the liquefied soil layer, which can manifest at the ground surface as settlement of structures, floating of buried structures, failure of retaining walls, lateral migration (lateral spreading), and extensional ground cracking of liquefied material. Factors known to influence liquefaction include soil type, structure, geologic age, grain size, relative density, confining pressure, depth to groundwater, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose, sandy soils.
Saturated granular sediments can experience liquefaction if subject to seismically induced ground motion of sufficient intensity and duration. Liquefaction analysis used procedures by Youd et. Al. (2001) and considered the relative density and fines content of the granular settlement. The liquefaction analysis also included screening for the potential for liquefaction utilizing the moisture content and Plasticity Index of fine grained non-cohesive and cohesive soils in accordance with
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 15 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
procedures set forth in Seed e. al. (2003). The analysis considered a historic high groundwater depth of 25 feet bgs, ground acceleration (PGAM) of 0.414g, and earthquake moment magnitude Mw = 6.21.
A screening analysis was not performed for the potential of cyclic liquefaction occurring in the fine grained soils encountered within the boring but were included in the liquefaction analysis for conservatism. Therefore, the coarse and fine grained soil layers were evaluated for potential liquefaction using the cyclic liquefaction analysis model by Seed (2003). Liquefaction analysis performed on the fine grained and granular sediments indicates that liquefaction and seismically induced settlement may occur in the poorly graded sand layers encountered in borings B-6 at depths between 30 to 33 feet and 40 to 43 feet bgs. Also, liquefaction and seismically included settlement may occur in poorly graded sand layers and deeper silty clay layers encountered in boring B-7 at depths between 38 to 40 feet and 46 to 51.5 feet bgs. However, due to the significant thickness of non-liquefiable overburden soil with moderate to high density, bearing loss is not likely to occur.
Seismically induced settlement due to liquefaction was evaluated to be 0.4 inches by Seed (2003) and 0.1-inch by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) in boring B-6 and 1.5 inches by Seed (2003) and 0.5 inches by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) in boring B-7. The general guidelines of the CGS indicate the differential seismically induced settlement between adjacent supports in a building would be about one-half the total settlement. This would result in an average differential settlement between adjacent supports of approximately 0.15-inch in boring B-6 and 0.5 inches in boring B7. The anticipated differential settlements are low to moderate and are anticipated to be within the tolerance of the proposed structures and will not result in significant damage or collapse. We assume the structural engineer can accommodate this amount of settlement; therefore, no ground modification for mitigation against liquefaction and/or settlement is recommended.
4.7.3 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a movement in a nearly horizontal soil zone (usually attributable to liquefaction) that causes the overlying soil mass to shift down a gentle slope or toward a free face such as incised water bodies. Because the site and surrounding areas have generally insignificant topographic relief and the site is not likely to experience significant liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 16 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
4.7.4 Dynamic Compaction
Dry, loose sands and non-plastic silts may experience some dynamic compaction resulting in surface settlement when subjected to cyclic application of loads such as ground shaking from near-by-seismic events. Given the subsurface conditions encountered above groundwater, it is estimated (Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) seismic settlement of the non-saturated soil at the site is anticipated to be less than ¾-inch for analysis based on soil encountered in Borings B-6 and B-7 for both the current groundwater and historic high groundwater conditions.
4.7.5 Cyclic Softening
While liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which saturated “sand-like” (or cohesionless) soils loose strength during an earthquake, cyclic softening describes the loss of strength of “clay-like” (or cohesive) soils during an earthquake. Various researchers agree that plasticity index (PI) is useful in determining if a soil behaves clay-like or sand-like; however, the value of PI for which a clay behaves like a sand is not agreed upon. For this investigation, we have relied upon the methods presented in Idriss and Boulanger (2008) which indicates that soils with a PI ≥7 behave like a clay. Based on the results of our field and laboratory investigation, and the depth to groundwater, no soft soils susceptible to cyclic softening were encountered at the site.
4.8 POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The following discusses potential geologic hazards that could impact construction at the project site, including: flooding; expansive soils; hydrocompaction; corrosive soils; regional subsidence; naturally occurring asbestos; and radon. Other geologic hazards such as landslide and volcanic eruption are not considered a potential hazard at this site.
4.8.1 Flooding
4.8.1.1 Tsunamis, Seiches, Earthquake Induced Flooding
Tsunamis are sea waves of unusual size that occur from significant earthquakes either under the ocean floor or adjacent to shorelines and can travel great distances to impact low-lying communities and developments. Considering that the Coast Range protects the site from the sea, the potential to be affected by a tsunami is nil.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 17 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
A seiche is a free or standing wave oscillation that occurs in a confined body of water, such as a reservoir or lake. Earthquake-generated ground waves, which have a period that matches the natural period of the lake or reservoir, may cause the water to oscillate, which can cause damage to shore line improvements. The Kings County General Plan (KCGP) indicates that earthquakeinduced seiches are not considered a risk within the vicinity of the project site.
4.8.1.2 Potential for Dam Failure
According to the KCGP, two major dams could cause substantial flooding in Kings County in the event of a failure: Pine Flat and Terminus Dams. The project site is located within an area of potential flooding due to dam failure of Pine Flat Dam (see Figure 9). However, the KCGP does not state the potential inundation depth in the event of failure of Pine Flat Dam. The project site is not located within potential flooding of the Terminus Dam.
4.8.1.3 Flood Insurance Rate Maps
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the majority of the project site lies within a Zone X flood designation (Map Number 06031C0185C, dated June 16, 2009) indicating areas of minimal flood hazard (see Figure 8). As such, the civil designer should plan site grades accordingly.
4.8.2 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils were not encountered within the borings drilled for this study. Furthermore, based on review of soil survey by the NRCS, expansive soil was not identified within the project area.
Expansive soils are not anticipated within the influence of foundation systems or zone of cyclic moisture changes therefore, will not dictate the need for special grading or special footing and concrete slab-on-grade design.
4.8.3 Hydrocompaction (Soil Collapse)
Our experience has found that some of the alluvial soils in the San Joaquin Valley are subject to hydrocompaction. Hydrocompactive soil has a relatively loose skeletal structure, which is weakly cemented by soluble salts or a slight clay mineral content. Moisture increase breaks down the inter-particle cementation causing a collapse of the skeletal structure. The significant loss in soil volume can result in settlement of overlying structures. The project geotechnical exploration and
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 18 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
associated laboratory testing identified the in-place relative density of the subsurface soil was relatively low and compression characteristics were moderate. Based on laboratory testing, post saturation of four soil samples (Borings B-3 at 1-foot, B-9 at 2 feet, B-1 at 5.5 feet, and B-7 at 7.5 feet bgs) obtained from the site had compression characteristics that were low to moderate (18pprox.. 2.0 to 5.0 percent compression upon induction with a normal load equal to 1,000 to 2,000 psf), indicating a possibility of collapse potential.
4.8.4 Corrosive Soils
Kleinfelder has completed laboratory testing to provide data regarding corrosivity of onsite soils.
Our scope of services does not include corrosion engineering and, therefore, a detailed analysis of the corrosion test results is not included in this report. A qualified corrosion engineer should be retained to review the test results and design protective systems that may be required.
Kleinfelder may be able to provide those services. However, the results of the laboratory testing regarding corrosivity can be seen in Section 6.7.
4.8.5 Regional Subsidence
Land subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. The KCGP does not identify subsidence within Kings County; however, the KCGP acknowledges soils particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content and a high water table. Due to the significant depth to groundwater withdraw in the San Joaquin Valley, the occurrence of subsidence is typically regional and unlikely to affect isolated locations, as such, the potential for damaging differential settlement of the proposed new structures due to subsidence is very low.
4.8.6 Naturally-Occurring Asbestos
CGS Open File Report 2000-019 (Churchill and Hill, 2000) indicates the most proximal ultramafic bedrock likely to contain naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is located approximately 35 miles east of the site. The project site is underlain by fluvial and alluvial deposits derived from Sierra Nevada and foothills which may contain small amounts of NOA. However, NOA is not likely to be a significant risk at the site.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 19 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
4.9 Radon Gas
Radon gas is a naturally occurring colorless, tasteless, and odorless radioactive gas that forms in soils from the decay of trace amounts of uranium that are naturally present in soils. Radon enters buildings from the surrounding soil through cracks or other openings in foundations, floors over crawlspaces, or basement walls. Once inside a building, radon can become trapped and concentrate to become a health hazard unless the building is properly ventilated to remove radon.
Long-term exposure to elevated levels of radon increases one’s risk of developing lung cancer.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends that all homes (or structures intended for human occupancy) be tested for radon whatever their geographic location. The U.S.
EPA recommends that action be taken to reduce radon in structures with an average annual level higher than four picocuries per liter (4.0pCi/l).
The California Department of Health Services (2016) performed 88 tests within Kings County (last updated on February 2016) where the project site is located. Of the 88 tests, 10 reported a minimum of four (4) picocuries per liter.
The noted testing is not intended to represent the entire county area for determining which buildings have excessive indoor radon levels. In addition to geology, indoor radon levels can be influenced by local variability in factors such as soil permeability and climatic conditions, and by factors such as building design, construction, condition, and usage. Consequently, building specific radon levels can only be determined by indoor radon testing. No warranty as to actual radon levels at specific sites in Kings County is expressed or implied by the noted test results.
Consideration should be given to consult a radon specialist to provide appropriate tests and recommendations to review Radon gas concerns.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 20 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
5 EARTHWORK
___________________________________________________________________________________
5.1 GENERAL
Based on the results of the various field and laboratory testing, and the geotechnical analysis conducted by Kleinfelder, it is geotechnically feasible to develop the site using conventional grading and foundation construction techniques.
5.2 HYDROCOMPACTION
The near surface soils to a depth of about 10 feet bgs are subject to moderate hydrocompaction.
Hydrocompactive soil has a loose skeletal structure, which is weakly cemented by soluble salts and/or minor amounts of clay. Increases in soil moisture reduce the interparticle cementation (dry strength) of the soil resulting in a decrease in the volume of the soil structure. This condition can lead to post construction settlement of structures if soils subsequently become wetted.
At the present moisture content, the on-site natural soil has sufficient strength to support the proposed preliminary improvements. However, should the soil be subject to post-construction moisture increases, minor to moderate soil compression will likely occur. The amount of compression will be dependent upon imposed loads, depth of moisture increase, and the amount of moisture increase. The potential post construction settlement in building areas due to the presence of these hydrocompactive soils is anticipated to range from approximately 2.7 to 3.6 inches for strip footings supporting loads up to 5 kips per lineal foot and approximately 3.5 to 4.0 inches for column footings supporting loads up to 200 kips. These settlements include an assumed 12 inches of building pad fill above the current site grade and the bottom of footings founded at a depth of 18 inches below the assumed building pad elevation. Based on past experience and the variability of future moisture increase, the potential settlement could be totally differential over a distance of about 15 feet. The collapse potential test data indicated that most of the post construction settlement is due to overburden pressure of the existing in-place soil.
Therefore, should moisture levels increase in the upper 10 feet, post construction settlement below hardscape areas (i.e. driveways, sidewalks, pavements, etc.) is anticipated to be approximately 1.8 inches due to the self-weight of the in-place soil. Most of the settlement below buildings and site improvements occurs between depths of approximately 5 and 10 feet bgs.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 21 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
For preliminary purposes, it is assumed future structures may not tolerate the potential post construction settlement described above. Consequently, mitigating the potential effect of these soils will be necessary to support foundations. Over-excavation is an effective means of mitigating the potential settlement due to hydrocompaction. Excavation and recompaction of the hydrocompactive soils is recommended to a depth of 7 feet below existing grade and to a distance of at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the planned buildings and surrounding improvements (i.e. hardscape, planters, awnings, etc.) that could be sensitive to settlement. The perimeter of the overexcavated areas should be sloped at a gradient of 1.5:1 H:V, or flatter, to provide a transition between deep and shallow excavated areas. The recompaction depth of 7 feet may be accomplished by a combination of overexcavation and scarification depths. For example: the contractor may choose to overexcavate the soil to a depth of 5.5 feet bgs scarify the exposed soil to a depth of 18 inches, moisture condition to at, or above optimum moisture and compacted with a vibratory open hub ring compactor (e.g. Rex compactor) capable of compacting thicker lifts. If conventional sheepsfoot drum compactors are utilized, the scarified depth would need to be decreased and overexcavation depth increased to achieve the overall recompaction depth of 7 feet. The excavated soil could be used as engineered fill (refer to Section 5.4.1). With these recommendations, the post construction settlement due to hydrocompaction below structures would be reduced to approximately 1-inch.
Site improvements outside of the building envelopes described above (e.g. general hardscape, pavements, utilities, etc.) would also be subject to settlement due to hydrocompaction under the self-weight of the overburden soil and surface improvements. The total depth of overexcavation plus scarification and recompaction is 7 feet to reduce settlement below site improvements to less than 1-inch. However, the depth of earthwork to mitigate hydrocompactive soil to protect surface improvements outside of the building envelopes may be cost prohibitive. Therefore, consideration could be given to supporting these improvements on partial overexcavation and recompaction to a depth of 18 inches to provide uniform bearing support only without mitigating the potential total settlement of 1.8 inches.
With the above earthwork mitigation recommendations, controlling infiltration into the subgrade soils is very important in reducing the chance for post construction settlement. Sources of water or moisture intrusion would likely be limited to rainfall and runoff from the roof of proposed buildings, landscape irrigation, and utility leaks/failures. To aid in reducing potential saturation of subgrade soils, roof run-off is encouraged to be piped to the storm drain system and landscape irrigation be held to a minimum and use only sufficient water to sustain and promote plant growth (e.g. drip irrigation).
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 22 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
If site grades will be raised more than 1-foot above existing site grade, Kleinfelder should be contacted to provide further recommendations as additional over-excavation of the hydrocompactive soil below improvements may be warranted due to higher surcharge loads and greater settlement than estimated above.
If the described amount of remaining post construction settlement after overexcavation and recompaction exceeds the tolerance of structures and surface improvements or the settlement presents an adverse risk to the developer, then the hydrocompactive soils would require recompaction to a depth of 10 feet bgs.
5.3 SITE PREPARATION
5.3.1 Stripping
At the time of the reconnaissance, the project site was covered with a moderate growth of seasonal grasses and weeds. All surface vegetation, organic material, and any miscellaneous surface obstructions (including pavement) should be removed from the project area, prior to any site grading. It is anticipated stripping of surface vegetation could involve the upper 2 to 3 inches.
Surface strippings should not be incorporated into fill unless they can be sufficiently blended to result in an organic content less 3 percent by weight (ASTM D2974).
5.3.2 Disturbed Soil, Undocumented Fill, and Subsurface Obstructions Initial site grading should include a reasonable search to locate any disturbed soil, undocumented fill soils and underground structures (such as irrigation pipes) or utilities that may exist within the area of construction. Any such obstructions should be removed from the project area.
Undocumented fill or loose soil should be excavated and may be reused provided it meets the applicable requirements for engineered fill (see Section 5.4). Any disturbed soil, pockets of soft or loose soils, void spaces created by burrowing animals or undocumented fill, which are encountered, should be excavated to expose firm native material.
At the time of the investigation, loose sediments within Peoples Ditch was probed to a depth of approximately 2 to 2.5 feet below the ditch bottom. All vegetation, soft sediments, organic material, and debris should be removed from the ditch profile and bottom to expose firm unyielding
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 23 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
soil conditions. The exposed subgrade should be approved prior to placement of pipe bedding and or pipeline construction.
5.3.3 Over-excavation and Scarification
Over-excavation is typically reserved for soils that, in their natural state, will not provide adequate bearing for structures. The native soils are hydrocomapactive and could lead to non-uniform bearing conditions and differential settlement of the proposed building improvements. Therefore, mitigation by over-excavation and recompaction is recommended to mitigate potential post construction settlement below structures and site improvements. The perimeter of overexcavated areas should be sloped and benched to receive fill in accordance with Section 5.4.2.
The recompaction depths discussed below may be accomplished by a combination of overexcavation, scarification, and recompaction. The depth of scarification and recompaction is dependent on the ability of the equipment to successfully moisture condition and compact the scarified zone and may be adjusted buy the contractor for compatibility of the equipment provided the overall re compaction depth specified is met.
Note that the overexcavation and scarification depths described herein are minimum depths. If additional depths of earthwork are specified in the Project Plans and Specifications or by the developer, the contractor shall perform the required overexcavation and recompaction to meet the more stringent requirements.
Building Envelope
After performing removals described in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, the planned buildings and surrounding improvements (i.e. hardscape, planters, awnings, etc.) that are sensitive to settlement should be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 5.5 feet bgs. The bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of 18 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted as described in Section 5.4. The lateral limits of the over-excavation should include the building area and extend at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the outer lines of the foundations and surrounding improvements (i.e. hardscape, planters, awnings, etc.). The excavated soil may be reused as engineered fill when placed, moisture conditioned, and compacted as described in Section 5.4.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 24 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Outside Building Envelope
After performing removals described in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, site improvements outside the building envelope described in Section 5.2 Hydrocompaction, areas to receive surface improvements (e.g. general hardscape, pavements, utilities, etc.) should be over-excavated to a depth of 1-foot bgs. The bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted as described in Section 5.4. The lateral limits of the overexcavation in planned foundation areas should include the surface improvements area and extend at least 3 feet beyond the perimeter of improvements. The excavated soil may be reused as engineered fill when placed, moisture conditioned, and compacted as described in Section 5.4.
5.4 ENGINEERED FILL
5.4.1 Materials
All engineered fill soils should be nearly free of organic or other deleterious debris and less than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The native soil materials, exclusive of debris, may be used as engineered fill provided they contain less than 3 percent organics by weight (ASTM D2974).
Recommended requirements for any imported soil to be used as engineered fill, as well as applicable test procedures to verify material suitability, are provided on Table 5.4-1.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 25 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 5.4-1
Soil Materials Test Procedures
Gradation Test Procedures
Sieve Size Percent
Passing ASTM1 Caltrans2
76 mm (3 inch) 100 C136 202
19 mm (¾ inch) 80 – 100 C136 202
No. 4 70 – 100 C136 202
No. 200 20 – 70 C136 202
Plasticity
Liquid
Limit
Plasticity
Index
< 25 < 12 D4318 204
Expansion Index
< 20 D4829 -
Soluble Sulfates
< 2000 ppm - 417
Soluble Chloride
<300 ppm - 422
Resistivity
>1000 ohm-cm - 532
Notes:
1 American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (latest edition) 2 State of California, Department of Transportation, Standard Test Methods (latest edition)
Any imported fill materials to be used for engineered fill should be sampled and tested by a representative of the project Geotechnical Engineer prior to being transported to the site.
5.4.2 Benching
Where fill will be placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 (H:V), it will be necessary to bench the slope to receive fill as successive filling operations are performed. Benches should be constructed approximately every 1.5 feet (slope height less than 5 feet) or every 2.5 feet (slope height greater than 5 feet) of vertical fill thickness. Benching should begin at one bench height above the toe of the slope. Where fill will be placed in small pits or excavations, benching is not required, however, all loose soil should be removed from the invert and sides and the area made dish-shaped to
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 26 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
receive fill. Any loose soil excavated during site preparation may be used as fill, provided it meets the requirement for engineered fill.
Compaction equipment should provide kneading effort (e.g. with sheeps foot rollers) to enhance uniformity and minimize stratification.
5.4.3 Compaction Criteria
Soils used for engineered fill should be uniformly moisture conditioned to at, or above optimum moisture, placed in horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in loose thickness, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Disking and/or blending may be required to uniformly moisturecondition soils used for engineered fill. The specified compaction shall be increased to at least 95% relative compaction in the top 12 inches of the subgrade soil in pavement areas as indicated in Section 6.5, Pavements.
5.4.4 Construction Considerations
Should site grading be performed during or subsequent to wet weather, near-surface site soils may be significantly above optimum moisture content. These conditions could hamper equipment maneuverability and efforts to compact site soils to the recommended compaction criteria.
Disking to aerate, chemical treatment, replacement with drier material, stabilization with a geotextile fabric or grid, or other methods may be required to mitigate the effects of excessive soil moisture and facilitate earthwork operations. Any consideration of chemical treatment (e.g. lime) to facilitate construction would require additional soil chemistry evaluation and could affect landscape areas and some construction materials (e.g. aluminum).
If construction is performed during dry, hot or windy weather, it may be necessary to periodically apply surface watering to counter evaporative loss or re-establish moisture prior to constructing slabs (see Section 6.3.1).
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 27 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
5.5 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS
5.5.1 General
All excavations must comply with applicable local, State, and Federal safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety is generally the responsibility of the contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. The information below is provided as a service to the client. Under no circumstances should the information provided be interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
5.5.2 Excavations and Slopes
The contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depths (including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local, State, and/or Federal safety regulations (e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations). Such regulations are strictly enforced and, if they are not followed, the owner, contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractors could be liable for substantial penalties.
All excavations should be constructed and maintained in conformance with current OSHA requirements (29 CFR Part 1926). The on-site soils are best represented by OSHA Type C soil.
5.5.3 Construction Considerations
Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should be kept sufficiently away from the top of any excavation to prevent any unanticipated surcharging. If it is necessary to encroach upon the top of an excavation, Kleinfelder can provide comments on slope gradients or loads on shoring to address surcharging, if provided with the geometry.
Shoring, bracing, or underpinning required for the project (if any), should be designed by a professional engineer registered in the State of California.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 28 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
During wet weather, earthen berms or other methods should be used to prevent runoff water from entering all excavations. All runoff should be collected and disposed of outside the construction limits.
5.6 PIPELINE AND TRENCH BACKFILL
5.6.1 Materials
Pipe embedment zone backfill (i.e., bedding, haunching, pipe zone and initial backfill per ASTM D2321) should consist of soil compatible with design requirements for the specific types of pipes.
