Agenda packet — Hanford City Council, May 19, 2026 (part 3 of 12)

CORNER INTERSECTION END

SAME SIZE &

SPACING AS
HORIZ. REINF.

TRIM BAR U.O.N.

PROVIDE STD. HOOK @ ENDS OF
TERMINATED HORIZ. REINF. OR
PROVIDE DOWELS @ ENDS &
JAMB OF WALLS, U.O.N.

TRIM BAR @ END &
JAMB OF WALL, U.O.N

TYPICAL LAP
SPLICE, SEE 4
S0.30
3'-0"
TYP.

FDN. LEVEL
TRIM REINF., U.O.N.

WALL
THICKNESS REINF.
#5
(2) #512"
8"

VERTICAL TRIM BAR
FLR. OR ROOF LEVEL

LAP SPLICE,
TYP. SEE

WHERE STRAIGHT EXTENSION

PAST OPENING IS NOT POSSIBLE,

EXTEND BARS AS FAR AS
POSSIBLE & PROVIDE STD. HOOK
TYP. WALL REINF. & FTG. DOWELS

IF DISTANCE BETWEEN

OPENINGS THAT ALIGN IS
LESS THAN 4'-0", PROVIDE
CONT. TRIM REINF.

TERMINATE HORIZ. REBAR AT
OPENINGS W/ STD. HOOK

WHERE SILL IS LESS
THAN 42" HIGH EXTEND

DOWEL TO SILL
DOWELS TO MATCH TRIM REINF.

OPEN
OPEN
S0.30
10 S0.31
3 4
S0.30
MIN. GROUT

PLACEMENT FLUSH W/

TOP OF BLOCK WALL

DEPRESS GROUT
1 1/2 ", TYP.

CONSTRUCTION
JOINT

DEPRESS GROUT
1/2 " @ HORIZ.

REINF. LOCATION

TOP OF WALL
BAR
SIZE
DEVELOPMENT LENGTH OR LAP SPLICE (IN.)
1500 PSI 2000 PSI 2500 PSI
#3 12 12 12
#4 17 15 13
#5 28 24 22
#6 55 48 43
NOTES:

1. FOR #7 BARS AND LARGER, USE MECHANICAL COUPLERS.

2. TABULATED LENGTHS ARE BASED ON REINFORCING STEEL STRENGTH Fy =60ksi.

3. TABULATED LENGTHS ARE MINIMUMS. IN THE CASE OF CONFLICTS WITH PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, USE THE LONGER LENGTH.

4. MULTIPLY TABULATED LENGTHS BY 1.50 FOR EPOXY-COATED REINFORCING.

5. FOR DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS AND SPLICE LENGTHS IN CONCRETE, SEE CONCRETE DETAILS.

BARS AT CENTER OF CELL BARS ADJACENT TO FACE SHELL
1500 PSI 2000 PSI 2500 PSI
17 15 13
29 25 23
45 39 35
85 73 66

CORNER INTERSECTION END
12"x12" CORNER BLOCK
TRIM BARS @ END &
JAMB OF WALL, U.O.N SAME SIZE &

SPACING AS
HORIZ. REINF.

TYPICAL LAP
SPLICE, SEE 4
S0.30
3'-0"
3'-0"
MIN.
3'-0"

ROOF LEVEL
FLR.

LEVEL

DOWELS TO MATCH
TRIM REINF.

LAP SPLICE,
TYP. SEE

WHERE STRAIGHT EXTENSION

PAST OPENING IS NOT POSSIBLE,

EXTEND BARS AS FAR AS
POSSIBLE & PROVIDE STD. HOOK
TYP. WALL REINF. &
FTG. DOWELS. WHERE
SILL IS < 42" HIGH,

EXTEND DOWEL TO SILL

IF DISTANCE BETWEEN OPENINGS
THAT ALIGN IS LESS THAN 4'-0",
PROVIDE CONT. TRIM REINF.

OPEN
OPEN
FDN. LEVEL
OPEN
TRIM REINF., U.O.N.

WALL

THICKNESS
REINF.
#5
(2) #512"
8"
TERMINATE HORIZ.

BARS AT OPENING
W/ STD. HOOK
S0.31
3 4
S0.30
PLAN

CAULKING
SEALANT, CONT.