It is recommended the project designer or pipe supplier develop the final material specifications based on planned pipe types, bedding conditions, tolerable deflection and other factors beyond the scope of this study. Randomly excavated on-site soil from the predominate site profile will likely be a combination of Class III and IVa material per ASTM D2321.
With respect to the design of the Peoples Ditch pipeline, Kleinfelder recommends a minimum Type 2 installation and use of select bedding and haunching material consisting of Category II (GM, SM, GC, and SC with less than 20 percent passing the #200 sieve). The thickness of the bedding (inches) should is based on the outer diameter D0/24.1 Trench zone backfill (i.e., material placed between the pipe zone backfill and finished subgrade) may consist of native soil that meets the requirements for engineered fill.
5.6.2 Compaction Criteria
All trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations provided above for engineered fill. Reduced compaction (85% minimum) could be specified for trench zone backfill in non-structural areas. Mechanical compaction is recommended; ponding or jetting should not be used.
Table 5.6-1 provides estimated geotechnical parameters for designers to consider in evaluating pipe zone backfill criteria that is compatible with pipe types and deformation tolerances. 1 Concrete Pipe Design Manual, American Concrete Pipe Association
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 29 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 5.6-1
Pipe Zone Backfill Parameters
Soil Stiffness Modulus (psi) Backfill Density (pcf)
E’n
(Trench
Sidewall)
E’b (Backfill)
85%
Compaction
90%
Compaction 85%
Compaction
90%
Compaction
3000 900 1350 118 125
E’n represents the modulus for the undisturbed natural soil and is based on relative density data by Howard (1996). E’b is the modulus for backfill derived from random excavation of on-site soil and is based on data by Hartley and Duncan (1982) and Watkins and Anderson (2000). The design E’ will be dependent upon the pipe diameter and trench width, which dictates the relative influence of E’n and E’b. Methods by Howard (1996) are suggested for evaluating the design E’.
Kleinfelder can furnish a recommended design E’, if provided with pipe diameter and specifications for trench construction.
In evaluating the maximum load (Wd) on pipes, a kµ’ (k=0.31 and µ’=0.62) of 0.19 can be used in determining the load coefficient factor Cd.
5.6.3 Pipeline Thrust
The lateral thrust on pipelines can be resisted by friction between the pipe and native or imported backfill soil and lateral bearing on thrust blocks. The allowable frictional resistance between the pipe and backfill comprised of on-site soil or select import sand backfill is provided in Table 5.6-2.
Table 5.6-2
Frictional Coefficients
Pipe Material
Allowable Frictional Coefficient
Sustained Loading Test Loading
Smooth Plastic or Steel (native
soil or imported sand backfill) 0.19 0.23
The lateral load on shallow thrust blocks (block height greater than 70 percent of depth to center of pipeline) poured against undisturbed soil can be resisted by the passive lateral bearing provided in Table 6.1-3. The estimated horizontal deflection in Table 6.1-3 would also be applicable to shallow thrust blocks.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 30 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
5.7 ESTIMATED VOLUME LOSS
Based on the in-place densities obtained from the test borings and the Modified Proctor tests, it is estimated the volume loss from cut to fill in the upper 5 feet across the proposed project area may range from about 5 percent to 22 percent, depending on the relative compaction achieved.
Table 5.7-1 provides the estimated volume loss due to recompaction of the near surface soils of the site to relative compaction levels of 90 and 95 percent for engineered fill below improvement areas.
The volume loss associated with recompaction was based on an average maximum dry density of 123 lbs/ft3 and an average compaction during construction of 2 percent above the required compaction levels of 90 and 95 percent. The estimated volume loss considers the in-place density in the upper 5 feet of the site soils. Volume loss within the deeper portions of the proposed improvements are anticipated to equal, or less.
Table 5.7-1
Average Volume Loss
Depth (ft)
Average Volume Loss
92% Compaction 97% Compaction
0 – 5 12.5 17.0
The calculations for developing estimates of an earthwork factor are based on very limited data, and caution should be exercised in the application of this factor in cost estimating and volume calculations. The volume of material tested for in-place density is commonly as small as one tenthousandth of one percent of the total volume of material to be excavated. Subjective assumptions must be made to perform the calculations, which can affect the accuracy of the results. These include the anticipated relative compaction of the material when placed as fill and uniformity of the materials. In addition, the volume loss estimates in Table 5.7-1 are based only on undisturbed density tests and two (2) Modified Proctor tests and do not consider other forms of loss (e.g. stripping, grubbing, spillage, wastage, or subsidence), which can be substantial.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 31 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
6 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
___________________________________________________________________________________
6.1 SPREAD FOUNDATIONS
6.1.1 General
The proposed structures may be supported by conventional shallow footings supported on approved properly engineered fill. The following preliminary recommendations are based on the assumption that the recommendations in Section 5, “Earthwork”, have been implemented.
Recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of building design are presented below.
6.1.2 Allowable Vertical Bearing Pressures and Settlements Generally, two geotechnical issues determine the design bearing pressure for conventional spread footing foundations: (1) strength of the foundation soil and (2) tolerable settlement. The on-site soil in its current condition has enough strength to support the proposed improvements.
However, due to the hydrocompactive soils present at the site, the available bearing capacity should be limited to reduce the anticipated settlement of the proposed improvements. Table 6.1-1 provides the net allowable bearing pressures for use in foundation design.
Table 6.1-1
Available Allowable Bearing
Available Allowable Bearing (psf)
Static Loading 1500
Total Combined Loading 3000
Unfactored Ultimate Bearing 4000
The above values are appropriated for design using the Basic and Alternate Load Combinations in Section 1605.3 of the 2019 CBC.
Analysis, based on Schmertmann, determined the following estimate static settlement based on a range of assumed structural loads. The settlement assumes the sustained load on the footings is equal to 80 percent of the net bearing pressure. Settlement is expected to occur primarily throughout the construction process.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 32 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 6.1-2
Estimated Settlement
Footing Type Loading
(DL +LL)
Estimated Settlement
(inch)
Strip To 5.0 kip/ft Less than 0.25
Square
50 kips Less than 0.25
100 kips 0.50
200 kips 0.85
The differential settlement between similarly loaded footings would equal approximately half of the anticipated settlement represented in Table 6.1-2. The post construction settlement due to hydrocompaction if the soils subsequently become saturated would be differential over a distance of approximately 15 feet. Therefore, the total differential settlement between foundations would be the sum of the differential settlement between footings from Table 6.1-2 plus the differential settlement due to hydrocompaction after earthwork mitigation discussed in Section 5.2.
If deemed necessary by the design engineer, Kleinfelder can provide the estimated settlement for other loading conditions. The design bearing pressures are net values so the weight of embedded concrete does not need to be included in the foundation loading.
A modulus of subgrade reaction, KI (Bp = 1 foot), of 315 pci can be used for undisturbed on-site soil and 315 pci can be used for engineered fill. If the fill thickness is less than 2 feet, a composite KI, could be evaluated. It should be noted the subgrade modulus reflects the response of the subgrade under primarily elastic conditions and small deflections. It is not a characteristic intended to define soil compressibility (settlement) or load-bearing capacity.
6.1.3 Lateral Resistance
Lateral loads applied to foundations can be resisted by a combination of lateral bearing and frictional resistance. The allowable lateral bearing and frictional coefficient for the foundations are presented in Table 6.1-3.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 33 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 6.1-3
Passive Pressures and Frictional Coefficients
Allowable
Ultimate
Static Total
Combined
Frictional Coefficient 0.42 0.50 0.62
Passive Pressure (psf/ft of depth) 290 387 580
Lateral Translation Needed to Develop
Passive Pressure 0.003D 0.006D 0.018D
Note: D is the footing depth
If the deflection resulting from the strain necessary to develop the passive pressure is with structural tolerance, the passive pressure and frictional resistance can be used in combination.
Otherwise, additional passive pressure values could be provided based on tolerable deflection.
The allowable values already incorporate a factor of safety and, as such, would be compared directly to the driving loads. If analytical approaches require the input of a safety factor, the ultimate values would be used.
6.2 EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES
The lateral earth pressure against retaining structures will be dependent upon the ability of the wall to deflect. Presented in Table 6.2-1 is the active, at-rest and braced lateral earth pressure for level on-site soil. The active pressure is applicable to walls able to translate to 0.0005 radians at the top or bottom. The at-rest soil pressure is applicable to retaining structures that are fully fixed against both rotation and translation. Walls restrained from translation at the top and bottom, but able to deflect 0.0005 radian between restrained points should be designed for the braced lateral pressure. The at-rest pressures are applicable to walls fully fixed against translation or rotation. The at-rest pressures include the Jaky solution for normally consolidated soil plus consideration for the locked-in pressure associated with the pre-stressing due to backfill compaction (over-consolidation).
Table 6.2-1
Lateral Earth Pressure
Loading Conditions Lateral Earth Pressures
Active Pressure (psf/ft of depth) 38
Braced Pressure (psf) 25 H
At-Rest Pressure (psf/ft of depth) 84
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 34 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
H in the expression represents the retained height in feet (measured from finished grade to bottom of footing). The earth pressures presented above assume saturated conditions. The earth pressures do not include hydrostatic pressures; therefore, wall should be adequately drained to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure.
Retaining wall foundation design can utilize the passive pressures and sliding resistance given in Table 6.1-3 and allowable bearing capacity given in Section 6.1-1. When utilizing the available allowable bearing capacities of Table 6.1-1, the value for static loading would represent the average bearing for the footing and the value for total combined loading would represent the allowable maximum toe pressure.
6.3 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE
6.3.1 Subgrade Preparation
Any building slabs-on-grade should be supported on engineered fill placed as described in Section 5 of this report. The slab subgrade, to a depth of 12 inches, should have a moisture content of at least optimum immediately prior to pouring the slab or placing a vapor retarding membrane.
6.3.2 Capillary and Moisture/Vapor Break
Considering the soil type and regional groundwater depth, a capillary break (i.e. clean sand or gravel layer) is not necessary.
If the building contains component which might be adversely affected by moisture, it is recommended that the slab subgrade be covered by vapor retarding membrane, such as 10-mil polyorfin. If design should incorporate a gravel subgrade layer, the membrane should have a minimum thickness of 15-mil. The subgrade surface should be smooth and care should be exercised to avoid tearing, ripping, or otherwise puncturing the vapor retarding membrane. If the vapor retarding membrane becomes torn or disturbed, it should be removed and replaced or properly patched. It is recommended consideration be given to placing concrete directly on the vapor retarding membrane. If desired by designers, the vapor retarding membrane could be covered with approximately 1 to 2 inches of saturated surface dry (SSD), relatively clean sand to protect it during construction. Concrete should not be placed if sand overlying the vapor barrier
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 35 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
has been allowed to attain a moisture content greater than about 5% (due to precipitation or excessive moistening). Excessive water beneath interior floor slabs could result in future significant vapor transmission through the slab, adversely affecting moisture-sensitive floor coverings and the indoor environment.
It should be noted that, although the slab support discussed above is currently the industry standard, this system might not be completely effective in preventing floor slab moisture vapor transmission problems. This system will not necessarily assure that floor slab moisture transmission rates will meet floor-covering manufacturer standards and that indoor humidity levels will not inhibit mold growth. A qualified specialist(s) with knowledge of slab moisture protection systems, flooring design and other potential components that may be influenced by moisture, should address these post-construction conditions separately. The purpose of a geotechnical study is to address subgrade conditions only, and consequently, it does not evaluate future potential conditions.
6.3.3 Conventional Slab Design
There are no geotechnical considerations (e.g. expansive soil), which would require special design of slabs. Therefore, the thickness and reinforcement of slabs-on-grade should be determined by structural considerations and should be designed by the project structural engineer or building designer. A modulus of subgrade reaction, K1 (Bp = 1 foot), of 315 pci may be used for elastic analysis of slabs on at least 8 inches of properly compacted native or similar soil.
Slab concrete should have good density, a low water/cement ratio, and proper curing to promote a low porosity. It is recommended the water/cement ratio not exceed 0.45 to minimize vapor transfer.
Consideration should be given to construction/control joint spacing and/or some form of reinforcement of exterior slabs to aid in crack control.
6.4 PIER/POLE FOUNDATIONS
6.4.1 Allowable Vertical Axial Capacity and Settlement
Structures such as light poles, signs, canopies, etc., can be supported by pier/pole foundations.
Should design incorporate the use of pier/pole foundations, Table 6.4-1 provides expressions for
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 36 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
the allowable and ultimate axial capacity using friction to resist axial loads. If the design of the pier/pole foundations includes end bearing to resist axial loads, the design may utilize the bearing capacity expressions given in Table 6.2-1, up to an allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf for static loading (D.L. + long term L.L.). The end bearing capacity may be increased 50 percent for total combined loading (D.L. + L.L. + transient loading, such as wind or seismic).
Table 6.4-1
Allowable Axial Capacity
Frictional Resistance for Vertical
Loads in Compression (lbs)
Static Loading 50 DL2
Total Combined Loading 65 DL2
Unfactored Ultimate Capacity 100 DL2
Note: 1) D is pier diameter in feet and L is embedment length in feet. 2) The allowable uplift resistance would be 70 percent of the compressional resistance.
The total settlement of friction piers designed in accordance with the above recommendations should be less than 0.002 times the pier diameter in inches. If design incorporates end bearing to resist axial loading, the estimated settlement would increase to approximately 0.018 times the pier diameter in inches. The concrete mix and reinforcement for drilled pier/caisson foundations should be designed by the project structural engineer.
6.4.2 Lateral Resistance
Methods by ASHTO and Caltrans can be used to evaluate the lateral capacity of pier footings.
The allowable passive pressure to resist lateral loads on isolated piers for use in these methods may be taken as 510 psf per foot of depth of embedment. The passive pressure may be increased by one-third for the total combined loads, including wind and seismic. The passive pressure values already consider arching and, as such, should not be increased further.
The allowable passive pressure provided above would not be appropriate for use in place of the values given in Table No. 1806.2 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) if pier foundation design utilizes the pole formulas in the CBC. If design uses the pole formulas in the CBC, the appropriate class of material in Table 1806.2 would be No. 4 (Silty Sand). Based on the strength of the on-site soils, a lateral bearing pressure of 170 psf/ft of embedment below the site grade may be used in place of the value given in Table 1806.2.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 37 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The passive pressure only considers soil strength. Tolerable pier deflection may govern the design lateral resistance. If provided with pier geometry, lateral load, and loading eccentricity, Kleinfelder can provide the estimated pier head deflection.
6.4.3 Design and Construction Considerations
Prior to placing steel or concrete, footing excavations should be cleaned of all debris, loose or soft soil, and water. All footing excavations should be observed by the project Geotechnical Engineer just prior to placing steel or concrete. The purpose of these observations is to check that the bearing soils actually encountered in the foundation excavations are similar to those assumed in analysis and to verify the recommendations contained herein are implemented during construction.
6.5 PAVEMENT DESIGN
6.5.1 General
The subgrade R-value for the on-site soil was evaluated in the laboratory on seven (7) near surface soil samples taken throughout the project site. The locations of the tested R-values were chosen in areas of proposed pavements based on a preliminary site plan. The laboratory tests were performed in conformance to Caltrans Test Method 301 and were evaluated based on stabilometer and expansion dial readings. The soil tested revealed that expansion pressure generally governs the design R-value. The R-value test results included in Appendix B indicate the R-value by exudation and includes the expansion pressures. The design R-value is dictated by expansion pressure and Traffic Index (TI). Consequently, the design R-value varies with Traffic Index.
Detailed vehicular load and frequency information is not available for the on-site pavements.
Traffic within the project site is anticipated to consist of access for automobiles, trash collection, and delivery truck traffic. Consequently, a range of pavement sections have been provided for the on-site based on Traffic Indexes (T.I.'s) of 4.5 through 8.0. These traffic design assumptions should be reviewed for compatibility with the actual development, and revised pavement sections developed, as necessary.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 38 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
6.5.2 Flexible Pavement
The preliminary flexible pavement design recommendations presented below are based upon the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) design procedures. The flexible asphalt concrete pavement sections associated with the assumed T.I.’s and design R-value for on-site asphalt pavements are summarized in Table 6.5-1.
Table 6.5-1
Recommended Minimum Pavement Sections
Traffic
Index
Design R-Value
(Expansion)
Asphalt
Concrete
Aggregate Base
(Min. R-value: 78)
Aggregate
Subbase
(Min. R-value: 50)
4.5 11 2.5”
8.5”
2.0”
-
7.0”
5 12 3.0”
8.5”
2.0”
-
7.0”
5.5 13 3.0”
10.5”
3.0”
-
8.0”
6.0 14 3.5”
11.0”
3.5”
-
8.0”
6.5 16 4.0”
11.5”
3.5”
-
8.5”
7.0 17 4.0”
12.5”
4.5”
-
9.0”
7.5 18 4.5”
13.0”
5.0”
-
9.0”
8.0 19 5.0”
13.5”
5.0”
-
9.5”
The design criteria assume a 20-year design period and that normal maintenance (crack sealing, etc.) is performed. The traffic index is a measure of the volume of truck traffic that will be applied to a pavement section in the design life. The allowable average daily truck traffic (ADTT) for the assumed traffic indexes is presented in Table 6.5-2.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 39 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 6.5-2
Average Daily Truck Traffic
Traffic
Index
2-Axle Vehicle or 3-Axle Vehicle or 5-Axle Vehicle
4.5 2.2 0.8 0.2
5.0 5.2 2.0 0.5
5.5 11.6 4.3 1.1
6.0 24.1 9.0 2.4
6.5 47.3 17.7 4.7
7.0 88.1 33.0 8.8
7.5 157.3 59.0 15.8
8.0 270.6 101.5 27.1
The flexible pavement should conform to, and be placed in accordance with, Caltrans Standard Specification (2019). The aggregate base (Class 2) should comply with Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. The aggregate subbase (Class 2) should comply with the specifications in Section 25. The aggregate base, aggregate subbase, and upper 12 inches of subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction as determined by Caltrans Test Method No. 216 (dry weight comparison) or ASTM D1557 test procedures. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be moisture conditioned to at, or above optimum moisture content.
6.5.3 Moisture Considerations
The pavement design should consider both the vehicular loading, as well as the environmental factors. The vehicular loading will depend on the amount and type of traffic anticipated for the pavement design life. Environmental factors include the potential for moisture variations beneath the pavement structural section. It is recommended that all pavement areas conform to the following criteria:
• All trench backfill should be properly placed and adequately compacted to provide a stable subgrade.
• Adequate drainage should be provided to prevent ponding of surface water which could saturate the subgrade soil.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 40 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
• A periodic maintenance program should be incorporated to include sealing cracks and other measures.
• Any concrete curbs and gutters should extend to the subgrade.
6.5.4 Construction Considerations
In the event unstable (pumping) subgrades are encountered within planned pavement areas, it is recommended a heavy, rubber-tired vehicle (typically a loaded water truck) be used to test the load/deflection characteristics of the finished subgrade materials. It is recommended this vehicle have a minimum rear axle load (at the time of testing) of 16,000 pounds with tires inflated to at least 65 psi pressure. If the tested surface shows a visible deflection extending more than 6 inches from the wheel track at the time of loading, or a visible crack remains after loading, corrective measures should be implemented. Such measures could include disking to aerate, chemical treatment, replacement with drier material, or other methods. It is recommended Kleinfelder be retained to assist in developing which method (or methods) would be applicable for this project.
6.5.5 Construction Observation and Testing
It is recommended that all earthwork during construction be monitored by a representative from Kleinfelder, including site preparation, placement of all engineered fill and trench backfill, construction of slab and pavement subgrades. The purpose of these services would be to provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the soil conditions encountered during construction, evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the soil conditions encountered, and recommend appropriate changes in design or construction procedures if conditions differ from those described herein.
6.6 CORROSION POTENTIAL
Kleinfelder has completed laboratory testing to provide data regarding corrosivity of onsite soils.
Our scope of services does not include corrosion engineering and, therefore, a detailed analysis of the corrosion test results is not included in this report. A qualified corrosion engineer should be retained to review the test results and design protective systems that may be required.
Kleinfelder may be able to provide those services.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 41 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Laboratory chloride concentration, sulfate concentration, pH, and electrical resistivity tests were performed on near-surface composite soil samples from the upper 3 feet of Boring B-6 and B-7.
The results of the tests are summarized in Table 6.6-1. If fill materials will be imported to the project site, similar corrosion potential laboratory testing should be completed on the imported material.
Table 6.6-1
Soil Corrosion Potential Laboratory Test Results
Boring Depth,
Feet Material
Minimum
Resistivity,
ohm-cm
pH
Water-Soluble Ion
Concentration,
ppm
Chloride Sulfate
B-6 0 to 3 Silty Sand 24,900 7.32 3.9 0.2
B-7 0 to 3 Sandy Silt 17,400 7.77 30.7 37.5
The following summary is provided with respect to the results presented in Table 6.7-1 and applicable references. Not that the 2019 CBC refers to ACI 318, Section 4.2, for corrosion exposure potential for concrete in contact with soils.
• The measured saturated minimum resistivity values indicates the soil is “moderately corrosive” to buried ferrous metals. These correlations are based on Corrosion Basics, 2nd edition, Roberge, 2006.
• A water-soluble chloride content of less than 500 ppm is generally considered noncorrosive to reinforced concrete. The samples tested had 3.9 and 30.7 ppm soluble Chloride contents. According to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-08, Table 4.2.1, the Exposure Severity and Class for corrosion protection of reinforcement are “Not Applicable” and “C0” if the concrete is dry or protected from moisture, and “Moderate” and “C1” if the concrete is exposed to moisture but not to external sources of chlorides. For both classes, concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi and there is no restriction on the maximum water cement ratio used. If concrete is exposed to moisture and an external source of chlorides, the Exposure Severity and Class for corrosion protection of reinforcement are “Severe” and “C2”. For C2 or Severe conditions concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 5,000 psi and a maximum water cement ratio of 0.40.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 42 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
• According to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-08, Table 4.2.1, the Exposure Severity is “not applicable” and the Exposure Class is “S0” for soils with a water soluble sulfate content of less than 1,000 ppm. According to Table 4.3.1 of ACI 318-08, for an Exposure Class of “S0”, there is no specification for maximum water cement ratio, and concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi.
The provided preliminary corrosion tests are only an indicator of potential soil corrosivity for the sample tested. Kleinfelder’s scope of work did not include corrosion engineering. If more detailed information is required, it is recommended a competent corrosion engineer be retained to evaluate the corrosion potential of the site to proposed improvements, to recommend further testing as required, and to provide specific corrosion mitigation methods appropriate for the project.
6.7 SITE DRAINAGE
6.7.1 General
It is important that drainage away from the improvements be provided to prevent ponding and/or saturation of the soils in the vicinity of foundations, concrete slabs-on-grade, or pavements. Poor surface drainage could cause reduced subgrade support. The site should be graded to carry surface water away from the improvements and convey it to proper discharge points. Proper drainage needs to be a partnering between design and maintenance of the facility.
The development should incorporate the basis for good drainage. This includes:
• Sufficient pad height to allow for proper drainage.
• Defined drainage gradients away from the structures to points of conveyance, such as drainage swales and/or area drains and discharge pipe.
• Roof downspouts connected to proper areas of discharge.
The maintenance personnel must maintain the established drainage by not blocking or obstructing gradients away from structures without providing some alternative drainage means (e.g. area drains and subsurface pipes). If planter areas are established near the structures, it is important to prevent surface run-off from entering the planter. Where planted areas are adjacent to the structures, care must be taken not to over irrigate and to maintain a leak-free sprinkler piping
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 43 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
system. Consideration should be given to use of low volume emitter irrigation systems for planters. Well-maintained low-volume emitter irrigation (drip system) is best suited for planters adjacent to structures. Watering practices must strive to use only sufficient water to sustain and promote plant growth.
6.7.2 On-Site Infiltration Basin
The proposed infiltration basin to be located on the east end of the site may be a source of moisture infiltration that could trigger hydrocompaction of the foundation soils and subsequent settlement. As such, if the hydrocompactive soils are to remain without recompaction to minimize post construction settlement due to hydrocompaction, then it is recommended that the pond design incorporate dry wells to direct and infiltrate storm water at a depth below 10 feet from the existing site grade.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 44 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
7 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
___________________________________________________________________________________
7.1 ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATIONS
As the planning evolves to conceptual and eventual design, detailed design-level Geotechnical Investigation Report(s) and additional soil borings should be conducted that are site specific and address the loading conditions and development schemes for the final designs.
7.2 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW
It is recommended Kleinfelder conduct a general review of plans and specifications to evaluate that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented during design. In the event Kleinfelder is not retained to perform this recommended review, no responsibility will be assumed for misinterpretation of the recommendations.
7.3 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
It is recommended that all earthwork during construction be monitored by a representative from Kleinfelder, including site preparation, placement of all engineered fill and trench backfill, construction of slab and pavement subgrades, and all foundation excavations. The purpose of these services would be to provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the soil conditions encountered during construction, evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the soil conditions encountered, and recommend appropriate changes in design or construction procedures if conditions differ from those described herein.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 45 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
8 LIMITATIONS
___________________________________________________________________________________ Recommendations contained in this report are based on the field observations and subsurface explorations, laboratory tests, and present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, Kleinfelder should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction changes from that described in this report, the recommendations provided should also be reviewed.
This report has been prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice, as it exists in the general area at the time of the study. No warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is intended or provided. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Kleinfelder will conduct an adequate program of tests and observations during the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance with the recommendations.
This report may be used only by the Epic Management Group, Inc. and their designated representatives for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year (without review) from the date of the report. Land use, site conditions or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any other party who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use.
Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party.
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 46 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
9 REFERENCES
Advanced National Seismic System, ANSS. http://www.quake.geo.berkeley.edu/cnss American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures
Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W. (2007), Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007 California Building Code, CBC (2019), California Building Standards Commission California Geological Survey (1998), General Guidelines for Reviewing Geologic Reports: CGS Note 41.
California Geological Survey (2008), Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California: DMG Special Publication 117.
California Geological Survey (2019), Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings, CGS Note 48.
California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (1986), Guidelines for Geologic/Seismic Reports, DMG Note 42.
California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (1987), Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geologic Reports: DMG Note 44.
Churchill, R.K. and Hill, R.L., 2000, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California:
Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 2000-19.
Felzer, K. (2008), “Appendix I: Calculating California Seismicity Rates,” USGS Open File Report 2007-1437I, CGS Special Report 203I, SCEC Contribution #1138I, Version 1.0.
Field, E., Dawson, T., Ellsworth, W., Felzer, V., Frankel, A., Gupta, V., Jordan, T., Parsons, T., Petersen, M., Stein, R., Weldon, R., and Wills, C., 2008, The Uniform California
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 47 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report and California Geological Survey Special Report 203, 97 p Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008). Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, EERI, MNO-12, Oakland, CA
Kanamori, H. (1977), “The Energy Release in Great Earthquakes,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 82, pp. 2981-2987
Matthews, R.A., and Burnett, J.L., (1965), “Geologic Map of the Fresno Sheet,” California Division of Mines and Geology Regional Geologic Map Series, scale 1:250,000 Miller, C.D., 1989, “Potential Hazards from Future Volcanic Eruptions in California,” U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1847
Petersen, Mark D., Frankel, Arthur D., Harmsen, Stephen C., Mueller, Charles S., Haller, Kathleen M., Wheeler, Russell L., Wesson, Robert L., Zeng, Yuehua, Boyd, Oliver S., Perkins, David M., Luco, Nicolas, Field, Edward H., Wills, Chris J., and Rukstales, Kenneth S. (2008), “Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps,” Open-File Report 2008–1128, United States Geological Survey, Denver, CO:
available at website:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1128/.
Poland, J.F., Ireland, R.L., and Riley, F.S. (1984), “Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, California, as of 1980,” USGS Numbered Series, Studies of land subsidence, pp. 437-I Seeburger, D.A. and Bolt, B.A. (1976), “Earthquakes in California, 1769-1927,” Seismicity Listing Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University of California, Berkeley
Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B. (1987), “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878, August
Toppozada, T., Branum, D., Petersen, M., Hallstrom, C., Cramer, C., and Reichle, M. (2000), “Epicenters of and Areas Damaged by M ≥ 5 California Earthquakes, 1800-1999,” CDMG Map Sheet 49
20210045.001A/MER20R112686 Page 48 of 48 June 9, 2020
© 2020 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Toppozada, T.R., Real, C.R., and Parke, D.L. (1981), “Preparation of Isoseismal Maps and Summaries of Reported Effects for Pre-1900 California Earthquakes,” California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 81-11 SAC, pp. 182 Toppozada, T.R., Parke, D.L., and Higgins, C.T. (1978), “Seismicity of California, 1900-1931,” California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 135, pp. 39
FIGURES
___________________________________________________________________________________ Site Vicinity Map 1
Exploration Location Map 2
Site Plan and Geology Map 3
Area Geology Map 4
Regional Geology Map 5
Cross Section A-A’ 6
Cross Section B-B’ 7
Regional Fault Map and Earthquake Epicenters 8
FEMA Flood Map 9
Dan Inundation Map 10
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA Site
Location
SITE LOCATION
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Basemap: USA Topo Maps via ESRI
Locations are Approximate
£
SITE VICINITY MAP
PROJECT:
FILE NAME:
FIGURE
1 DRAWN:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
20210045
JUNE 2020
AA
RA
Figure_1.mxd
HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Explanation
Approximate Site
Location
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA Page 723 of 1290
© 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS B-8
B-9
B-5
B-4
B-3
B-2
B-7
B-1
B-6
R-2 R-1 R-4
R-3
R-5
R-6
R-7
EXPLANATION
B-9 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION CAD FILE: U:\Projects\CADD\CADD 2021\20210045\20210045_Hanford.dwg LAYOUT: 2 PLOTTED: 6/2/2020 11:29 AM BY: dean fahrney The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.
FIGURE
DRAWN BY
DATE:
PROJECT:
CHECKED BY
REVISED:
EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP
HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
20210045
DMF
CE
05/2020
05/2020 2 N
200 100 0 200
APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)
REFERENCE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY ZUMWALT HANSEN, INC., DATED 09/24/19 R-7 APPROXIMATE R-VALUE LOCATION
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
© 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS B-8
B-9
B-5
B-4
B-3
B-2
B-7
B-1
B-6
R-2 R-1 R-4
R-3
R-5
R-6
R-7 A
A'
B' B
EXPLANATION
B-9 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION CAD FILE: U:\Projects\CADD\CADD 2021\20210045\20210045_Hanford.dwg LAYOUT: 3 PLOTTED: 6/2/2020 11:36 AM BY: dean fahrney The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.
FIGURE
DRAWN BY
DATE:
PROJECT:
CHECKED BY
REVISED:
SITE PLAN AND GEOLOGY MAP
HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
20210045
DMF
CE
05/2020
05/2020 3 N
200 100 0 200
APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)
REFERENCE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY ZUMWALT HANSEN, INC., DATED 09/24/19 R-7 APPROXIMATE R-VALUE LOCATION
CROSS-SECTION LOCATION
B B'
Qf FAN DEPOSITS
Qf
Qf
Qf
Qf
Qf
Qf
Qf
Qf
Qf
GEOLOGIC UNITS
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
"
"
" " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
!.
Conejo Kingsburg
Riverdale Camden
London
Laton
Traver
Armona
Lemoore Home Garden
Stratford
Waukena
Hanford
2 3
4 2
3 4
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.
£
AREA GEOLOGY MAP
4 20210045
JUNE 2020
RA
AA
Figure_4.mxd
HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
SITE
REFERENCE:
Matthews, R.A., and Burnett, J.L., Geologic Map of California:
Fresno sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1965, 1:250,000.
Qf Fan deposits
Qb Basin deposits
Ql Quaternary lake deposits
0 1 2 4
Miles
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA Page 726 of 1290
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.
£
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
5 20210045
JUNE 2020
RA
AA
Figure_5.mxd
HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
REFERENCE:
Simplified Geologic Map of California, California, a digital map sheet 57, Graphics by Jerry Wampole/CGS, dated 2006
SITE
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA Page 727 of 1290
SM
ML
SP
ML
SM
B-1
ML
SM
SP
CL
SP
ML
B-2
SM
B-3
SM
B-4
SM
B-5
SM
SP
ML
SP
CL-ML
SP
CL-ML
230 B-6
220
210
200
190
180
170
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
TD=16.5' TD=16.5' TD=16.5'
TD=51.5'
TD=26.5'
TD=21.5' A A' ?? CAD FILE: U:\Projects\CADD\CADD 2021\20210045\20210045_Hanford.dwg LAYOUT: 6 PLOTTED: 6/1/2020 11:29 AM BY: dean fahrney The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. 10 5 0 10
VERTICAL SCALE (feet)
FIGURE
DRAWN BY
DATE:
PROJECT:
CHECKED BY
REVISED:
CROSS-SECTION A-A'
HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
20210045
DMF
AA
06/2020
06/2020 6
200 100 0 200
HORIZONTAL SCALE (feet)
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
ML
SM
SP
CL
SM
SP
CL
SP
CL
B-7
ML
SM
ML
CL
B-8
ML
SM
SP
B-9 230
220
210
200
190
180
170
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
TD=51.5'
TD=26.5'
TD=21.5' B B' ????? ? CAD FILE: U:\Projects\CADD\CADD 2021\20210045\20210045_Hanford.dwg LAYOUT: 7 PLOTTED: 6/1/2020 11:41 AM BY: dean fahrney The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. 10 5 0 10
VERTICAL SCALE (feet)
FIGURE
DRAWN BY
DATE:
PROJECT:
CHECKED BY
REVISED:
CROSS-SECTION B-B'
HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
20210045
DMF
AA
06/2020
06/2020 7
200 100 0 200
HORIZONTAL SCALE (feet)
-ML -ML
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Faulting Legend
Historic displacement (< 200 years)
Mapped Fault Location
Dashed where Approximated
! ! ! ! ! Concealed
Holocene displacement (< 11,000 years)
Mapped Fault Location
Dashed where Approximated
! ! ! ! ! Concealed
Late Quaternary displacement (< 750,000 years)
Mapped Fault Location
Dashed where Approximated
! ! ! ! ! Concealed
Quaternary displacement (< 1,600,000 years)
Mapped Fault Location
Dashed where Approximated
! ! ! ! ! Concealed
Pre-Quaternary Geologic Structures (CGS, 2000)
fault, approx. located
@ fault, approx. located, queried
fault, certain
fault, concealed
@ fault, concealed, queried
@ fault, inferred, queried
ANSS Earthquakes
Magnitude
4.0 - 4.9
5.0 - 5.9
6.0 - 6.9
7.0 - 7.9
8.0 - 8.9
@ @ @ @ @ @ @
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F F
F
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F
F F
F F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F F F
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F
M
! ! !
!
! !
!! ! ! !
! ! !
! !!
!
!!
! !!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!!!!!!
! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!!
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!! !
! ! !
! !! !
! !
!!
!!!!! ! !!!
!!!!! !
!!! !!!! !!
! !! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !!
!
! !!
!! !! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!!! ! !
! ! ! !
!!
! ! !!! !
! !
! ! ! !
!! ! ! ! !
!
!
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
%2
Merced
Madera
Fresno
Hanford Visalia
San Luis
Obispo
Bakersfield
118°30'0"W
118°30'0"W
120°0'0"W
120°0'0"W
36°0'0"N
36°0'0"N
35 17.5 0 35
Kilometers
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.
Quaternary Faults (Bryant, 2005; USGS, 2009)
£
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
AND EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS
(1800 - MAY 2020) 8
20210045
JUNE 2020
RA
AA
Figure_8.mxd
HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA Page 730 of 1290
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.
£
FEMA FLOOD MAP
9 20210045
JUNE 2020
RA
AA
Figure_9.mxd
HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
SITE
REFERENCE:
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate map, Kings County,
California, Map # 06031C0185C, dated 2009
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA Page 731 of 1290
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
FILE NAME:
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. £
DAM INUNDATION MAP
10 20210045
JUNE 2020
RA
AA
Figure_10.mxd
HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
SITE
REFERENCE:
Kings County Multi-jurisdictional Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan, December 2012
0 2 4
Miles
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA Page 732 of 1290
APPENDIX A
___________________________________________________________________________________ Graphics Key A-1
Soil Description Key A-2
Boring Logs A-3/A-11
A-1
APPENDIX GRAPHICS KEY
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
The report and graphics key are an integral part of these logs. All data and interpretations in this log are subject to the explanations and limitations stated in the report.
Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual or differ from those shown.
No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil or rock conditions between individual sample locations.
Logs represent general soil or rock conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated.
In general, Unified Soil Classification System designations presented on the logs were based on visual classification in the field and were modified where appropriate based on gradation and index property testing.
Fine grained soils that plot within the hatched area on the Plasticity Chart, and coarse grained soils with between 5% and 12% passing the No. 200 sieve require dual USCS symbols, ie., GW-GM, GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC, GC-GM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SW-SC, SP-SC, SC-SM.
If sampler is not able to be driven at least 6 inches then 50/X indicates number of blows required to drive the identified sampler X inches with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.
ABBREVIATIONS
WOH - Weight of Hammer
WOR - Weight of Rod
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE FINES
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE CLAY FINES
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE FINES
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE CLAY FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SILT-SAND
MIXTURES
CLAYEY GRAVELS,
GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY-SILT MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANDS,
SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE CLAY FINES
POORLY GRADED SANDS,
SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE CLAY FINES
SW
SW-SC
POORLY GRADED SANDS,
SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE FINES
Cu 4 and/
or 1 Cc 3 >
>
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS & ORGANIC SILTS OF
MEDIUM-TO-HIGH PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT
CLAYS
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILT
INORGANIC CLAYS-SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
_
SILTY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-SILT
MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS,
SAND-GRAVEL-CLAY MIXTURES
SW-SM
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-SILT-CLAY
MIXTURES
CL
CL-ML
>
<
<
SANDS
WITH
5% TO
12%
FINES
SANDS
WITH >
12%
FINES
WELL-GRADED SANDS,
SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE FINES
Cu 4 and/
or 1 Cc 3>
CLEAN
GRAVEL
WITH
<5%
FINES
GRAVELS
WITH
5% TO
12%
FINES
OL
CH
CLAYEY GRAVELS,
GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
FINE GRAINED SOILS
(Half or more of material is
smaller than
the #200 sieve)
GRAVELS
WITH >
12%
FINES
>
Cu 4 and
1 Cc 3
>_
_ BULK SAMPLE
CALIFORNIA SAMPLER
(3 in. (76.2 mm.) outer diameter)
STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
(2 in. (50.8 mm.) outer diameter and 1-3/8 in. (34.9 mm.) inner diameter)
_
GM
GC
GW
GP
GW-GM
GW-GC
_ _
_
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
<
SAMPLE/SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHICS
>
<
<
>
CLEAN
SANDS
WITH
<5%
FINES
GRAVELS (More than half of coarse fraction is larger than the #4 sieve) Cu 6 and/
or 1 Cc 3
Cu 6 and/
or 1 Cc 3
>
Cu 6 and
1 Cc 3
SC-SM
Cu 4 and
1 Cc 3
< _
ORGANIC SILTS & ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF
LOW PLASTICITY
SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid Limit
less than 50)
WELL-GRADED SANDS,
SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY GRADED SANDS,
SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE OR NO FINES
MH
OH
ML
GC-GM
COARSE GRAINED SOILS (More than half of material is larger than the #200 sieve) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)
<
Cu 6 and
1 Cc 3
GP-GM
GP-GC
_
_ _<
>
<
<
>
SP
SP-SM
SP-SC
SM
SC
< _<
>
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH
LITTLE OR NO FINES
SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid Limit
50 or greater)
SANDS (Half or more of coarse fraction is smaller than the #4 sieve) NOTE: USE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ON THE LOG TO DEFINE A GRAPHIC THAT MAY NOT BE PROVIDED ON THIS LEGEND.
GROUND WATER GRAPHICS
OBSERVED SEEPAGE
WATER LEVEL (level after exploration completion)
WATER LEVEL (level where first observed)
WATER LEVEL (additional levels after exploration)
NOTES
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_GEO-LEG1 (GRAPHICS KEY) WITH USCS] PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:00 PM BY: ESinco DATE:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
20210045.001A
PROJECT NO.:
APPENDIX
CALIFORNIA
SAMPLER
(# blows/ft)
MODIFIED CA
SAMPLER
(# blows/ft)
SPT-N60
(# blows/ft)
A-2
SOIL DESCRIPTION KEY
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
CONSISTENCY
<2
Moist
DESCRIPTION
Strongly
FIELD TEST
>30
Very Soft
PI
NP
Either the LL or the PI (or
both) may be used to
describe the soil plasticity.
The ranges of numbers
shown here do not imply
that the LL ranges
correlate with the PI
ranges for all soils.
DESCRIPTION
Damp but no
visible water
Boulders
Cobbles
coarse
fine
Gravel
Sand
Fines
GRAIN SIZE
>12 in. (304.8 mm.)
3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.) Fist-sized to basketball-sized 3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.) Thumb-sized to fist-sized
0.19 - 0.75 in. (4.8 - 19 mm.) Pea-sized to thumb-sized #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19 in. (2 - 4.9 mm.)
0.017 - 0.079 in. (0.43 - 2 mm.)
#200 - #40
coarse
fine
medium
SIEVE SIZE APPROXIMATE SIZE
>12 in. (304.8 mm.) Larger than basketball-sized
3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.)
3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.)
#4 - 3/4 in. (#4 - 19 mm.)
Rock salt-sized to pea-sized
#40 - #10 Sugar-sized to rock salt-sized
0.0029 - 0.017 in. (0.07 - 0.43 mm.) Flour-sized to sugar-sized Passing #200 <0.0029 in. (<0.07 mm.) Flour-sized and smaller
DESCRIPTION
Secondary
Constituent is
Fine Grained
Secondary
Constituent is
Coarse Grained
SPT - N60
(# blows / ft)
Soft
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
Weakly
Crumbles or breaks
with handling or slight
finger pressure
Crumbles or breaks
with considerable finger
pressure
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (Qu)(psf)
VISUAL / MANUAL CRITERIA
<500
0.5 PP <1
1 PP <2
2 PP <4
4 PP >8000
4000 - 8000
500 - 1000
1000 - 2000
2000 - 4000
Dry
Wet
Visible free water,
usually soil is below
water table
Thumb will penetrate more than 1 inch (25 mm). Extrudes between fingers when squeezed.
Thumb will penetrate soil about 1 inch (25 mm).
Remolded by light finger pressure.
Thumb will penetrate soil about 1/4 inch (6 mm).
Remolded by strong finger pressure.
Can be imprinted with considerable pressure from thumb.
Thumb will not indent soil but readily indented with
thumbnail.
Thumbnail will not indent soil.
DESCRIPTION
Alternating layers of varying material or color with the layer less than 1/4-in. thick, note thickness.
15 - 25
> 25
FIELD TEST
Absence of
moisture, dusty,
dry to the touch
Moderately
Will not crumble or
break with finger
pressure
Pocket Pen
(tsf)
Term
of
Use
<5%
With
Modifier
5 to <15%
15%
Trace <15%
15 to <30%
30%
AMOUNT
Fissured
Slickensided
Blocky
Lensed
CRITERIA
Stratified
Laminated
Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.
Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-in. thick, note thickness.
Breaks along definite planes of fracture with
little resistance to fracturing.
Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown.
Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay; note thickness.