BOTH SIDES
PROVIDE STD. HOOK @

ENDS OF TERMINATED
REINF. OR PROVIDE
DOWELS @ ENDS OF
WALLS, U.O.N.

TRIM BARS @ END
OF WALLS, U.O.N.

BACKER ROD
1/2"
1/2"

OPENING OPENING

PROPERTY
20'-0 3/8" ACTUAL LINE
20'-0" GIVEN
21'-4" GIVEN
5'-0 3/16"
5'-0"
GIVEN
ACTUAL
3'-11 5/8" ACTUAL
4'-0"GIVEN
4'-0 3/8" ACTUAL
4'-0"GIVEN
21'-3 5/8" ACTUAL
PLAN

BACKER ROD

FLANGED

NEOPRENE WATER
STOP. CONT. VERT.

CAULKING
SEALANT, CONT.

BOTH SIDES
1/2"
1/2"
TRIM BARS @ END
OF WALLS, U.O.N.

PROVIDE STD. HOOK @

ENDS OF TERMINATED
REINF. OR PROVIDE
DOWELS @ ENDS OF
WALLS, U.O.N.
1"
CLR.
1"
CLR.

WHERE DEPTH OF HEADER
IS >1.5 TIMES OPENING WIDTH,
PROVIDE TYPICAL VERT. REINF.

W/ 90° HOOK @ BOTT.

AND OMIT #3 @ 8" .O.C.
8" CMU 12" CMU
#3 @ 8" O.C.
180° HOOK
#5
(2) #6
JOB No.

SHEET
17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (714) 481-7300 | www.pacewater.com

JOB TITLE PREPARED BY
EXP.

DRAWN

DESIGNEDCHECKED
R.C.E. No.

PROJECT ENGINEER

SCALEDATE
1"
THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION".

Advanced Water Engineering
C:\Users\mtwhite\Desktop\Revit Local Files\2023\238195.00 - Hanford Treatment Plant\238195.00_R23_Hanford Treatment Plant_mwhite.rvt12/8/2023 12:07:42 AM As indicated
Checker
11/22/23
238195 Author
S0.30
Approver

HANFORD
WWTP

UPGRADES

HANFORD CA

MASONRY TYPICAL

DETAILS
No. BY DATE REVISIONS
1" = 1'-0"
LAYOUT OF HORIZ. REINF. IN 8" CMU WALLS 1 1/4" = 1'-0"TYPICAL TRIM REINF. @ OPENINGS IN CMU WALL 2 1" = 1'-0"TYP. CONSTRUCTION JOINTS IN CMU WALLS 3 12" = 1'-0"
DEVELOPMENT & LAP SPLICE SCHEDULE 4 1" = 1'-0"LAYOUT OF HORIZ. REINF. IN 12" CMU WALLS 5 1/8" = 1'-0"TYP. TRIM REINF. AT OPENING IN MULTI-STORY CMU WALL 6 1" = 1'-0"
TYPICAL CONTROL JOINT IN CMU WALLS 7 1/2" = 1'-0"NOMINAL AND ACTUAL DIMENSIONS 8 1" = 1'-0"

TYPICAL CONTROL

JOINT IN CMU WALLS WITH WATERSTOP
9 1" = 1'-0"

HEADER OVER CMU WALL OPENINGS
10 PROGRESS SET - NOT FOR
PERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION 41% DESIGN - ISSUED FOR REVIEW

Page 180 of 1565 ends

MIN.,
TYP.

MIN.,TYP.

MIN.,TYP.
(E) MORTAR JOINT, TYP.

NOTES:

1. POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS SHALL ONLY BE INSTALLED IN FULLY GROUTED WALLS.

2. POST-INSTALLED ANCHORS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED WITHIN SHADED AREAS OF WALLS, AS INDICATED ON THIS DRAWING.
(E) FULLY-GROUTED CMU
1 3/8" 1 3/8"
1 3/8" 1 3/8"
BTWN. FINS
3 1/2"MIN. CLR.
1/2" MAX.

MORTAR FIN
16" TO 48"16" TO 48"
16" TO 32"16" TO 32"
8" CMU
12" CMU
TYP. WALL REINF.

TRIM BAR EA. END
#3 @ 8" O.C.

W/ 180° HOOK
EA. END
TYP. WALL REINF.
(2) TRIM BARS EA. END
#3 TIES @ 8" O.C.