None
Weak
Strong
No visible reaction
RELATIVE
DENSITY
(%)
APPARENT
DENSITY
Some reaction,
with bubbles
forming slowly
Violent reaction,
with bubbles
forming
immediately
DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST
PP < 0.25
Medium Stiff
0.25 PP <0.5
30 - 50
10 - 30
4 - 10
<4
>60
35 - 60
12 - 35
5 - 12
<4
>70
40 - 70
15 - 40
5 - 15
85 - 100
65 - 85
35 - 65
15 - 35
<5 0 - 15
Very Dense
Dense
Medium Dense
>50
Loose
Very Loose
FROM TERZAGHI AND PECK, 1948
DESCRIPTION
Non-Plastic NP
LL
Low < 30
Medium 30 - 50
High > 50
LL is from Casagrande, 1948. PI is from Holtz , 1959.
< 15
Rounded
Subrounded Particles have nearly plane sides but have well-rounded corners and edges.
Angular Particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces.
Subangular
Particles have smoothly curved sides and no edges.
Particles are similar to angular description but have rounded edges.
DESCRIPTION CRITERIA
MOISTURE CONTENT
CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL REACTION WITH
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
STRUCTURE
SECONDARY CONSTITUENT CEMENTATION
APPARENT / RELATIVE DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOIL
GRAIN SIZE
PLASTICITY
ANGULARITY
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_GEO-LEG 2 (SOIL DESC KEY)] PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:01 PM BY: ESinco DATE:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
20210045.001A
PROJECT NO.:
Silty SAND (SM): medium dense, brown, moist, fine
to medium-grained
Sandy SILT (ML): medium stiff, reddish brown,
moist
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): medium dense, light
brown, moist, fine-grained
Sandy SILT (ML): stiff, reddish brown, moist, low
plasticity
Silty SAND (SM): medium dense, gray with brown,
moist, fine-grained
The boring was terminated at approximately 21.5 ft.
below ground surface. The boring was backfilled
with auger cuttings on April 20, 2020.
108.6
88.1 107.9
Consolidation
BC=7
12 14
BC=5
6 6
BC=6
13 11
BC=3
1 2
BC=7
11 14
BC=7
8 10
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.
GENERAL NOTES:
GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
37 17
35 4
36 26
2.4 4.8
10.9 LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORING LOG B-1
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
PAGE: 1 of 1
APPENDIX
A-3
BORING LOG B-1 Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:
Drilling Equipment:
Not Available Auger Diameter:
Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Logged By:
Date Begin - End:
Hor.-Vert. Datum:
Weather:
Drill Crew:
Hammer Efficiency: 86.4%
Hammer Cal. Date:
CME-75
8 in. O.D.
J. Green
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/14/2019
4/20/2020
Blow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfLiquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
Graphical LogRecovery(NR=No Recovery)N60 ValueWaterContent (%) PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:05 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [CLIENT_CT_LITH_ORDER_KLF_FORMAT] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001ASample Type
Sandy SILT (ML): medium stiff, light brown, moist,
low plasticity
hard
Silty SAND (SM): medium dense, light brown,
moist, fine-grained
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): medium dense, grayish
brown, moist, fine-grained
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): medium stiff, dark brown,
moist, low to medium plasticity
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): medium dense, gray,
moist, fine-grained
Sandy SILT (ML): medium stiff, gray, moist,
non-plastic to low plasticity
The boring was terminated at approximately 26.5 ft.
below ground surface. The boring was backfilled
with auger cuttings on April 20, 2020.
98.8 BC=6 60
6 9
BC=25
27 25
BC=6
7 8
BC=8
10 11
BC=3
3 3
BC=8
9 12
BC=8
7 9
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.
GENERAL NOTES:
GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
22 75
22 30
9 30
23 6.5
LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORING LOG B-2
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
PAGE: 1 of 1
APPENDIX
A-4
BORING LOG B-2 Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:
Drilling Equipment:
Not Available Auger Diameter:
Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Logged By:
Date Begin - End:
Hor.-Vert. Datum:
Weather:
Drill Crew:
Hammer Efficiency: 86.4%
Hammer Cal. Date:
CME-75
8 in. O.D.
J. Green
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/14/2019
4/20/2020
Blow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfLiquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
Graphical LogRecovery(NR=No Recovery)N60 ValueWaterContent (%) PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:05 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [CLIENT_CT_LITH_ORDER_KLF_FORMAT] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001ASample Type
Silty SAND (SM): medium dense, yellowish brown,
moist, fine-grained, pinholes
light grayish brown
reddish brown
The boring was terminated at approximately 16.5 ft.
below ground surface. The boring was backfilled
with auger cuttings on April 20, 2020.
96.0 Consolidation
Direct Shear=
Peak Cohesion: 740 psf
Peak Friction Angle: 27.0°
Peak Tangent Angle: 0.52
BC=10
9 10
BC=8
12 13
BC=10
11 13
BC=7
8 10
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.
GENERAL NOTES:
GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
27 36
35 26
3.2 LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORING LOG B-3
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
PAGE: 1 of 1
APPENDIX
A-5
BORING LOG B-3 Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:
Drilling Equipment:
Not Available Auger Diameter:
Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Logged By:
Date Begin - End:
Hor.-Vert. Datum:
Weather:
Drill Crew:
Hammer Efficiency: 86.4%
Hammer Cal. Date:
CME-75
8 in. O.D.
J. Green
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/14/2019
4/20/2020
Blow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfLiquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
Graphical LogRecovery(NR=No Recovery)N60 ValueWaterContent (%) PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:05 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [CLIENT_CT_LITH_ORDER_KLF_FORMAT] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001ASample Type
Silty SAND (SM): medium dense, light brown,
moist, fine-grained, non-plastic, pinholes
dense, brown
medium dense, reddish brown
The boring was terminated at approximately 16.5 ft.
below ground surface. The boring was backfilled
with auger cuttings on April 21, 2020.
95.5 BC=10
14 15
BC=6
9 14
BC=31
32 35
BC=3
8 7
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.
GENERAL NOTES:
GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
42 33
96 22
3.5 LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORING LOG B-4
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
PAGE: 1 of 1
APPENDIX
A-6
BORING LOG B-4 Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:
Drilling Equipment:
Not Available Auger Diameter:
Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Logged By:
Date Begin - End:
Hor.-Vert. Datum:
Weather:
Drill Crew:
Hammer Efficiency: 86.4%
Hammer Cal. Date:
CME-75
8 in. O.D.
J. Green
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/14/2019
4/21/2020
Blow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfLiquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
Graphical LogRecovery(NR=No Recovery)N60 ValueWaterContent (%) PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:05 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [CLIENT_CT_LITH_ORDER_KLF_FORMAT] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001ASample Type
Silty SAND (SM): medium dense, brown, moist,
fine-grained, non-plastic, pinholes
light brown
dense
The boring was terminated at approximately 16.5 ft.
below ground surface. The boring was backfilled
with auger cuttings on April 21, 2020.
101.5
94.9 BC=18
19 20
BC=9
13 15
BC=11
7 7
BC=11
20 24
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.
GENERAL NOTES:
GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
56 40
20 63
4.8 6.6
LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORING LOG B-5
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
PAGE: 1 of 1
APPENDIX
A-7
BORING LOG B-5 Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:
Drilling Equipment:
Not Available Auger Diameter:
Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Logged By:
Date Begin - End:
Hor.-Vert. Datum:
Weather:
Drill Crew:
Hammer Efficiency: 86.4%
Hammer Cal. Date:
CME-75
8 in. O.D.
J. Green
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/14/2019
4/21/2020
Blow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfLiquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
Graphical LogRecovery(NR=No Recovery)N60 ValueWaterContent (%) PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:05 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [CLIENT_CT_LITH_ORDER_KLF_FORMAT] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001ASample Type
Silty SAND (SM): medium dense, brown, moist,
fine-grained, non-plastic, pin holes and organics
reddish brown
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): medium dense, grayish
brown, moist
Sandy SILT (ML): stiff, dark brown, moist
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): medium dense, grayish
brown, moist, fine-grained
SILTY CLAY (CL-ML): medium stiff, dark gray,
moist, medium plasticity
97.3 95.9
100.9
70 ASTM D1557 Method A=
Max. Dry Unit Wt.: 121.8 pcf
Opt. Water Content: 9.8%
BC=7
4 8
BC=3
5 6
BC=14
11 13
BC=2
2 4
BC=8
9 11
BC=2
4 8
BC=13
8 25
BC=7
8 10
24 7
17 16
35 9
29 17
48 26
5.0 3.1
1.9 LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORING LOG B-6
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
PAGE: 1 of 2
APPENDIX
A-8
BORING LOG B-6 Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:
Drilling Equipment:
Not Available Auger Diameter:
Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Logged By:
Date Begin - End:
Hor.-Vert. Datum:
Weather:
Drill Crew:
Hammer Efficiency: 86.4%
Hammer Cal. Date:
CME-75
8 in. O.D.
J. Green
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/14/2019
4/21/2020
Blow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfLiquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
Graphical LogRecovery(NR=No Recovery)N60 ValueWaterContent (%) PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:05 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [CLIENT_CT_LITH_ORDER_KLF_FORMAT] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001ASample Type
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): medium dense, light
brownish gray, moist, fine-grained, non-plastic
Sandy SILTY CLAY (CL-ML): very stiff, dark gray,
moist, low to medium plasticity, fine-grained sand
The boring was terminated at approximately 51.5 ft.
below ground surface. The boring was backfilled
with auger cuttings on April 21, 2020.
99.6 BC=9
13 25
BC=6
8 11
BC=8
13 19
BC=11
12 14
26 7
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.
GENERAL NOTES:
GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
55 27
46 37
2.9 LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORING LOG B-6
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
PAGE: 2 of 2
APPENDIX
A-8
BORING LOG B-6 Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:
Drilling Equipment:
Not Available Auger Diameter:
Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Logged By:
Date Begin - End:
Hor.-Vert. Datum:
Weather:
Drill Crew:
Hammer Efficiency: 86.4%
Hammer Cal. Date:
CME-75
8 in. O.D.
J. Green
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/14/2019
4/21/2020
Blow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfLiquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Depth (feet)
40 45
50 55
60 65
Graphical LogRecovery(NR=No Recovery)N60 ValueWaterContent (%) PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:05 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [CLIENT_CT_LITH_ORDER_KLF_FORMAT] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001ASample Type
Sandy SILT (ML): light brown, moist, non-plastic,
fine-grained sand
Silty SAND (SM): medium dense, light brown,
moist, fine-grained, non-plastic to low plasticity
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): medium dense, gray
with light orange, moist, fine to medium-grained
reddish brown
Lean CLAY (CL): very stiff, gray, moist, medium
plasticity, trace fine-grained sand
Silty SAND (SM): dense, brown, moist, fine-grained,
non-plastic to low plasticity
111.0
94.6 97.8
112.9
ASTM D1557 Method A=
Max. Dry Unit Wt.: 124.8 pcf
Opt. Water Content: 8.5%
Consolidation
BC=28
15 25
BC=5
6 11
BC=7
9 12
BC=4
6 7
BC=5
2 2
BC=10
13 11
BC=3
5 11
BC=24
26 34
58 24
30 19
6 35
23 86
4.5 6.3
7.9 11.6
LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORING LOG B-7
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
PAGE: 1 of 2
APPENDIX
A-9
BORING LOG B-7 Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:
Drilling Equipment:
Not Available Auger Diameter:
Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Logged By:
Date Begin - End:
Hor.-Vert. Datum:
Weather:
Drill Crew:
Hammer Efficiency: 86.4%
Hammer Cal. Date:
CME-75
8 in. O.D.
J. Green
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/14/2019
4/20/2020
Blow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfLiquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
Graphical LogRecovery(NR=No Recovery)N60 ValueWaterContent (%) PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:05 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [CLIENT_CT_LITH_ORDER_KLF_FORMAT] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001ASample Type
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): medium dense, light
gray, moist, fine-grained
Silty CLAY (CL-ML): hard, light brown, moist, low
plasticity
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): dense, light gray, moist,
fine-grained
wet
Silty CLAY (CL-ML): very stiff, dark greenish gray,
wet, low plasticity
The boring was terminated at approximately 51.5 ft.
below ground surface. The boring was backfilled
with auger cuttings on April 20, 2020.
BC=11
13 16
BC=20
25 31
BC=5
7 9
BC=10
11 15
Perched groundwater was observed at approximately 45 ft. below ground surface during drilling.
GENERAL NOTES:
GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
42 81
23 37 28.3
LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORING LOG B-7
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
PAGE: 2 of 2
APPENDIX
A-9
BORING LOG B-7 Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:
Drilling Equipment:
Not Available Auger Diameter:
Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Logged By:
Date Begin - End:
Hor.-Vert. Datum:
Weather:
Drill Crew:
Hammer Efficiency: 86.4%
Hammer Cal. Date:
CME-75
8 in. O.D.
J. Green
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/14/2019
4/20/2020
Blow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfLiquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Depth (feet)
40 45
50 55
60 65
Graphical LogRecovery(NR=No Recovery)N60 ValueWaterContent (%) PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:05 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [CLIENT_CT_LITH_ORDER_KLF_FORMAT] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001ASample Type
SILT (ML): medium dense, light brown, moist,
fine-grained, non-plastic to low plasticity, pinholes
Silty SAND (SM): medium dense, light brown,
moist, low plasticity, weakly to moderately cemented,
pinholes
Sandy SILT (ML): very stiff, brown, moist,
fine-grained, low plasticity
stiff
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): medium stiff, dark brown,
moist, low to medium plasticity
stiff, gray
The boring was terminated at approximately 26.5 ft.
below ground surface. The boring was backfilled
with auger cuttings on April 20, 2020.
100.3
99.5 104.6
Direct Shear=
Peak Cohesion: 133.33 psf
Peak Friction Angle: 30.5°
Peak Tangent Angle: 0.57
BC=9
11 12
BC=9
11 15
BC=18
21 17
BC=4
4 5
BC=3
4 8
BC=8
8 9
BC=7
10 25
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.
GENERAL NOTES:
GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
33 37
55 13
17 24
50 5.1
2.4 20.6
LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORING LOG B-8
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
PAGE: 1 of 1
APPENDIX
A-10
BORING LOG B-8 Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:
Drilling Equipment:
Not Available Auger Diameter:
Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Logged By:
Date Begin - End:
Hor.-Vert. Datum:
Weather:
Drill Crew:
Hammer Efficiency: 86.4%
Hammer Cal. Date:
CME-75
8 in. O.D.
J. Green
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/14/2019
4/20/2020
Blow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfLiquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
Graphical LogRecovery(NR=No Recovery)N60 ValueWaterContent (%) PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:05 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [CLIENT_CT_LITH_ORDER_KLF_FORMAT] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001ASample Type
Sandy SILT (ML): very stiff, grayish brown, moist,
non-plastic
Silty SAND (SM): medium dense, grayish brown,
moist, fine-grained, non-plastic
brown
reddish brown
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): dense, gray, moist,
fine-grained, non-plastic
The boring was terminated at approximately 21.5 ft.
below ground surface. The boring was backfilled
with auger cuttings on April 20, 2020.
BC=9 92.0 57 Consolidation
12 17
BC=7
7 9
BC=7
18 23
BC=6
6 11
BC=25
26 28
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.
GENERAL NOTES:
GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
42 23
59 24
78 7.1
LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORING LOG B-9
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
PAGE: 1 of 1
APPENDIX
A-11
BORING LOG B-9 Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:
Drilling Equipment:
Not Available Auger Diameter:
Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.
Logged By:
Date Begin - End:
Hor.-Vert. Datum:
Weather:
Drill Crew:
Hammer Efficiency: 86.4%
Hammer Cal. Date:
CME-75
8 in. O.D.
J. Green
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/14/2019
4/20/2020
Blow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfLiquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
Graphical LogRecovery(NR=No Recovery)N60 ValueWaterContent (%) PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 04:05 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [CLIENT_CT_LITH_ORDER_KLF_FORMAT] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001ASample Type
APPENDIX B
___________________________________________________________________________________ Laboratory Summary B-1/B-2
Sieve Analysis B-3
Atterberg Limits B-4
Direct Shear B-5/B-6
Collapse Potential B-7/B-10
Resistance Value B-11/B-17
B-1 3.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 2.4 108.6
B-1 5.0 SANDY SILT (ML) 4.8 88.1
B-1 6.0 SANDY SILT (ML) 4.7 106.4 Consolidation
B-1 17.0 SANDY SILT (ML) 10.9 107.9
B-2 2.0 SANDY SILT (ML) 60
B-2 10.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 6.5 98.8
B-3 1.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 6.9 96.8 Consolidation
B-3 1.5 SILTY SAND (SM) Direct Shear=
Peak Cohesion: 740 psf
Peak Friction Angle: 27.0°
Peak Tangent Angle: 0.52
B-3 5.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 3.2 96.0
B-4 5.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 3.5 95.5
B-5 3.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 4.8 101.5
B-5 5.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 6.6 94.9
B-6 0.0 - 0.5 SILTY SAND (SM) ASTM D1557 Method A=
Maximum Dry Unit Weight: 121.8 pcf
Optimum Water Content: 9.8%
B-6 2.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 5.0 97.3
B-6 7.5 SILTY SAND (SM) 3.1 95.9
B-6 20.0 SANDY SILT (ML) 70
B-6 25.0 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) 1.9 100.9
B-6 30.0 SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) 24 17 7
B-6 40.0 SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) 26 19 7
B-6 45.0 SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) 2.9 99.6
B-7 0.0 - 2.0 SANDY SILT (ML) ASTM D1557 Method A=
Maximum Dry Unit Weight: 124.8 pcf
Optimum Water Content: 8.5%
Passing 3/4"
Sieve Analysis (%) Passing #4 Passing #200
B-1
APPENDIX
Plasticity Index
Depth
(ft.)
Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit
Sample Description
Water Content (%)Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Plastic Limit
Exploration
ID Additional Tests
Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or the
supplemental plates for the method used for the testing performed above.
NP = NonPlastic
LABORATORY TEST
RESULT SUMMARY
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNO gINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_LAB SUMMARY TABLE - SOIL] PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:58 PM BY: ESinco
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
20210045.001A
B-7 2.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 4.5 111.0
B-7 6.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 6.3 94.6
B-7 7.5 SILTY SAND (SM) 7.9 97.8 Consolidation
B-7 30.0 SILTY SAND (SM) 11.6 112.9
B-7 50.0 SILTY CLAY ( CL-ML) 28.3
B-8 2.0 SILT (ML) 5.1 100.3 Direct Shear=
Peak Cohesion: 133.33 psf
Peak Friction Angle: 30.5°
Peak Tangent Angle: 0.57
B-8 7.5 SANDY SILT (ML) 2.4 99.5
B-8 15.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 20.6 104.6
B-9 2.0 SANDY SILT (ML) 7.1 92.0 57 Consolidation
RV-1 0.0 - 3.0 SILTY SAND (SM) R-Value= 70
RV-2 0.0 - 3.0 SILTY SAND (SM) R-Value= 63
RV-3 0.0 - 3.0 SANDY SILT (ML) R-Value= 41
RV-4 0.0 - 3.0 SANDY SILT (ML) R-Value= 53
RV-5 0.0 - 3.0 SILT (ML) R-Value= 14
RV-6 0.0 - 3.0 SILTY SAND (SM) R-Value= 62
RV-7 0.0 - 3.0 SANDY SILT (ML) R-Value= 21 Passing 3/4" Sieve Analysis (%) Passing #4 Passing #200
B-2
APPENDIX
Plasticity Index
Depth
(ft.)
Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit
Sample Description
Water Content (%)Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Plastic Limit
Exploration
ID Additional Tests
Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or the
supplemental plates for the method used for the testing performed above.
NP = NonPlastic
LABORATORY TEST
RESULT SUMMARY
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNO gINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_LAB SUMMARY TABLE - SOIL] PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:58 PM BY: ESinco
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
20210045.001A
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 95
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
24 1 3/8 3 6 10 16 30 100 200
Sample Description LL PL PI
Cc Cu %Silt %Clay
3 4 20 40 140
BOULDER
6 1.5 8 60
D100 D60 D30 D10 Passing
3/4"
Passing
#4
Passing
#200
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
2 20
2 0.075
0.075
0.075
NM
NM
NM
Exploration ID Depth (ft.) PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
medium fine
GRAVEL SAND
COBBLE
coarse coarse SILT CLAYfine
Exploration ID Depth (ft.)
B-3
SIEVE ANALYSIS
50 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER Coefficients of Uniformity - Cu = D60 / D10 Coefficients of Curvature - CC = (D30)2 / D60 D10 D60 = Grain diameter at 60% passing
D30 = Grain diameter at 30% passing
D10 = Grain diameter at 10% passing
2 20
2 B-2
B-6
B-9
B-2
B-6
B-9
NM
NM
NM
SANDY SILT (ML)
SANDY SILT (ML)
SANDY SILT (ML)
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
APPENDIX
12 3/4 1/2 14
60 70
57 NM
NM
NM
Sieve Analysis and Hydrometer Analysis testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D6913(Sieve Analysis) and ASTM D7928 (Hydrometer Analysis).
NP = Nonplastic
NM = Not Measured
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:53 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_SIEVE ANALYSIS] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LL PL PI Passing
#200
B-4
Exploration ID Depth (ft.)
16 17
19 NM
NM
30 40
CL-ML
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)
CL or OL
"U" LINE
ML or OL 4
7 MH or OH
"A" LINE
CH or OH
Sample Description
B-6
B-6
24 26
7 7
SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
APPENDIX
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318.
NP = Nonplastic
NM = Not Measured
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
Chart Reference: ASTM D2487
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:49 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_ATTERBERG (ASTM)] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
For classification of fine-grained soils
and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained
soils.
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
NM NM NM NM 2.65
0.746
0.730
0.731
DIRECT SHEAR
B-5
Dry Unit
Weight (pcf) Area (in2 Saturation (%) Void Ratio ) Height (in) Initial At Test
Specimen No. Void Ratio Area (in Height (in) 2 Saturation (%) ) Water Content (%)
Dry Unit
Weight (pcf)
Strain Rate
(in/min)
Horizontal
Displacement (in)
1.5 1
2 3
Exploration ID Depth (ft.) Sample Description
Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Specific Gravity Water
Content (%) Specimen No.
94.7 95.6
95.5 0.96
0.96 0.96
21.6 22.5
25.5 26.7
26.5 25.4
0.621
0.559
0.539
25.3 23.8
22.7 105.5
111.4
111.7
Normal
Stress (psf)
0.89 0.87
0.85 4.60
4.60 4.60
1820
2660
3860
Specimen No.
Results
Peak 0.52
Testing perfomed in general accordance with ASTM D3080.
NP = Nonplastic
NM = Not Measured
NM
Tan (deg)
1 2
3 1
2 3
2000
4000
6000
4.60 4.60
4.60 0.2600
0.4000
0.2600
0.002
0.002
0.002
Design
Friction (deg)
Peak Trend
Design Trend
Cohesion (psf)
Design Shear
Stress (psf)
SHEAR STRESS (psf)
Peak Shear
Stress (psf)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
B-3
6.1 6.2
7.0 740 27.02
SILTY SAND (SM)
APPENDIX
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:50 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_DIRECT SHEAR] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
NM NM NM NM 2.65
0.677
0.711
0.633
DIRECT SHEAR
B-6
Dry Unit
Weight (pcf) Area (in2 Saturation (%) Void Ratio ) Height (in) Initial At Test
Specimen No. Void Ratio Area (in Height (in) 2 Saturation (%) ) Water Content (%)
Dry Unit
Weight (pcf)
Strain Rate
(in/min)
Horizontal
Displacement (in)
2 1
2 3
Exploration ID Depth (ft.) Sample Description
Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Specific Gravity Water
Content (%) Specimen No.
98.6 96.6
101.3
0.96 0.96
0.96 24.4
20.3 23.3
0.591
0.530
0.497
22.4 22.2
20.9 108.6
112.9
116.3
Normal
Stress (psf)
0.97 0.86
0.88 4.60
4.60 4.60
1400
2320
3760
Specimen No.
Results
Peak 0.57
Testing perfomed in general accordance with ASTM D3080.
NP = Nonplastic
NM = Not Measured
NM
Tan (deg)
1 2
3 1
2 3
2000
4000
6000
4.60 4.60
4.60 0.4000
0.4000
0.3800
0.002
0.002
0.002
Design
Friction (deg)
Peak Trend
Design Trend
Cohesion (psf)
Design Shear
Stress (psf)
SHEAR STRESS (psf)
Peak Shear
Stress (psf)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
B-8
6.2 5.4
5.6 133.33 30.54
SILT (ML)
APPENDIX
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:51 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_DIRECT SHEAR] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 5.5
6.0 6.5
7.0 7.5
8.0 8.5
9.0 9.5
10.0 10 100 1,000 10,000
Height
(mm)
Specific
Gravity
(Assumed)
Sample Description
4.7 0.880
NM 0.9 20.7 111.3 134.3 20.7 0.730 2.65
B-7
PAGE: 1 of 2
ONE DIMENSIONAL
CONSOLIDATION TEST
NM NM NM NM
6 Sample
Condition
Type
2.4 25.4 4.7 106.4 111.4 2.65
Exploration ID Depth (ft.)
Initial
Final
LL PL PI Passing
#200
Wet
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
Saturation
(%)
Void
Ratio
Dry
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
Water
Content
(%)
Sample
Diameter
(mm)
B-1
AXIAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (psf)
STRAIN (%)
SANDY SILT (ML)
APPENDIX
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D2435 Method A.
NP = Nonplastic
NM = Not Measured
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:55 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_1D_CONSOL] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 5.5
6.0 6.5
7.0 7.5
8.0 8.5
9.0 9.5
10.0 10 100 1,000 10,000
Height
(mm)
Specific
Gravity
(Assumed)
Sample Description
25.7 0.710
61.5 25.4 21.2 104.3 126.4 97.0 0.570 2.65
B-8
PAGE: 1 of 2
ONE DIMENSIONAL
CONSOLIDATION TEST
NM NM NM NM
1 Sample
Condition
Type
61.5 25.4 6.9 96.8 103.4 2.65
Exploration ID Depth (ft.)
Initial
Final
LL PL PI Passing
#200
Wet
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
Saturation
(%)
Void
Ratio
Dry
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
Water
Content
(%)
Sample
Diameter
(mm)
B-3
AXIAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (psf)
STRAIN (%)
SILTY SAND (SM)
APPENDIX
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D2435 Method A.
NP = Nonplastic
NM = Not Measured
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:55 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_1D_CONSOL] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 5.5
6.0 6.5
7.0 7.5
8.0 8.5
9.0 9.5
10.0 10 100 1,000 10,000
Height
(mm)
Specific
Gravity
Sample Description
NM NM
NM NM 25.9 101.9 128.3 NM NM NM
B-9
PAGE: 1 of 2
ONE DIMENSIONAL
CONSOLIDATION TEST
NM NM NM NM
7.5 Sample
Condition
Type
NM NM 7.9 97.8 105.5 NM
Exploration ID Depth (ft.)
Initial
Final
LL PL PI Passing
#200
Wet
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
Saturation
(%)
Void
Ratio
Dry
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
Water
Content
(%)
Sample
Diameter
(mm)
B-7
AXIAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (psf)
STRAIN (%)
SILTY SAND (SM)
APPENDIX
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D2435 Method A.
NP = Nonplastic
NM = Not Measured
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:56 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_1D_CONSOL] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 5.5
6.0 6.5
7.0 7.5
8.0 8.5
9.0 9.5
10.0 10 100 1,000 10,000
Height
(mm)
Specific
Gravity
(Assumed)
Sample Description
23.6 0.800
61.5 23.9 24.3 98.5 122.4 94.1 0.690 2.65
B-10
PAGE: 1 of 2
ONE DIMENSIONAL
CONSOLIDATION TEST
57 NM NM NM
2 Sample
Condition
Type
61.5 25.4 7.1 92.0 98.5 2.65
Exploration ID Depth (ft.)
Initial
Final
LL PL PI Passing
#200
Wet
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
Saturation
(%)
Void
Ratio
Dry
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
Water
Content
(%)
Sample
Diameter
(mm)
B-9
AXIAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (psf)
STRAIN (%)
SANDY SILT (ML)
APPENDIX
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D2435 Method A.
NP = Nonplastic
NM = Not Measured
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:56 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_1D_CONSOL] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
APPENDIX
B-11
R-VALUE
Exploration ID Depth (ft.) R-Value @ 300 psi
Exudation Pressure Sample Description
Corrected
Resistance
Value
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Expansion Pressure (psi) Exudation Pressure (psi)
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
70 1
2 3
118.3
116.3
116.1
743
84 237
10.9 13.1
12.2 77
37 69
229
22 134
Specimen No. Moisture at Time of Test (%)
RV-1 0 - 3 SILTY SAND (SM)
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D2844.
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:46 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_R-VALUE] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
APPENDIX
B-12
R-VALUE
Exploration ID Depth (ft.) R-Value @ 300 psi
Exudation Pressure Sample Description
Corrected
Resistance
Value
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Expansion Pressure (psi) Exudation Pressure (psi)
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
63 1
2 3
121.4
119.5
120.7
417
118
216
10.3 12.0
11.1 72
31 56
178
4 48
Specimen No. Moisture at Time of Test (%)
RV-2 0 - 3 SILTY SAND (SM)
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D2844.
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:46 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_R-VALUE] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
APPENDIX
B-13
R-VALUE
Exploration ID Depth (ft.) R-Value @ 300 psi
Exudation Pressure Sample Description
Corrected
Resistance
Value
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Expansion Pressure (psi) Exudation Pressure (psi)
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
41 1
2 3
115.8
122.1
122.5
112
306
495
13.7 12.0
11.1 11
42 69
26 186
325
Specimen No. Moisture at Time of Test (%)
RV-3 0 - 3 SANDY SILT (ML)
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D2844.
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:46 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_R-VALUE] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
APPENDIX
B-14
R-VALUE
Exploration ID Depth (ft.) R-Value @ 300 psi
Exudation Pressure Sample Description
Corrected
Resistance
Value
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Expansion Pressure (psi) Exudation Pressure (psi)
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
53 1
2 3
118.6
118.1
121.4
309
102
640
11.8 13.6
11.4 54
18 63
450
147
688
Specimen No. Moisture at Time of Test (%)
RV-4 0 - 3 SANDY SILT (ML)
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D2844.
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:46 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_R-VALUE] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
APPENDIX
B-15
R-VALUE
Exploration ID Depth (ft.) R-Value @ 300 psi
Exudation Pressure Sample Description
Corrected
Resistance
Value
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Expansion Pressure (psi) Exudation Pressure (psi)
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
14 1
2 3
117.3
114.5
112.6
368
250
135
13.8 14.7
15.5 18
11 8
208
121
61 Specimen No. Moisture at Time of Test (%)
RV-5 0 - 3 SILT (ML)
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D2844.
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:46 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_R-VALUE] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
APPENDIX
B-16
R-VALUE
Exploration ID Depth (ft.) R-Value @ 300 psi
Exudation Pressure Sample Description
Corrected
Resistance
Value
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Expansion Pressure (psi) Exudation Pressure (psi)
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
62 1
2 3
116.4
117.5
117.0
215
518
276
12.6 11.8
12.2 47
69 61
178
368
255
Specimen No. Moisture at Time of Test (%)
RV-6 0 - 3 SILTY SAND (SM)
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D2844.
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:46 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_R-VALUE] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
APPENDIX
B-17
R-VALUE
Exploration ID Depth (ft.) R-Value @ 300 psi
Exudation Pressure Sample Description
Corrected
Resistance
Value
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Expansion Pressure (psi) Exudation Pressure (psi)
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
21 1
2 3
116.8
113.4
115.2
292
231
488
14.0 14.8
13.1 20
11 51
104
39 299
Specimen No. Moisture at Time of Test (%)
RV-7 0 - 3 SANDY SILT (ML)
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D2844.
PROPOSED HANFORD PLACE
MEDICAL & MIXED-USE PROPERTY
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
PLOTTED: 06/04/2020 03:46 PM BY: ESinco
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20210045.001A OFFICE FILTER: FRESNOgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_R-VALUE] DATE: 6/4/2020
CHECKED BY: ES
DRAWN BY: AA
PROJECT NO.:
20210045.001A
APPENDIX C
___________________________________________________________________________________ Liquefaction Analysis
Dry Sand Settlement Analysis
Mw= 6.2 100.0 ft Ana. by:
PGA= 0.33g 100.0 ft Checked by:
A AhTye
S. Plauson
FIGURE A-1
Final Ground Elevation =
Date
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
Boring
ID:
Project Name:
5/26/2020
Groundwater Depth During Drilling (ft) =
Design Groundwater Depth (ft) =
20210045
45.0 ft
Project No.:
Project Location:
Existing Ground Elevation = B-6 (5% in 50 yrs)
1330 Broadway, #1200
Oakland, California 94612
t: 510628 9000 f: 510 628 9009 Hanford, CA
25.0 ft
Hanford Place
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0
CSReq-Seed03
CSReq-IB08
CSReq-Youd01
CRRfield-Seed03
CRRfield-IB08
CRRfield-Youd01
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
FS-Seed03
FS-IB04
FS-Youd01
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
0 15 30 45 60
Field N
(N1)60-CS Seed03
(N1)60-CS IB08
(N1)60-CS Youd01
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
0 25 50 75 100
Depth Below Final Ground Surface (feet)
Drilling GW
Design GW
Fines Content (%)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Settlement (inch)
Settlement-Seed03
Settlement-IB04
Settlement-Youd01
1. (N1)60-CS capped at 60; 2. CRRfield = 1 for non-liquefiable soils; 3. FS is capped at 2.0 for liquefiable soils and not plotted for non-liquefiable soils including soils above G.W.T.
STEP 5:
Mw= 6.2 100.0 ft Ana. by:
PGA= 0.33g 100.0 ft Checked by:
Boring
ID:
Project Name:
5/26/2020
Groundwater Depth During Drilling (ft) =
Design Groundwater Depth (ft) =
20210045
100.0 ft
Project No.:
Project Location:
Existing Ground Elevation = B-7 (5% in 50 yrs)
1330 Broadway, #1200
Oakland, California 94612
t: 510628 9000 f: 510 628 9009 Hanford, CA
25.0 ft
Hanford Place
A AhTye
S. Plauson
FIGURE A-1
Final Ground Elevation =
Date
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0
CSReq-Seed03
CSReq-IB08
CSReq-Youd01
CRRfield-Seed03
CRRfield-IB08
CRRfield-Youd01
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
FS-Seed03
FS-IB04
FS-Youd01
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
0 15 30 45 60
Field N
(N1)60-CS Seed03
(N1)60-CS IB08
(N1)60-CS Youd01
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
0 25 50 75 100
Depth Below Final Ground Surface (feet)
Drilling GW
Design GW
Fines Content (%)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Settlement (inch)
Settlement-Seed03
Settlement-IB04
Settlement-Youd01
1. (N1)60-CS capped at 60; 2. CRRfield = 1 for non-liquefiable soils; 3. FS is capped at 2.0 for liquefiable soils and not plotted for non-liquefiable soils including soils above G.W.T.
STEP 5:
Seismic Settlement of Dry Sands Project No. 20210045
Tokimatsu & Seed (1987) Project Name Hanford Place
Analysis by
M = 6.21 Moment Magnitude (Use Modal value)PHA = 0.33 g (Peak horizontal acceleration; use PGAM) γ = 105 pcf (unit weight of soil)
Ko = 0.47 (at-rest coefficient)
Boring
Depth at
middle of
sampler
(ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
Soil
Classification
Anticipated
Fines Content
(%)
rd σ0
(psf)
σ'm
(psf)
σ'm
(tsf)
N
(blows/ft)
SAMPLER
TYPE
(1) SPT
w/out
liners
(2) SPT w/
liners (3)
MC. (4)
CAL
Sampler
Correction,
CS
Overbuden
Correction,
CN
Fine
Content
Correction
N1
(blows/ft) Gmax (psf)
Effective
Shear Strain,
γeff
(Geff/Gmax)
Effective
Shear Strain,
γeff
(from Fig. 11)
Effective
Shear Strain,
γeff
(%)
Volumetric Strain
(from Figure 13)
(%)
Seismic
Settlement
for M7.5
(in)
Seismic
Settlement
for M5.25
(in)
Seismic
Settlement
for M6
(in)
Seismic
Settlement
for M6.75
(in)
Seismic
Settlement
for M8.5
(in)
B-6 2 4 SM 40 0.996 210 135.8 0.0679 12 4 0.65 1.70 3.2 16 592866 7.56E-05 1.2E-04 1.2E-02 0.0200 0.019 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
5.5 3 SM 40 0.988 577.5 373.45 0.186725 11 1 1.1 1.70 3.2 24 1111278 1.10E-04 3.0E-04 3.0E-02 0.0220 0.016 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 8 2 SM 40 0.983 840 543.2 0.2716 24 4 0.65 1.54 3.2 27 1403068 1.26E-04 3.0E-04 3.0E-02 0.0200 0.010 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 11 4 SM 40 0.976 1155 746.9 0.37345 6 1 1.1 1.32 3.2 12 1247366 1.94E-04 4.0E-04 4.0E-02 0.0800 0.077 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10
13.75 1.5 SM 40 0.970 1443.75 933.625 0.4668125 20 4 0.65 1.18 3.2 19 1616265 1.86E-04 4.0E-04 4.0E-02 0.0420 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0216.75 4.5 SP 5 0.964 1758.75 1137.325 0.5686625 20 4 0.65 1.07 1.0 15 1658342 2.19E-04 6.0E-04 6.0E-02 0.1000 0.108 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.14 20 2 ML 70 0.957 2100 1358 0.679 12 1 1.1 0.98 4.8 18 1920095 2.24E-04 5.0E-04 5.0E-02 0.0600 0.029 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 22 2 SP 5 0.952 2310 1493.8 0.7469 12 1 1.1 0.93 1.0 13 1830635 2.58E-04 5.2E-04 5.2E-02 0.1000 0.048 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06
25.5 5 SP 5 0.939 2677.5 1731.45 0.865725 33 4 0.65 0.86 1.0 20 2241470 2.41E-04 5.0E-04 5.0E-02 0.0500 0.060 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.08 29 2 SP 5 0.924 3045 1969.1 0.98455 18 1 1.1 0.81 1.0 17 2284078 2.64E-04 4.8E-04 4.8E-02 0.0600 0.029 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04
31.5 3 CL-ML 70 0.911 3307.5 2138.85 1.069425 18 1 1.1 0.78 4.8 20 2518920 2.57E-04 4.8E-04 4.8E-02 0.0500 0.036 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.0534.5 3 CL-ML 70 0.893 3622.5 2342.55 1.171275 38 4 0.65 0.74 4.8 23 2758949 2.52E-04 5.0E-04 5.0E-02 0.0480 0.035 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 37 2 SP 5 0.878 3885 2512.3 1.25615 38 4 0.65 0.72 1.0 19 2661855 2.75E-04 5.0E-04 5.0E-02 0.0500 0.024 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 39 2 SP 5 0.866 4095 2648.1 1.32405 19 1 1.1 0.70 1.0 16 2571947 2.96E-04 6.0E-04 6.0E-02 0.0900 0.043 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
41.5 3 CL-ML 70 0.845 4357.5 2817.85 1.408925 19 1 1.1 0.68 4.8 19 2830935 2.79E-04 6.0E-04 6.0E-02 0.0700 0.050 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.0645.5 5 CL-ML 70 0.805 4777.5 3089.45 1.544725 32 4 0.65 0.65 4.8 18 2927213 2.82E-04 6.0E-04 6.0E-02 0.0700 0.084 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11
49.75 3.5 CL-ML 70 0.763 5223.75 3378.025 1.6890125 26 1 1.1 0.62 4.8 22 3281460 2.60E-04 5.0E-04 5.0E-02 0.0480 0.040 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05
0.723 0.29 0.43 0.61 0.90
MAG 6.21 0.4841688
Double the value for bi-directional shaking
Select= 1/4 for M 6.21
6 6.75
(use to read Fig. 11)
(use to read Fig. 13)
(use to read Fig. 11)
(use to read Fig. 13)
A. AhTye
Results
Seismic Settlement of Dry Sands Project No. 20210045
Tokimatsu & Seed (1987) Project Name Hanford Place
Analysis by
M = 6.21 Moment Magnitude (Use Modal value)PHA = 0.33 g (Peak horizontal acceleration; use PGAM) γ = 105 pcf (unit weight of soil)
Ko = 0.47 (at-rest coefficient)
Boring
Depth at
middle of
sampler
(ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
Soil
Classification
Anticipated
Fines Content
(%)
rd σ0
(psf)
σ'm
(psf)
σ'm
(tsf)
N
(blows/ft)
SAMPLER
TYPE
(1) SPT
w/out
liners
(2) SPT w/
liners (3)
MC. (4)
CAL
Sampler
Correction,
CS
Overbuden
Correction,
CN
Fine
Content
Correction
N1
(blows/ft) Gmax (psf)
Effective
Shear Strain,
γeff
(Geff/Gmax)
Effective
Shear Strain,
γeff
(from Fig. 11)
Effective
Shear Strain,
γeff
(%)
Volumetric Strain
(from Figure 13)
(%)
Seismic
Settlement
for M7.5
(in)
Seismic
Settlement
for M5.25
(in)
Seismic
Settlement
for M6
(in)
Seismic
Settlement
for M6.75
(in)
Seismic
Settlement
for M8.5
(in)
B-7 1 2 ML 60 0.998 105 67.9 0.03395 40 4 0.65 1.70 4.4 49 601419 3.74E-05 5.0E-05 5.0E-03 0.0014 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 2 SM 40 0.993 315 203.7 0.10185 40 4 0.65 1.70 3.2 47 1033043 6.50E-05 8.5E-05 8.5E-03 0.0015 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.5 3 SM 40 0.988 577.5 373.45 0.186725 17 4 0.65 1.70 3.2 22 1082734 1.13E-04 2.0E-04 2.0E-02 0.0180 0.013 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
8.5 3 SM 40 0.982 892.5 577.15 0.288575 21 4 0.65 1.50 3.2 24 1378851 1.36E-04 2.1E-04 2.1E-02 0.0150 0.011 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01
11.5 3 SM 40 0.975 1207.5 780.85 0.390425 13 1 1.1 1.29 3.2 22 1556529 1.62E-04 2.8E-04 2.8E-02 0.0220 0.016 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 14 2 SM 40 0.970 1470 950.6 0.4753 4 1 1.1 1.17 3.2 8 1250115 2.45E-04 7.0E-04 7.0E-02 0.2000 0.096 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.12
16.5 3 SP 5 0.964 1732.5 1120.35 0.560175 4 1 1.1 1.07 1.0 6 1197738 2.99E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-01 0.4000 0.288 0.12 0.17 0.24 0.3620.5 5 SP 5 0.955 2152.5 1391.95 0.695975 24 4 0.65 0.96 1.0 16 1881705 2.34E-04 5.5E-04 5.5E-02 0.0800 0.096 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.12 24 2 SP 5 0.946 2520 1629.6 0.8148 16 1 1.1 0.89 1.0 17 2062830 2.48E-04 5.0E-04 5.0E-02 0.0700 0.034 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
26.5 3 CL 70 0.935 2782.5 1799.35 0.899675 16 1 1.1 0.85 4.8 20 2292102 2.43E-04 5.0E-04 5.0E-02 0.0500 0.036 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 29 2 CL 70 0.924 3045 1969.1 0.98455 60 4 0.65 0.81 4.8 36 2941437 2.05E-04 3.2E-04 3.2E-02 0.0220 0.011 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01
31.5 3 SM 40 0.911 3307.5 2138.85 1.069425 60 4 0.65 0.78 3.2 34 2982532 2.17E-04 3.5E-04 3.5E-02 0.0160 0.012 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 34 2 SM 40 0.896 3570 2308.6 1.1543 29 1 1.1 0.75 3.2 27 2885595 2.38E-04 4.5E-04 4.5E-02 0.0330 0.016 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
36.5 3 SP 5 0.881 3832.5 2478.35 1.239175 29 4 0.65 0.72 1.0 15 2434437 2.97E-04 6.0E-04 6.0E-02 0.1000 0.072 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.09 39 2 SP 5 0.866 4095 2648.1 1.32405 56 4 0.65 0.70 1.0 26 3066023 2.48E-04 4.4E-04 4.4E-02 0.0320 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
40.5 1 CL 70 0.855 4252.5 2749.95 1.374975 56 4 0.65 0.69 4.8 30 3250254 2.40E-04 4.5E-04 4.5E-02 0.0280 0.007 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 43 4 SP 5 0.830 4515 2919.7 1.45985 56 4 0.65 0.67 1.0 25 3169449 2.54E-04 4.5E-04 4.5E-02 0.0320 0.031 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
45.5 1 SP 5 0.805 4777.5 3089.45 1.544725 16 1 1.1 0.65 1.0 12 2572161 3.21E-04 7.0E-04 7.0E-02 0.1300 0.031 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 47 2 CL 70 0.790 4935 3191.3 1.59565 16 1 1.1 0.64 4.8 16 2847252 2.94E-04 5.8E-04 5.8E-02 0.0800 0.038 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05
49.75 3.5 CL 70 0.763 5223.75 3378.025 1.6890125 26 4 0.65 0.62 4.8 15 2883048 2.96E-04 5.5E-04 5.5E-02 0.0800 0.067 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08
0.890 0.36 0.53 0.76 1.11
MAG 6.21 0.59637504
Double the value for bi-directional shaking
Select= 1/4 for M 6.21
6 6.75
(use to read Fig. 11)
(use to read Fig. 13)
(use to read Fig. 11)
(use to read Fig. 13)
A. AhTye
Results
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) E-1
APPENDIX E
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
E P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -2 This page intentionally left blank
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 1 ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
HANFORD PLACE
HANFORD, CALIFORNIA
WJVA Report No. 20‐016
PREPARED FOR
THE HANFORD GROUP/EPIC MANAGEMENT GROUP
4405 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITE 100
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92592
PREPARED BY
WJV ACOUSTICS, INC.
VISALIA, CALIFORNIA
MAY 12, 2021
113 N. Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923 ∙
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 2
1. INTRODUCTION
Project Description:
The proposed project would develop a medical and mixed‐use development and would construct fifteen (15) buildings consisting of medical outpatient clinic services, hotel and conference center, specialized education, retail, medical office, skilled nursing and assisted living, and multi‐ family residential uses, as well as a bio infiltration basin, associated open space, circulation and parking, and infrastructure improvements.
The proposed project would include the following: a 22,525‐square‐foot ambulatory surgery center; a 12,445‐square‐foot specialty clinic; two 12,445‐square‐foot medical office buildings; a 12,445‐ square‐foot psychiatric health facility; a 10,000‐square‐foot, a four‐story 105‐room hotel with a conference center and pool; a 35,000‐square‐foot nursing college; four 15,55‐square‐foot strip retail buildings; two 15,000‐square‐foot retail/drive‐through/medical commercial buildings; a 54,611‐ square‐foot skilled nursing facility; a 34,480‐square‐foot memory care facility; a three‐ story 90‐unit multi‐family apartment; two 11,000 medical/commercial buildings; and a 5‐acre bio infiltration basin.
Environmental Noise Assessment:
This environmental noise assessment has been prepared to determine if significant noise impacts will be produced by the project and to describe mitigation measures for noise if significant impacts are determined. The environmental noise assessment, prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA), is based upon the project Site Plan provided by the applicant (Figure 1), traffic data provided by VRPA Technologies, Inc. and a project site visit on May 5‐6, 2021.
Revisions to the Site Plan, project traffic information or other project‐related information available to WJVA at the time the analysis was prepared may require a reevaluation of the findings and/or recommendations of the report.
Appendix A provides definitions of the acoustical terminology used in this report. Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported in this analysis are A‐weighted sound pressure levels in decibels (dB). A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standards utilize A‐weighted sound levels, as they correlate well with public reaction to noise. Appendix B provides examples of sound levels for reference.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 3
2. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The CEQA Guidelines apply the following questions for the assessment of significant noise impacts for a project:
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a. Noise Level Standards
CITY OF HANFORD
General Plan
The City of Hanford Noise Element of the General Plan1 (adopted April 2017) provides generalized Noise Goals and Policies for various noise sources and land uses, related to development within the City. These noise goals and policies are provided below.
Noise Goals
Goal H7: Protection from the harmful and annoying effect of excessive noise. Goal H8: Protection of the City's economic base by preventing incompatible land uses from encroaching upon existing or planned noise‐producing uses.
Major Noise Sources
Policy H39 Aircraft Noise: Evaluate proposed development proposals against the land use policies of the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Policy H40 Ground Transportation Noise: Limit the effects of vehicle noise generation by designating truck routes, limiting vehicle speeds, standards relating to vehicle noise emission levels and muffler systems.
Policy H41 Interior Noise Exposure: Adopt State Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) and Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 4 concerning interior noise exposure for new single, multi‐family housing, hotels and motels.
Policy H42 Noise Evaluation for New Development: Evaluate proposed development proposals against existing and future noise levels from ground transportation noise sources.
Policy H43 Non‐Transportation Noise: Mitigate noise created by non‐transportation noise sources so as not to exceed the maximum allowable interior and exterior noise level standards.
Noise Exposure
Policy H45 Minimizing Noise for Residences in Mixed‐use Developments: Require mixed‐ use projects to minimize noise exposure within the indoor areas of residential areas through design and construction techniques such as separating residential space from mechanical equipment, loading bays, and parking lots, and through management and operating procedures.
The 2017 General Plan does not provide specific noise standards applicable to development projects. Therefore, WJVA consulted with City staff who provided the noise level standards from the City’s 2002 General Plan. The standards provided in the 2002 General Plan are the same as those provided in the Kings County General Plan, and will be considered the applicable standards for this project.
The 2002 General Plan provided noise level compatibility standards for transportation and non‐ transportation (stationary) noise sources. Table 1 provides the City of Hanford 2002 General Plan noise standards for transportation noise sources and Table 2 provides the City of Hanford 2002 General Plan noise standards for non‐transportation (stationary) noise sources.
For transportation noise sources, the General Plan sets noise compatibility standards for transportation noise sources in terms of the Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn) or CNEL. The Ldn represents the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐hour day, with a 10 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m.‐7:00 a.m.). The Ldn represents cumulative exposure to noise over an extended period of time and are therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions. For non‐transportation (stationary) noise sources, the General plan sets noise compatibly standards in terms of the Lmax (maximum) and Leq (equivalent sound level) metrics.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 5 TABLE 1
CITY OF HANFORD
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE
TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES
Land Use Outdoor Activity Areasa
Ldn/CNEL, dB
Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq, dBb
Residential 60c 45 ‐‐
Transient Lodging 60c 45 ‐‐
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 60c 45 ‐‐
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls ‐‐ ‐‐ 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 60c ‐‐ 40
Office Buildings ‐‐ ‐‐ 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums ‐‐ ‐‐ 45
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 ‐‐ ‐‐ Notes:
a Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise‐level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use.
b As determined for a typical worst case hour during periods of use. c Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application of the best‐available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn/CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table.
Source: City of Hanford 2002 General Plan
TABLE 2
CITY OF HANFORD
NOISE-LEVEL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NEW PROJECTS AFFECTED
BY OR INCLUDING NON-TRANSPORTATION (STATIONARY) NOISE SOURCES Category Noise‐Level
Descriptor
Exterior Noise Level Standard
(Applicable at Property Line) Interior Noise Level Standard Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
Residential Leq
Lmax
50 70
45 65
40 60
35 55
Transient Lodging
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Leq
Lmax
‐‐ ‐‐ 40
60 35
55 Theaters, Auditoriums,
Music Halls Leq ‐‐ ‐‐ 35 35
Churches, Meeting Halls Leq ‐‐ ‐‐ 40 40
Office Buildings Leq ‐‐ ‐‐ 45 ‐‐
Schools, Libraries,
Museums Leq ‐‐ ‐‐ 45 ‐‐
Playgrounds,
Neighborhood Parks Leq 65 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Notes:
Notes: Each of the noise levels specified above shall be lowered by 5 dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or recurring impulsive noises. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g., caretaker dwellings).
Source: City of Hanford 2002 General Plan
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 6 State of California
There are no state noise standards that are applicable to the project.
Federal Noise Standards
There are no federal noise standards that are applicable to the project. b. Construction Noise and Vibration
Section 9.10.060(10) (Noises Prohibited) of the City of Hanford Municipal Code2 provides limitations on hours of construction. The Municipal codes states that the following is prohibited:
The construction, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavation of streets and highways other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Additional guidance can be provided by section 14‐8.02A of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Specifications document which suggests that construction equipment should not exceed 86 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from job site activities from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m.
There are no state or federal standards that specifically address construction vibration. Some guidance is provided by the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual3. The Manual provides guidance for determining annoyance potential criteria and damage potential threshold criteria. These criteria are provided below in Table 3 and Table 4, and are presented in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec).
TABLE 3
GUIDELINE VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL CRITERIA
Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely Perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly Perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly Perceptible 0.9 0.1
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: Caltrans
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 7 TABLE 4
GUIDELINE VIBRATION DAMAGE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile, historic buildings, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Caltrans
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 8
3. SETTING
The proposed Hanford Place Mixed‐Use project site is situated north of State Route 198 (SR 198) in the southwest section of the City of Hanford. The project site is generally bound by SR 198 to the south, San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) to the north, and existing retail shopping center to the east, with a mini‐storage facility and former amusement/water park located west of the project site.
The project consists of approximately 43 acres and is currently undeveloped land. In addition to the above‐described adjacent land uses, there are existing residential land uses located to the north (across the SJVR line) and the south (across SR 198), along with a car dealership, hotel and other retail and commercial land uses as well.
a. Background Noise Level Measurements
Existing noise levels in the project vicinity are dominated by traffic noise along SR 198 and other local roadways as well railroad operations associated with the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) and occasional aircraft overflights associated with Lemoore Naval Air Station and other local airports and airstrips. Measurements of existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity were conducted between May 5, 2021 and May 6, 2021. Long‐term (24‐hour) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at two (2) locations (sites LT‐1 and LT‐2) within and adjacent to the project site. Ambient noise levels were measured for a period of 48 continuous hours at monitoring site LT‐1 and LT‐2.
Ambient noise monitoring equipment consisted of Larson‐Davis Laboratories Model LDL 820 sound level analyzers equipped with Bruel & Kjaer (B&K) Type 4176 ½″ microphones. The monitors were calibrated with a B&K Type 4230 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment complies with applicable specifications of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type 1 (precision) sound level meters.
Site LT‐1 was located within the central portion of the project site, approximately 300 feet from the centerline of SR 198. Site LT‐1 was exposed to traffic noise associated with vehicles on SR 198, as well as train operations along the SJVR line and occasional aircraft overflights. Site LT‐2 was located near the northern portion of the project site, adjacent to the existing residential land uses, and approximately fifty (50) feet from the SJVR line. The locations of the long‐term noise monitoring sites are provided on Figure 2.
Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐1 ranged from a low of 56.8 dB between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on May 5th to a high of 68.2 dBA between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on May 6th. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels at site LT‐1 ranged from 69.4 to 96.4 dBA.
Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90, ranged from 43.3 to 64.1 dBA.
The L90 is a statistical descriptor that defines the noise level exceeded 90% of the time during each hour of the sample period. The L90 is generally considered to represent the residual (or
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 9 background) noise level in the absence of identifiable single noise events from traffic, aircraft and other local noise sources. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐1 for May 5th and May 6th was 68.8 dB Ldn and 68.9 dB Ldn, respectively. Figure 3 graphically depicts hourly variations in ambient noise levels at site LT‐1 for each of the two monitoring days. Table 5 provides the measured hourly noise levels at ambient noise monitoring site LT‐1, in terms of the City’s noise standards (as described above in Table 2).
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA, SITE LT-1
HANFORD PLACE
MAY 5 & 6, 2021
Time
A‐Weighted Decibels, dBA
May 5, 2021 May 6, 2021
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
0:00:00 57.0 71.4 56.9 74.7
1:00:00 56.8 69.6 57.0 81.1
2:00:00 58.1 75.4 58.1 76.4
3:00:00 57.6 81.4 57.9 72.3
4:00:00 62.4 81.1 62.7 69.9
5:00:00 65.5 76.4 64.8 72.8
6:00:00 66.0 77.7 66.0 83.6
7:00:00 66.4 76.2 66.1 76.0
8:00:00 65.2 83.2 65.0 77.0
9:00:00 64.2 79.9 67.5 75.5
10:00:00 67.4 82.0 64.5 79.6
11:00:00 63.7 86.8 63.4 83.4
12:00:00 61.1 88.0 63.1 77.1
13:00:00 63.2 77.3 63.4 73.5
14:00:00 64.0 82.5 63.9 74.9
15:00:00 66.2 81.8 66.1 76.2
16:00:00 66.0 79.4 66.5 74.8
17:00:00 65.9 78.0 66.4 82.8
18:00:00 63.7 69.4 66.1 80.4
19:00:00 63.1 77.3 65.2 83.2
20:00:00 63.2 79.8 63.0 77.7
21:00:00 63.6 79.1 62.3 75.4
22:00:00 61.5 77.0 61.8 87.2
23:00:00 58.1 75.6 59.6 79.1
Daytime (7 am to 10 pm)
Average (Range) 64.5 (61.1‐67.4) 81.0 (69.4‐90.4) 65.0 (62.3‐68.2) 79.1 (73.5‐96.4) Nighttime (10 pm to 7 am)
Average (Range) 60.3 (56.8‐66.0) 76.2 (69.6‐81.4) 60.5 (56.9‐66.0) 77.5 (69.9‐87.2) Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.
Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐2 ranged from a low of 42.9 dB between midnight and 1:00 a.m. on May 5th to a high of 75.2 dBA between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on May 6th. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels at site LT‐2 ranged from 61.3 to 113.2 dBA.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 10 Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90, ranged from 68.7 to 57.0 dBA.
The measured Ldn value at site LT‐2 for May 5th and May 6th was 67.6 dB Ldn and 64.9 dB Ldn, respectively. Figure 4 graphically depicts hourly variations in ambient noise levels at site LT‐2 for each of the two monitoring days. Table 6 provides the measured hourly noise levels at ambient noise monitoring site LT‐2, in terms of the City’s performance standards (as described above in Table 2).
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA, SITE LT-2
HANFORD PLACE
MAY 5 & 6, 2021
Time
A‐Weighted Decibels, dBA
May 5, 2021 May 6, 2021
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
0:00:00 54.7 67.6 42.9 62.8
1:00:00 49.7 66.9 44.3 61.3
2:00:00 51.8 62.4 46.7 63.7
3:00:00 48.5 65.2 48.3 63.0
4:00:00 55.8 81.2 54.5 72.8
5:00:00 61.3 78.6 62.6 82.8
6:00:00 57.6 67.0 58.7 74.5
7:00:00 59.8 79.5 56.0 74.7
8:00:00 59.0 83.1 75.2 113.2
9:00:00 57.2 74.2 56.1 74.8
10:00:00 77.5 106.8 56.5 78.6
11:00:00 59.7 82.8 57.8 84.1
12:00:00 57.7 77.6 60.2 83.9
13:00:00 55.5 77.2 58.4 81.3
14:00:00 56.5 72.7 54.7 69.9
15:00:00 55.7 72.9 60.0 86.2
16:00:00 56.7 73.9 56.8 77.7
17:00:00 75.9 104.9 55.8 72.4
18:00:00 56.1 73.4 56.2 73.1
19:00:00 57.6 80.1 56.8 84.3
20:00:00 56.5 76.2 54.0 68.6
21:00:00 57.1 76.4 55.9 65.2
22:00:00 56.8 79.2 53.6 63.7
23:00:00 53.8 69.0 53.6 69.2
Daytime (7 am to 10 pm)
Average (Range) 59.9 (55.5‐77.5) 80.8 (72.7‐106.8) 58.0 (54.0‐75.2) 79.2 (65.2‐113.2) Nighttime (10 pm to 7 am)
Average (Range) 54.4 (48.5‐61.3) 70.8 (62.4‐81.2) 51.7 (42.9‐62.6) 68.2 (61.3‐82.8) Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.
Additionally, short‐term (15‐minute) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at four (4) locations (Sites ST‐1 through ST‐4). Two (2) individual measurements were taken at each of
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 11 the four short‐term sites to quantify ambient noise levels in the morning and afternoon hours.
The locations of the long‐term and short‐term noise monitoring sites are shown in Figure 2.
Table 7 summarizes short‐term noise measurement results. The noise measurement data included energy average (Leq) maximum (Lmax) as well as five individual statistical parameters.
Observations were made of the dominant noise sources affecting the measurements. The statistical parameters describe the percent of time a noise level was exceeded during the measurement period. For instance, the L90 describes the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time during the measurement period, and is generally considered to represent the residual (or background) noise level in the absence of identifiable single noise events from traffic, aircraft and other local noise sources.
Short‐term noise measurements were conducted for 15‐minute periods at each of the four sites.
Sites ST‐1 was located near the northeast portion of the project site, in the vicinity of existing retail/commercial land uses adjacent to the project site. Site ST‐2 was located near the project site access point along Campus Drive. Site ST‐3 was located near the northwestern portion of the project site, in the parking lot of Adventist Health Hospital. Site ST‐4 was located at the intersection of Campus Drive and 7th Street, north of the project site. The overall noise measurement data indicate that noise in the project vicinity is highly influenced by vehicular traffic and noise associated with landscaping activities, retail/commercial activities and other sources typical of residential land uses (barking dogs, roosters, birds, voices, etc.).
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
HANFORD PLACE
MAY 5 & 6, 2021
Site Time A‐Weighted Decibels, dBA Sources
Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
ST‐1 7:35 a.m. 51.8 56.0 54.7 53.5 52.3 51.6 50.1 TR, V, R ST‐1 4:25 p.m. 53.7 62.1 55.4 54.1 53.3 52.0 49.8 TR, D, AC ST‐2 8:05 a.m. 62.6 76.3 72.0 68.1 61.1 53.0 50.3 TR, AG ST‐2 4:45 p.m. 56.7 62.3 55.0 54.1 53.2 49.7 48.5 TR ST‐3 8:30 a.m. 51.9 70.1 55.0 52.0 49.9 49.3 48.2 TR, V, B ST‐3 5:10 p.m. 52.1 66.6 54.7 52.2 48.9 47.8 47.0 TR, AC ST‐4 8:50 a.m. 60.3 77.0 69.6 63.4 59.1 55.3 50.8 TR, B, D ST‐4 5:30 p.m. 61.4 74.2 71.0 65.2 60.7 56.3 51.4 TR, AC, D TR: Traffic AC: Aircraft AG: Agricultural Activities V: Voices B: Birds D: Barking Dogs R:Rooster Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 12
4. NOISE IMPACTS TO OFF-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS, AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
a. Project Traffic Noise Impacts on Existing Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Outside Project Site (Less Than Significant)
WJVA utilized the FHWA Traffic Noise Model4 to quantify expected project‐related increases in traffic noise exposure along roadways in the project vicinity. The FHWA Model is a standard analytical method used by state and local agencies for roadway traffic noise prediction. The model is based upon reference energy emission levels for automobiles, medium trucks (2 axles) and heavy trucks (3 or more axles), with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA Model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free‐flowing traffic conditions, and is generally considered to be accurate within ±1.5 dB. To predict Ldn values, it is necessary to determine the hourly distribution of traffic for a typical day and adjust the traffic volume input data to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes for the analyzed receptor locations were provided by the project traffic consultant, VRPA Technologies, Inc5. Truck percentages and the day/night distribution of traffic were estimated by WJVA, based upon previous studies conducted in the project vicinity since project‐specific data were not available from government sources. The Noise modeling assumptions used to calculate project traffic noise are provided as Appendix C.
Traffic noise exposure levels for specific scenarios were calculated based upon the FHWA Model and the above‐described model inputs and assumptions. Project‐related significant impacts would occur if an increase in traffic noise associated with the project would result in noise levels exceeding the City’s applicable noise level standards at the location(s) of sensitive receptors. For the purpose of this analysis a significant impact was also assumed to occur if traffic noise levels were to increase by 3 dB at sensitive receptor locations where noise levels already exceed the City’s applicable noise level standards (without the project), as 3 dB generally represents the threshold of perception in change for the human ear.
The City’s exterior noise level standard for residential land uses is 60 dB Ldn (an exterior noise exposure of up to 65 dB Ldn is allowed in instances where it is not possible to reduce noise exposure in outdoor activity areas to 60 Ldn or less using a practical application of available noise reduction measures.). Traffic noise was modeled at seven (7) receptor locations. The seven modeled receptors are located at roadway setback distances representative of the sensitive receptors (residences) along each analyzed roadway segment. The receptor locations are described below and provided graphically on Figure 5.
R‐1: Residential land use located approximately 90 feet from the centerline of Lacey Blvd. R‐2: Residential land use located approximately 60 feet from the centerline of 7th St. R‐3: Residential land use located approximately 95 feet from the centerline of 7th St. R‐4: Residential land use located approximately 60 feet from the centerline of 6th St. R‐5: Residential land use located approximately 100 feet from the centerline of Campus Dr.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 13 R‐6: Residential land use located approximately 95 feet from the centerline of 7th St. R‐7: Residential land use located approximately 90 feet from the centerline of 6th St.
Existing Conditions
Table 8 provides Existing and Existing Plus Project traffic noise exposure levels at the seven analyzed receptor locations. The receptor locations are representative of existing residential land uses located along the analyzed roadway segments.
TABLE 8
PROJECT-RELATED INCREASES IN TRAFFIC NOISE, dB, Ldn
HANFORD PLACE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Modeled
Receptor Existing Existing Plus Project Change (Maximum) Significant
Impact?
R‐1 63 63 0 No
R‐2 62 62 0 No
R‐3 58 59 +1 No
R‐4 55 58 +3 No
R‐5 51 51 0 No
R‐6 59 59 0 No
R‐7 52 52 0 No
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.
VRPA Technologies, Inc.
Reference to Table 8 indicates that project‐related traffic would not result in noise levels at any sensitive receptors to exceed the City’s noise level standard, nor result in an increase of 3 dB in any sensitive receptor locations where noise levels already exceed the City’s noise level standard without the implementation of the project.
Cumulative 2042 Conditions
Table 9 provides Cumulative 2042 traffic noise exposure levels at the seven analyzed representative receptor locations, and also provides what the project contribution would be to Cumulative 2042 traffic noise exposure conditions.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 14 TABLE 9
PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC NOISE, dB, Ldn
HANFORD PLACE
CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
Modeled
Receptor
Cumulative Conditions
Without Project Contribution Cumulative Conditions Project Contribution Significant
Impact?
R‐1 64 64 0 No
R‐2 64 64 0 No
R‐3 60 60 0 No
R‐4 56 59 +3 No
R‐5 53 53 0 No
R‐6 61 61 0 No
R‐7 54 54 0 No
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.
VRPA Technologies, Inc.
Reference to Table 9 indicates that the project’s contribution to Cumulative 2042 traffic noise exposure levels at the modeled representative receptor locations would not result in noise levels to exceed the City’s noise level standard, nor result in an increase of 3 dB in any sensitive receptor locations where noise levels already exceed the City’s noise level standard without the implementation of the project. Consequently, the project contribution to cumulative noise levels would be less than considerable and the project would not have a significant cumulative impact.
Noise levels described in Table 8 and Table 9 do not take into account any site‐specific acoustic shielding that may be provided by existing sound walls, buildings or intervening topography, and should therefore be considered a worst‐case assessment of traffic noise exposure at the analyzed receptor locations.
b. Proposed Impacts From Operational On-Site Sources
(Less Than Significant With Mitigation)
The project would include a variety of medical buildings, hotel and conference center, medical instruction facilities, retail/drive thru buildings, commercial buildings and a multi‐family apartment building. A wide variety of noise sources can be associated with these land use designations. The noise levels produced by such sources can also be highly variable and could potentially impact existing off‐site and proposed on‐site sensitive receptors. Typical examples of stationary noise sources associated with such land uses include:
HVAC/Mechanical equipment
Truck deliveries
Parking lot activities (closing of car doors and trunks, stereos, alarms etc.) Drive Thru operations
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 15 Mechanical Equipment
It is assumed that the project would include roof‐mounted HVAC units on the proposed buildings.
The heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) requirements for the buildings would likely require the use of multiple packaged roof‐top units. For the purpose of noise and aesthetics, roof‐mounted HVAC units are typically shielded by means of a roof parapet. WJVA has conducted reference noise level measurements at numerous commercial and retail buildings with roof‐ mounted HVAC units, and associated noise levels typically range between approximately 45‐50 dB at a distance of 50 feet from the building façade.
For this project, the closest residential property lines to any potential roof‐mounted HVAC equipment would be located at a minimum setback distance of 200 feet. Taking into account the standard rate of noise attenuation with increased distance from a point source (‐6 dB/doubling of distance), noise levels associated with the operation of roof‐mounted HVAC units would be approximately 33‐38 dB at the closest sensitive receptor property line. Such levels do not exceed any City of Hanford noise level standard or exceed existing (without project) ambient noise levels.
Truck Movements
At the time of this analysis, a specific truck access route (or routes) had not been designated.
However, trucks would access the project site by one of three (3) access points, Glendale Avenue from the west, Campus Drive from the north or 5th Street from the east. It is assumed that truck deliveries would occur at various times and locations throughout the overall project area. Precise details on truck deliveries were not known at the time of this analysis.
WJVA has conducted measurements of the noise levels produced by slowly moving trucks for a number of studies. Such truck movements would be expected to produce noise levels in the range of 65 to 71 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. The range in measured truck noise levels is due to differences in the size of trucks, their speed of movement and whether they have refrigeration units in operation during the pass‐by.
If truck movements were to access the project site via the 5th Street access point, truck movements could occur as close as approximately 130 feet from the closest residential property lines to the north. At this distance, noise levels associated with truck movements would produce maximum noise levels in the range of approximately 63 to 69 dB. Such noise levels do not exceed the City’s daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) noise level standard of 70 dB Lmax, but could potentially exceed the City’s nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise level standard of 65 dB Lmax. It should be noted that existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the future 5th Street access point (noise monitoring site LT‐2) exceeded the City’s nighttime 65 dB Lmax standard during twelve of the eighteen nighttime hours measured over the two‐day monitoring period.
Potential Impact:
Noise levels associated with truck movements could exceed the City’s 65 dB Lmax nighttime noise level standard at the residential property lines north of the 5th Street access point, if truck deliveries were to occur between the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 16 Mitigation Measures:
Noise levels associated with nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) truck movements could be mitigated by applying the following condition:
Require truck movements occurring during nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to use the Glendale Avenue access point only.
Parking Lot Activities
Noise due to traffic in parking lots is typically limited by low speeds and is not usually considered to be significant. Human activity in parking lots that can produce noise includes voices, stereo systems and the opening and closing of car doors and trunk lids. Such activities can occur at any time. The noise levels associated with these activities cannot be precisely defined due to variables such as the number of parking movements, time of day and other factors. It is typical for a passing car in a parking lot to produce a maximum noise level of 60 to 65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, which is comparable to the level of a raised voice.
For this project, parking would be dispersed throughout the overall project area. The closest proposed parking areas would be located at least 150 feet from the closest existing residential property lines to the north. At his distance, maximum (Lmax) parking lot vehicle movements would be expected to be approximately 51 to 56 dB. Such levels would not exceed any of the City’s applicable noise levels standards or exceed existing ambient noise levels at the closest residential land uses. Due to existing elevated ambient noise levels at the closest sensitive receptor locations (residential land uses north of the project site), noise levels associated with parking lot activities would generally not be audible over existing (without project) noise levels.
Drive Thru Retail
The proposed project would include two (2) retail areas that would likely include drive thru operations. While the exact tenants and type of retail store was not known at this time, it is assumed that amplified speech would be incorporated into drive thru operations.
In order to assess potential project noise levels associated with drive‐thru operations, WJVA utilized reference noise levels measured at a Wendy’s drive‐thru restaurant located on South Mooney Boulevard in Visalia. Measurements were conducted during the early afternoon of July 11, 2011 between 12:45 p.m. and 1:45 p.m. using the previously‐described noise monitoring equipment.
The microphone used by customers to order food and the loudspeaker used by employees to confirm orders are both integrated into a menu board that is located a few feet from the drive‐ thru lane at the approximate height of a typical car window. Vehicles would enter the drive‐thru lane from the west and then turn to the north along the east side of the restaurant.
Reference noise measurements were obtained at a distance of approximately 40 feet from the menu board containing the microphone/loudspeaker system at an angle of about 45° toward the
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 17 rear of the vehicle being served. This provided a worst‐case exposure to sound from the loudspeaker system since the vehicle was not located directly between the loudspeaker and measurement location. Cars were lined up in the access lane during the noise measurement period indicating that the drive‐through lane was operating at or near a peak level of activity.
Each ordering cycle was observed to take approximately 60 seconds including vehicle movements. A typical ordering cycle included 5‐10 seconds of loudspeaker use with typical maximum noise levels in the range of 60‐62 dBA at the 40 foot‐reference location. Vehicles moving through the drive‐thru lane produced noise levels in the range of 55‐60 dBA at the same distance. Vehicles parked at the ordering position (between the menu board and measurement site) were observed to provide significant acoustic shielding during the ordering sequence. The effects of such shielding are reflected by the noise measurement data. Noise levels were measured to approximately 60 dB Leq at the measurement site, and included noise from all sources, including the loudspeaker, vehicle movements and HVAC equipment.
The closest noise‐sensitive receptors (residential land uses) to the proposed retail drive thru operations are located approximately 190 feet to the north. At this setback distance, noise levels associated with drive thru retail operations would be expected to produce noise levels of approximately 47‐49 dB Lmax and approximately 46 dB Leq. Potential project‐related noise exposure at that locations of the closest residential land uses was calculated based upon the above‐described reference noise measurement data, the existing sound walls and the normal rate of sound attenuation over distance for a “point” noise source (6 dB/doubling of distance).
It is unknown if nighttime operations would occur at the drive thru retail locations. The above‐ described noise level of 46 dB Leq at the closest residential property line assumes the drive thru would be in constant operation, and should therefore we consider a worst‐case assessment of drive thru noise levels. While drive thru operational noise levels (46 dB Leq) slightly exceed the City’s nighttime noise level standard of 45 dB Leq, such levels are below existing (without project) nighttime ambient noise levels at the residential property lines, and would therefore not be considered a significant impact.
c. Noise from Construction
(Less Than Significant With Mitigation)
Construction noise would occur at various locations within the project site through the buildout period and at locations where off‐site infrastructure improvements may be required. Existing sensitive receptors could be located as close as 150 feet from construction activities. Table 10 provides typical construction‐related noise levels at distances of 100 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet.
Construction noise is not considered to be a significant impact if construction is limited to the allowed hours and construction equipment is adequately maintained and muffled. The City of Hanford limits hours of construction to occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Construction noise impacts could result in annoyance or sleep disruption for nearby residents if nighttime operations were to occur or if equipment is not properly muffled or maintained.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 18 TABLE 10
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS, dBA
Type of Equipment 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 300 Ft.
Concrete Saw 84 78 74
Crane 75 69 65
Excavator 75 69 65
Front End Loader 73 67 63
Jackhammer 83 77 73
Paver 71 65 61
Pneumatic Tools 79 73 69
Dozer 76 70 66
Rollers 74 68 64
Trucks 80 72 70
Pumps 74 68 64
Scrapers 81 75 71
Portable Generators 74 68 64
Backhoe 80 74 70
Grader 80 74 70
Source: FHWA
Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987 Potential Impact:
A noise impact could occur if construction activities do not incorporate appropriate mitigation measures and best management practices.
Mitigation Measures:
Noise levels associated with construction activities may be effectively mitigated by incorporating noise mitigation measures and appropriate best management practices. The following mitigation measures and best management practices should be applied during periods of project construction.
Per the City of Hanford Municipal Code, construction activities should not occur outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.
Noise‐producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor.
All noise‐producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise‐sensitive land uses.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 19 Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise‐sensitive land uses.
Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator.
d. Vibration Impacts (Less Than Significant)
The dominant sources of man‐made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement breaking, demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail‐car coupling. None of these activities are anticipated to occur with construction or operation of the proposed project. Vibration from construction activities could be detected at the closest sensitive land uses, especially during movements by heavy equipment or loaded trucks and during some paving activities (if they were to occur). Typical vibration levels at distances of 100 feet and 300 feet are summarized by Table
11. These levels would not be expected to exceed any significant threshold levels for annoyance or damage, as provided above in Table 3 and Table 4.
TABLE 11
TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS DURING CONSTRUCTION
PPV (in/sec)
Equipment @ 100´ @ 300´
Bulldozer (Large) 0.011 0.006
Bulldozer (Small) 0.0004 0.00019
Loaded Truck 0.01 0.005
Jackhammer 0.005 0.002
Vibratory Roller .03 0.013
Caisson Drilling .01 0.006
Source: Caltrans
After full project build out, it is not expected that ongoing operational activities will result in any vibration impacts at nearby sensitive uses. Activities involved in trash bin collection could result in minor on‐site vibrations as the bin is placed back onto the ground. Such vibrations would not be expected to be felt at the closest off‐site sensitive uses. Additional mitigation is not required.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 20
5. NOISE IMPACTS TO PROPOSED ON-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS,
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The project includes proposed sensitive receptors (residential land uses, transient lodging, nursing homes, offices, etc.) that could be impacted by exterior and interior noise exposure associated with existing transportation noise sources (SR 198 and SJVR line). The applicable exterior and interior noise level standards for such land uses are provided above as Table 1. a. Project Transportation Noise Impacts on Proposed On-Site Noise-Sensitive Land Uses (Less Than Significant With Mitigation)
Exterior Noise Exposure
Exterior noise exposure within the project site is dominated by vehicle traffic associated with State Route 198 to the south and railroad operations associated with the San Joaquin Valley Railroad line to the north. Noise levels measured at ambient noise monitoring sites LT‐1 and LT‐ 2 indicate that overall project site noise exposure is approximately 65‐70 dB Ldn.
The exterior noise level standard applicable to the above‐described sensitive receptors is 60 dB Ldn. The General Plan also states that where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application of the best‐available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn/CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table.
Exterior noise level compatibility standards for transportation noise sources are applied at the outdoor activity areas of sensitive receptors. Outdoor activity areas typically include backyards of single‐family residential uses and outdoor common use areas (pools, BBQ/picnic areas, playgrounds, etc.) as well as individual patios, balconies and decks of multi‐family residential uses and transient lodging land uses. The exact locations of such outdoor activity areas were not known at the time of this analysis; however, the project site plan (Figure 1) provides preliminary locations of pool areas for both the apartment development and the hotel development. Other proposed sensitive receptors (memory care facility, assisted living facility, skilled nursing facility, etc.) may also include outdoor activity areas, at which this exterior noise level standard would apply.
Potential Impact:
Transportation noise exposure levels would be expected to exceed the City’s 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard at outdoor activity areas associated with the multi‐family apartment land use and the hotel land use. Additionally, depending on the locations (if included into final project design) of any outdoor activity areas associated with other noise‐sensitive land uses (as defined above in Table 1), transportation noise exposure levels could exceed the City’s exterior noise level standard at such land uses as well.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 21 Mitigation Measures:
Based upon project site noise exposure (approximately 65‐70 dB Ldn) and the preliminary locations of the apartment and hotel pool areas (outdoor activity areas), mitigating exterior noise levels at these locations to at or below 60 dB Ldn would likely not be feasible. However, a preliminary analysis using a sound wall insertion loss model indicates that a sound wall constructed to a minimum height of six‐and‐a‐half (6.5) feet above ground level constructed around the two pool areas (apartment and hotel land uses) would mitigate exterior noise levels to below 65 dB Ldn within these outdoor activity areas.
Other proposed sensitive receptors (memory care facility, assisted living facility, skilled nursing facility, etc.) may also include outdoor activity areas, at which this exterior noise level standard would apply. The potential locations of outdoor activity areas associated with these land uses was not known at the time of this analysis. However, a similarly constructed sound wall around such uses would reduce noise levels to below 65 dB Ldn. Such noise levels are allowed by the City.
Interior Noise Exposure
As described above, exterior project site noise exposure throughout the overall project area is approximately 65‐70 dB Ldn, as a result of varying levels of proximity to both State Route 198 and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad line. Additionally, peak hour exterior noise levels would be approximately 70 dB Leq at the exterior of the office land uses to the north and the nursing college to the south. Interior noise level standards applicable to the project site vary, based upon proposed land uses. These interior noise level standards applicable to the project are:
45 dB Ldn: Multi‐family apartment, Hotel, skilled nursing facility, memory care facility, assisted living facility, and any additional facility where people are residing and sleep disturbance is considered.
45 db Leq: Office buildings, Nursing College (as determined for a typical worst case hour during periods of use)
Based upon the above‐described exterior noise exposure levels and applicable interior noise level standards, the proposed construction measures must be capable of providing approximately 25 dB of outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) (70‐45=25).
Generally speaking, construction measures complying with current building code standards would typically be expected to provide approximately 20‐25 dB of outdoor‐to‐indoor NLR, provided windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. However, additional sound attenuation measures may be required in conditions where the exterior façade consists of large portions of window or storefront glazing assemblies. Once construction plans are developed, an acoustical consultant should review to determine if additional interior noise level mitigation measures may be required.
Potential Impact:
Interior noise level standards applicable to the project’s proposed noise‐sensitive land uses are described above. Exterior exposure levels at the exterior facades of proposed noise‐sensitive land uses would be in the range of approximately 60‐75 dB Ldn and 70 dB Leq (peak hour). Depending
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 22 on final construction design, interior noise levels could potentially exceed the various applicable noise level standards of 45 dB Ldn and 45 dB Leq.
Mitigation Measures:
Once building‐specific construction plans become available, interior noise levels should be reviewed and calculated by a qualified acoustical consultant to determine if additional noise attenuation mitigation measures are required to comply with interior noise level standards. b. Noise Impacts from Nearby Airports or Airstrips (No Impact) The Project site is located approximately 1.5 miles west of Hanford Municipal Airport. WJVA has reviewed the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan6 to determine if the project would result in any noise compatibility concerns associated with airport operations. No portion of the project site is contained within any airport noise contours, and would therefore not result in any noise compatibility issues. The Hanford Municipal Airport noise contours are provided as Figure
6.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 23
6. IMPACT SUMMARY
This impact summary addresses only the noise impacts determined to be “potentially significant” and summarizes the mitigation measures that would be required to reduce noise levels to a “less than significant” level or states that the impact may be significant an unavoidable. Potential impacts and correlating mitigation measures are described in detail above, and summarized below.
Potential Impact:
Noise levels associated with truck movements could exceed the City’s 65 dB Lmax nighttime noise level standard at the residential property lines north of the 5th Street access point, if truck deliveries were to occur between the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Mitigation Measures:
Noise levels associated with nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) truck movements could be mitigated by implementing the following condition:
Require truck movements occurring during nighttime hours to use the Glendale Avenue access point only.
Potential Impact:
A noise impact could occur if construction activities do not incorporate appropriate mitigation measures and best management practices.
Mitigation Measures:
Noise levels associated with construction activities may be effectively mitigated by incorporating noise mitigation measures and appropriate best management practices. The following mitigation measures and best management practices should be applied during periods of project construction.
Per the City of Hanford Municipal Code, construction activities should not occur outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.
Noise‐producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 24 All noise‐producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise‐sensitive land uses. Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise‐sensitive land uses.
Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator.
Potential Impact:
Transportation noise exposure levels would be expected to exceed the City’s 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard at outdoor activity areas associated with the multi‐family apartment land use and the hotel land use. Additionally, depending on the locations (if included into final project design) of any outdoor activity areas associated with other noise‐sensitive land uses (as defined above in Table 1), transportation noise exposure levels could exceed the City’s exterior noise level standard at such land uses as well.
Mitigation Measures:
Based upon project site noise exposure (approximately 65‐70 dB Ldn) and the preliminary locations of the apartment and hotel pool areas (outdoor activity areas), mitigating exterior noise levels at these locations to at or below 60 dB Ldn would likely not be feasible. However, a preliminary analysis using a sound wall insertion loss model indicates that a sound wall constructed to a minimum height of six‐and‐a‐half (6.5) feet above ground level constructed around the two pool areas (apartment and hotel land uses) would mitigate exterior noise levels to below 65 dB Ldn within these outdoor activity areas. Such noise levels are allowed by the City.
Other proposed sensitive receptors (memory care facility, assisted living facility, skilled nursing facility, etc.) may also include outdoor activity areas, at which the exterior noise level standard would apply. The potential locations of outdoor activity areas associated with these land uses was not known at the time of this analysis. However, a similarly constructed sound wall around such uses would reduce noise levels to below 65 dB Ldn.
Potential Impact:
Interior noise level standards applicable to the project’s proposed noise‐sensitive land uses are described above. Exterior exposure levels at the exterior facades of proposed noise‐sensitive land uses would be in the range of approximately 60‐75 dB Ldn and 70 dB Leq. Depending on final construction design, interior noise levels could potentially exceed the various applicable noise level standards of 45 dB Ldn and 45 dB Leq.
Mitigation Measures:
Based upon the above‐described exterior noise exposure levels and applicable interior noise level standards, the proposed construction measures must be capable of providing approximately 25 dB of outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) (70‐45=25).
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 25 Generally speaking, construction measures complying with current building code standards would typically be expected to provide approximately 20‐25 dB of outdoor‐to‐indoor NLR, provided windows and doors can remain closed for sound insulation purposes. However, additional sound attenuation measures may be required in conditions where the exterior façade consists of large portions of windows and/or storefront glazing assemblies. Once construction plans are developed, an acoustical consultant should review to determine if additional interior noise level mitigation measures may be required. Such measures would typically include the incorporation of sound‐rated (higher STC) windows and assemblies.
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 26
7. SOURCES CONSULTED
1. City of Hanford 2035 General Plan, April 2017
2. City of Hanford Municipal Code, 2016
3. California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.
4. Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5, April 14, 2004
5. Hodges & Shutt, Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, July 1994
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 27 FIGURE 1: PROJECT SITE PLAN
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 28 FIGURE 2: PROJECT VICINITY AND AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING SITES
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 29 FIGURE 3: HOURLY NOISE LEVELS AT SITE LT-1
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
120
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐1
May 5, 2021
Lmax
Leq
L90
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
120
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐1
May 6, 2021
Lmax
Leq
L90
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 30 FIGURE 4: HOURLY NOISE LEVELS AT SITE LT-2
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
120
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐2
May 5, 2021
Lmax
Leq
L90
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
120
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐2
May 6, 2021
Lmax
Leq
L90
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 31 FIGURE 5: MODELED TRAFFIC NOISE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
20‐016 (Hanford Place Mixed‐Use Development) 5‐12‐21 32 FIGURE 6: HANFORD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS
APPENDIX A‐1
ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m.
DECIBEL, dB: A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).
DNL/Ldn: Day/Night Average Sound Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m.
Leq: Equivalent Sound Level. The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.
Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24‐hour sample periods.
NOTE: The CNEL and DNL represent daily levels of noise exposure averaged on an annual basis, while Leq represents the average noise exposure for a shorter time period, typically one hour.
Lmax: The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event.
Ln: The sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time during a sample interval (L90, L50, L10, etc.). For example, L10 equals the level exceeded 10 percent of the time.
A‐2
ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
NOISE EXPOSURE
CONTOURS: Lines drawn about a noise source indicating constant levels of noise exposure. CNEL and DNL contours are frequently utilized to describe community exposure to noise.
NOISE LEVEL
REDUCTION (NLR): The noise reduction between indoor and outdoor environments or between two rooms that is the numerical difference, in decibels, of the average sound pressure levels in those areas or rooms. A measurement of “noise level reduction” combines the effect of the transmission loss performance of the structure plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room.
SEL or SENEL: Sound Exposure Level or Single Event Noise Exposure Level. The level of noise accumulated during a single noise event, such as an aircraft overflight, with reference to a duration of one second.
More specifically, it is the time‐integrated A‐weighted squared sound pressure for a stated time interval or event, based on a reference pressure of 20 micropascals and a reference duration of one second.
SOUND LEVEL: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A‐weighting filter network. The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise.
SOUND TRANSMISSION
CLASS (STC): The single‐number rating of sound transmission loss for a construction element (window, door, etc.) over a frequency range where speech intelligibility largely occurs.
APPENDIX C
TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING CALCULATIONS
WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
May 7, 2021
Project #: 20-016 Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: ExistingLdn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 R-1 Lacey e/o Campus 18730 90 10 2 1 35 90
2 R-2 7th w/o Campus 8230 90 10 2 1 35 603 R-3 7th e/o Campus 7430 90 10 2 1 35 954 R-4 Campus n/o 6th 1580 90 10 2 1 35 605 R-5 6th e/o Campus 1420 90 10 2 1 35 1006 R-6 7th w/o 11th 8430 90 10 2 1 35 95 7 R-7 6th w/o 11th 1740 90 10 2 1 35 90
WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
May 7, 2021
Project #: 20-016 Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: Existing + projectLdn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 R-1 Lacey e/o Campus 19470 90 10 2 1 35 90
2 R-2 7th w/o Campus 8600 90 10 2 1 35 603 R-3 7th e/o Campus 7800 90 10 2 1 35 954 R-4 Campus n/o 6th 3810 90 10 2 1 35 605 R-5 6th e/o Campus 1420 90 10 2 1 35 1006 R-6 7th w/o 11th 8430 90 10 2 1 35 95 7 R-7 6th w/o 11th 1740 90 10 2 1 35 90
WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
May 7, 2021
Project #: 20-016 Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: 2042 No PojrectLdn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 R-1 Lacey e/o Campus 26180 90 10 2 1 35 90
2 R-2 7th w/o Campus 12730 90 10 2 1 35 60
3 R-3 7th e/o Campus 11490 90 10 2 1 35 954 R-4 Campus n/o 6th 2460 90 10 2 1 35 605 R-5 6th e/o Campus 2190 90 10 2 1 35 1006 R-6 7th w/o 11th 13030 90 10 2 1 35 95 7 R-7 6th w/o 11th 2690 90 10 2 1 35 90
WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
May 7, 2021
Project #: 20-016 Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: 2042 + PojrectLdn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 R-1 Lacey e/o Campus 26920 90 10 2 1 35 90
2 R-2 7th w/o Campus 13100 90 10 2 1 35 60
3 R-3 7th e/o Campus 11860 90 10 2 1 35 954 R-4 Campus n/o 6th 4470 90 10 2 1 35 605 R-5 6th e/o Campus 2190 90 10 2 1 35 1006 R-6 7th w/o 11th 13400 90 10 2 1 35 95 7 R-7 6th w/o 11th 2690 90 10 2 1 35 90
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) G-1
APPENDIX F
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
HANFORD P LACE
CITY OF HANFORD , C ALIFORNIA
INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2023
F P:\20230872 Hanford Place\PRODUCTS\Hanford Place Revised Admin Draft ISMND.docx (03/20/23) -2 This page intentionally left blank
DRAFT
Hanford Place Development
Traffic Impact Study
December 2020
Prepared by:
VRPA Technologies, Inc.
4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105
Fresno, CA 93722
Project Manager: Georgiena Vivian
Hanford Place Development
Traffic Impact Study
Study Team
Georgiena Vivian, President, VRPA Technologies, Inc., [email protected], (559) 259-9257
Erik Ruehr, Dir. of Traffic Engineering, VRPA Technologies, Inc., [email protected], (858) 566-1766
Jeff Stine, Senior Transportation Planner, VRPA Technologies, Inc. [email protected], (858) 566-1766
Jason Ellard, Transportation Engineer, VRPA Technologies, Inc., [email protected], (559) 271-1200
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
Executive Summary E-1
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Description of the Region/Project 1
1.1.1 Project Access 4
1.1.2 Study Area 4
1.1.3 Study Scenarios 5
1.2 Methodology 5
1.2.1 Intersection Analysis 5
1.2.2 Roadway Segment Analysis 6
1.3 Policies to Maintain Level of Service 10
1.3.1 City of Hanford 10
1.3.2 California Department of Transportation 10
1.4 VMT Analysis 11
2.0 Existing Conditions 12
2.1 Existing Traffic Counts and Roadway Geometrics 12
2.2 Existing Functional Roadway Classification System 12
2.3 Affected Streets and Highways 13
2.4 Level of Service 14
2.4.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis 14
2.4.2 Queuing Analysis 15
2.4.3 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis 15
3.0 Traffic Impacts 22
3.1 Trip Generation 22
3.2 Trip Distribution 23
3.3 Project Traffic 23
3.4 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions 23
3.5 Near-Term Traffic Conditions 23
3.6 Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project Traffic Conditions 32
3.7 Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project Traffic Conditions 32
3.8 Impacts 32
3.8.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis 32
3.8.2 Queuing Analysis 32
3.8.3 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis 32
3.9 VMT Analysis 33
4.0 Mitigation 42
4.1 Recommended Improvements 42
4.1.1 Intersections 42
4.1.2 Roadway Segments 43
4.2 Equitable Share Responsibility 47
Appendices
Appendix A – Modified Arterial Level of Service Tables
Appendix B – Traffic Count Data Worksheets
Appendix C – Synchro 10 (HCM 6th Edition) Worksheets
Appendix D – Chapter 400 of Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual (HDM) Appendix E – Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant
Appendix F – VMT Analysis Maps
List of Tables
1-1 Project Components 1
1-2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions 7 1-3 Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Definitions 8 1-4 Roadway Segment Level of Service Definitions 9
1-5 Peak Hour Two-Way Volumes 10
2-1 Existing Intersection Operations 19
2-2 Existing Queuing Operations 20
2-3 Existing Segment Operations 21
3-1 Project Trip Generation 22
3-2 Intersection Operations 39
3-3 Queuing Operations 40
3-4 Segment Operations 41
4-1 Intersection Operations with Mitigation 44
4-2 Segment Operations with Mitigation 45
4-3 Left Turn and Right Turn Storage Requirements 46
4-4 Equitable Share Responsibility 47
List of Figures
1-1 Regional Location 2
1-2 Project Location 3
2-1 Existing Lane Geometry 16
2-2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic 17
2-3 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic 18
3-1a Project Trip Distribution - Inbound 24
3-1b Project Trip Distribution - Outbound 25
3-2 AM Peak Hour Project Traffic 26
3-3 PM Peak Hour Project Traffic 27
3-4 Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 28
3-5 Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 29
3-6 Near-Term Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 30
3-7 Near-Term Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 31
3-8 Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 35 3-9 Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 36 3-10 Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 37 3-11 Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 38
E-1 Hanford Place Development
Traffic Impact Study, Executive Summary
Executive Summary
This Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has been prepared for the purpose of analyzing traffic conditions related to the Hanford Place Development (Project). The various components of the Project are detailed in Table E-1 below. The Project site is generally bound to the north by the San Joaquin Valley Railroad, to the east by commercial land uses, to the south by State Route 198, and to the west by commercial land uses. Regional access to the site is provided by State Route 198, which is located adjacent to the southern border of the project site.
The vacant project site is comprised of four parcels and is located between State Route 198 and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad in the City of Hanford (City), in Kings County (Kings). 5th Street cuts through the project site in an east/west direction and Campus Drive cuts through the project in a north/south direction. In addition, the Peoples Ditch runs through the project site.
The city of Hanford is located 30 miles south of the City of Fresno and 20 miles west of the City of Visalia. Hanford was incorporated in 1891 and is the county seat of Kings County. Hanford is located in the northern portion of Kings County at an elevation of 249 feet above sea level. The city has a total area of 16.6 square miles, all of which is land not covered by water. The only natural watercourse is Mussel Slough, remnants of which still exist on the city's western edge.
The People's Ditch, an irrigation canal dug in the 1870s, traverses Hanford from north to south.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided by Glendale Avenue, 5th Street, and Campus Drive. The extension of these roadways would be constructed to City standards and would be dedicated as public right of way. The proposed project would also construct a roundabout, which would also be dedicated as public right of way and would be constructed to Caltrans or City-approved standards. As part of the project, Glendale Avenue would be realigned at the northwest corner of the Hanford Veterinary Hospital development. The existing knuckle would be removed, and Glendale Avenue would be realigned using speed-specific design curves. Any new portions of Glendale Avenue would be dedicated as public right of way and any portion of existing right of way not used would be abandoned. 5th Street would be extended starting at the existing alignment before realigning to the roundabout. In addition, the proposed project would provide 1,466 parking spaces throughout the project site.
The TIS completed for the Project includes level of service (LOS) analysis for the following traffic scenarios.
Existing Conditions
Existing Plus Project
Near-Term Plus Project
Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project
E-2 Hanford Place Development
Traffic Impact Study, Executive Summary
Table E-1
Project Components
IMPACTS
Intersections
Table E-2 provides the intersection level of service analysis for the study intersections considering the study scenarios discussed above. Potential mitigation measures are discussed below. Results of the analysis show that the Project will contribute to an unacceptable LOS at five (5) of the study intersections when comparing the Cumulative Year 2042 scenarios.
Segments
Table E-3 shows roadway segments that are expected to fall short of desirable operating conditions for various scenarios. Potential mitigation measures are discussed below. Results of the analysis also show that the Project will result in a cumulative impact at two (2) of the study roadway segments when comparing the Cumulative Year 2042 scenarios.
PROJECT COMPONENTS SIZE/UNIT DESCRIPTION
Medical/Commercial
Multi-Family Apartment
Assisted Living Facility
Memory Care
Skilled Nursing Facility
114,000 sf
90 Units
34,380 sf
34,480 sf
54,611 sf
This is a m-sat operation. The School hosts 4 classes per scheduling window and offer three scheduling windows per day. Average class length is 2.5 hours. Average student enrollment is 8 students per class. Total classes of 12 per day and start at 8am and finish at 930pm.
This will be a standard traffic count for hotels and will be a limited service hotel. The conference center will be used on an average of 2 times per week including weekends.
This is a psychiatric health care facility. This will consist of 24 patients who stay an average of 5 days. There will be approximately 10 employees and this use will operate 24/7. There will be approximately 4 admissions/discharges per day all done via ambulance.
Psychiatric Health Facility
22,525 sf
12,445 sf
35,000 sf
105 Rooms
Ambulatory Surgery Center
Specialty Clinic
Medical Office Building
Nursing College
Hotel & Conference Center
This will be standard weekday medical offices.
Standard
Limited use of vehicles for residents. On average ¼ of residents have vehicles parked full time at facility. Majority of residents use facilities bus transportation. This is 24/7 as well and staff ratio is 1:8.
Like above SNF, however longer length of stay (average stay of 45 days) so less vehicle traffic inbound and outbound. Same staff ratio and same visit count by visitors/service providers.
Skilled nursing facility with average of 1.5 admits per day and 1 discharge per day. Staff ratio of 1:6 with a total of 59 beds. It is a 24/7 operation and there are usually approximately 20 visitors/service provider visits per day. No patients/residents have access to vehicles This will be standard weekday medical offices.
This will be an Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development's (OSHPD) 3 facility, which in turn will approve advanced scope for medical care (i.e.: radiology/oncology. This will be a Monday-Saturday facility.
This facility is used to handle approximately 25 surgical procedures per day. There will be approximately 12 employees. This only operates weekdays. 12,445 sf
24,890 sf
E-3 Hanford Place Development
Traffic Impact Study, Executive Summary
Table E-2
Intersection Operations
DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
AM 22.7 C 30.2 D 37.2 E 74.4 F 154.4 F +
PM 100.4 F + 184.6 F + 269.9 F + ++ F ++ F +
AM 13.8 B 13.7 B 14.5 B 18.8 B 19.9 B
PM 17.8 B 19.4 B 23.0 C 64.5 E 75.1 E
AM 11.9 B 12.5 B 12.7 B 13.2 B 13.7 B
PM 13.0 B 13.6 B 14.3 B 19.0 B 20.1 C
AM 25.0 C 25.2 C 25.4 C 25.7 C 25.5 C
PM 28.0 C 29.2 C 31.4 C 52.2 D 52.9 D
AM 9.9 A 11.9 B 12.6 B 12.1 B 15.0 B
PM 15.6 C 23.7 C 31.8 D 92.9 F 146.9 F
AM 10.4 B 13.3 B 13.6 B 10.7 B 13.1 B
PM 10.6 B 13.9 B 14.3 B 11.5 B 14.7 B
AM 20.4 C 20.3 C 21.0 C 25.3 C 25.9 C
PM 27.5 C 28.5 C 31.6 C 49.9 D 52.7 D
AM 18.9 C 18.9 B 19.7 B 24.2 C 24.4 C
PM 28.8 C 29.0 C 31.8 C 55.6 E 57.6 E
AM 12.6 B 12.7 B 13.3 B 17.1 C 17.3 C
PM 17.4 C 18.1 C 20.6 C 74.3 F 83.6 F
AM 4.9 A 9.6 A 9.7 A 6.5 A 10.7 B
PM 12.1 B 18.1 B 19.5 B 23.8 C 42.3 D
AM 12.0 B 15.3 B 15.9 B 16.4 B 20.8 C
PM 12.7 B 14.6 B 15.6 B 21.0 C 28.4 C
AM 18.6 B 21.0 C 22.9 C 27.0 C 30.2 C
PM 25.1 C 30.6 C 35.4 D 76.3 E 97.4 F
DELAY is measured in seconds
LOS = Level of Service / BOLD denotes LOS standard has been exceeded For signal ized and all-way stop intersections, delay results show the average for the entire intersection. For one-way and two-way stop controlled intersections, delay results show the delay for the worst movement.
1 - With the changes brought about by SB 743, Caltrans no longer uses level of service to determine the need for transportati on imrovements. Instead, focus is on providing adequate facilities for pedestri ans, bicycl es, and transit as wel l as s afety considerations for all transportation modes. Guidance is provided in the Transportation Impact Study Guide dated May 20, 2020 and the Interi m Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance dated July 2020. This guidance will be used in determining the need for roadway improvements on Caltrans facilities.
+ Meets peak hour si gnal warrants.
++ Delay Exceeds 300 seconds.
1. 12th Avenue / Glendale Avenue Two-Way Stop Sign
Signalized -- 1
2. 12th Avenue / SR 198 WB Ramps Signalized -- 1
3. 12th Avenue / SR 198 EB Ramps
4. Campus Drive / Lacey Boulevard Signalized D
12. 11th Avenue / 3rd Street-SR 198 EB Off Ramp
CUMULATIVE
YEAR 2042 PLUS
PROJECT
EXISTING
NEAR-TERM
PLUS PROJECT
CUMULATIVE
YEAR 2042
WITHOUT
PROJECT
D
EXISTING PLUS
INTERSECTION CONTROL PROJECT TARGET
LOS
PEAK
HOUR
Signalized -- 1
5. Campus Drive / 7th Street All-Way Stop Sign D
6. Campus Drive / 6th Street Two-Way Stop Sign D
7. 11th Avenue / Lacey Boulevard Signalized D
8. 11th Avenue / 7th Street Signalized D
9. 11th Avenue / 6th Street Two-Way Stop Sign D
10. 11th Avenue / 5th Street Signalized D
11. 11th Avenue / 4th Street-SR 198 WB On Ramp Signalized -- 1
E-4 Hanford Place Development
Traffic Impact Study, Executive Summary
Table E-3
Segment Operations
VOLUME LOS VOLUME LOS VOLUME LOS VOLUME LOS VOLUME LOS
AM 855 C 919 C 990 C 1,322 C 1,386 C
PM 1,693 C 1,767 C 1,907 C 2,617 D 2,691 D
AM 963 C 1,027 C 1,107 C 1,489 C 1,553 C
PM 1,873 C 1,947 C 2,101 C 2,896 D 2,970 E
AM 346 D 378 D 407 D 535 D 567 D
PM 743 D 780 D 841 D 1,149 E 1,186 E
AM 127 C 127 C 137 C 196 C 196 C
PM 142 C 142 C 154 C 220 C 220 C
AM 130 C 323 C 334 D 201 C 394 D
PM 163 C 385 D 399 D 252 C 474 D
AM 101 C 359 D 367 D 156 C 414 D
PM 464 D 760 D 799 D 717 D 1,014 D
AM 251 C 380 D 400 D 388 D 517 D
PM 393 D 541 D 574 D 608 D 756 D
LOS = Level of Service / BOLD denotes LOS standard has been exceeded 2 Lanes Undivided D
Lacey Boulevard
7th Street
6th Street
Glendale Avenue
5th Avenue
Campus Drive
West of 11th Avenue 2 Lanes Undivided D
East of 12th Avenue 2 Lanes Undivided D
Campus Drive to 11th Avenue 2 Lanes Undivided D
D
12th Avenue to Campus Drive 4 Lanes Divided D
Campus Drive to 11th Avenue 2 Lanes Undivided D
Campus Drive to 11th Avenue 4 Lanes Divided
Lacey Bouloevard to Glendale Avenue
CUMULATIVE
YEAR 2042
PLUS PROJECT STREET SEGMENT
SEGMENT
DESCRIPTION TARGET LOS
EXISTING
PLUS PROJECT
CUMULATIVE
YEAR 2042
WITHOUT
PROJECT
NEAR-TERM
PLUS PROJECT
PEAK EXISTING
HOUR
E-5 Hanford Place Development
Traffic Impact Study, Executive Summary
MITIGATION
As discussed above, the potentially significant impacts resulting from the Project relate to the generation of unacceptable LOS at various intersections and road segments in the long term.
Considering the criteria provided in Section 1.3 and the results presented above, the following improvements are recommended to alleviate project-specific impacts.
INTERSECTIONS
12th Avenue at Glendale Avenue
No Recommended improvements.
Installation of a traffic signal would alleviate level of service deficiencies at the intersection for all study scenarios. However, providing a traffic signal at this location is not practical given the close spacing of adjacent intersections. In lieu of the traffic signal, dual right turn lanes for the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection should be considered to alleviate queuing at the eastbound and westbound approaches. Campus Drive at 7th Street
Recommended improvements to achieve acceptable levels of service:
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project scenario:
o Install Traffic Signal
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project scenario are sufficient to meet the City of Hanford’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. 11th Avenue at 7th Street
No Recommended improvements.
Providing additional turning movement lanes along 11th Avenue and 7th Street is not possible due to design constraints or infeasible/impractical due to the presence of commercial development that currently exists along the north and south side of 7th Street. 11th Avenue at 6th Street
No Recommended improvements.
This intersection is forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS ‘F’ (PM) under Cumulative Year 2042 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project conditions; however, this intersection does not meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant because the minor approaches do not carry enough traffic to justify signalization. Therefore, no improvements are recommended for the Project’s contribution of traffic at the intersection for the Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project condition.
12th Avenue at SR 198 WB Ramps
No Recommended improvements.
E-6 Hanford Place Development
Traffic Impact Study, Executive Summary
Providing additional turning movement lanes at the 12th Avenue and SR 198 WB Ramps intersection is not possible due to design constraints or infeasible/impractical due to the presence of development that currently exists along the north side of the SR 198 WB Ramps. As noted in Section 1.3, Caltrans no longer uses level of service to determine the need for transportation improvements. Instead, focus is on providing adequate facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit as well as safety considerations for all transportation modes.
11th Avenue at 3rd Street-SR 198 EB Off Ramp
No Recommended improvements.
Providing additional turning movement lanes at the 11th Avenue and 3rd Street-SR 198 EB Off Ramp intersection is not possible due to design constraints or infeasible/impractical due to the presence of development that currently exists along the south side of 3rd Street and the SR 198 EB Off Ramp. As noted in Section 1.3, Caltrans no longer uses level of service to determine the need for transportation improvements. Instead, focus is on providing adequate facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit as well as safety considerations for all transportation modes.
ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Lacey Boulevard between Campus Drive and 11th Avenue
No Recommended improvements.
Providing additional travel lanes along Lacey Boulevard is not possible due to design constraints or infeasible/impractical due to the presence of retail development that currently exists along the north and south side of Lacey Boulevard. In addition, accommodating additional travel lanes along Lacey Boulevard could result in the elimination of parking along Lacey Boulevard.
7
th Street between Campus Drive and 11th Avenue
Recommended improvements:
Cumulative Year 2042 Plus Project scenario:
o Restripe to provide two-way left turn lane with removal of parking as necessary Providing additional travel lanes along 7th Street is not possible due to right-of-way constraints.
Post-Mitigation Level of Significance
The level of service resulting from the potential improvements identified above is shown in Tables E-4 and E-5.