ALL BOLTS SHALL BE

GROUTED SOLIDLY IN PLACE
W/ 1" OF GROUT ALL AROUND
BOLT (DIA. OF HOLE THRU
BLOCKS = BOLT DIA. + 2")

SECURE IN POSITION W/

TEMPLATES

MATERIAL TO

BE FASTENED
3"
VARIES
1/2"CLR.
1" CLR.

FOOTING

INVERTED BOND BEAM

UNIT AT BOTTOM, PROVIDE
CLEAN OUTS, SPACED @
6'-0" O.C., MAX.
8" CMU

DOWELS TO
MATCH VERT.

REINF., FOR

TYPICAL LAP

SPLICE SEE

THOROUGHLY CLEAN &

ROUGHEN TOP OF FOOTING
4 S0.30
JOB No.

SHEET
17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (714) 481-7300 | www.pacewater.com

JOB TITLE PREPARED BY
EXP.

DRAWN

DESIGNEDCHECKED
R.C.E. No.

PROJECT ENGINEER

SCALEDATE
1"
THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION".

HANFORD
WWTP

UPGRADES

HANFORD CA

MASONRY TYPICAL

DETAILS
No. BY DATE REVISIONS
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
ANCHORS IN CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS ELEV.
1 1" = 1'-0"

MORTAR JOINT
2 1" = 1'-0"

CMU WALL PIERS
3 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

TYPICAL CAST-IN-PLACE

BOLTS IN CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS
4 1" = 1'-0"

CMU WALLS AT FOOTINGS
5 PROGRESS SET - NOT FOR
PERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION 41% DESIGN - ISSUED FOR REVIEW

Page 181 of 1565 ends

"L"
SEE SCHED.
2d TYP.
3"
SEE
"t" SEE
SCHED.
10"
6"
2"2"
EQ. EQ. EQ.
3"
MAX.
2d
2d
PLATE

THICKNESS,
"t"
PLATE

LENGTH,
"L"

EMBEDMENT
DEPTH
# OF ROWS
(2 PER ROW)

NOMINAL
BEAM
DEPTH (IN.)

STUDS STEEL PLATE

STEEL PLATE CONCRETE WALL, SEE

PLAN OR ELEVATION
3/4"∅ STUDS, SEE SCHEDULE
FOR NO. OF STUDS
1 1/2"
1/2"
1"
1"
1"
10"
12"
14"
16"
18"
24"
27"
32"

FOR PLATE

CONNECTION
SEE
10 12
14 16
18 21
24 27
3 3
4 4
4 6
6 6
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
8"
8"
8"

BEAM PER PLAN
52NEW01

STUD AND PLATE SCHEDULE
1/2"
1 1/2"
1 1/2"
K PER AISC + 1/2" MAX.
℄
LRFD
DESIGN

STRENGTH

30.0 38.0

44.0 51.0

57.0 75.0

84.0 98.0
DESIGN STRENGTHS BASED ON Fu = 65 KSI W.H.S. AND f'c = 4000 psi CONCRETE.

INTERIOR LOCATION IS ASSUMED FREE EDGES OF CONCRETE LOCATED AT LEAST 1.5 x THE STUD EMBEDMENT DEPTH FROM THE CLOSEST STUD. *
*
SEE SCHED.
"A"
P.P. WHEN
F.S. IS NOT

ACCESSIBLE

AT LOCATIONS
W/ (2) ROWS

OF BOLTS
OR
2d
2d
3/4"
MAX.
2d 3"
TYP.
3" WHERE
(2) ROWS REQ. K PER AISC + 1/2" MAX.

WEB PL,
SEE SCHED.

BOLTS,
SEE
SCHED.

COLUMN
52A301
"A"
"A"

CAP PL,
SEE
COLUMN

FOR INFORMATION

SHOWN BUT NOT

NOTED, SEE
52A302
2 S0.32
3/4" 1/4" 3/16" 25.1 KIPS

BEAM SIZE

BOLTS WEB PL
THICK
WELD
SIZE,
"A"

LRFD DESIGN
STRENGTH DIA.NO.
2 3
4 5
7 8
9 W8, W10, C8, C10
W12, W14, C12
W16
W18, W21
W27 (NOTE 1)
W30 (NOTE 1)
W33, W36 (NOTE 1)
W24 (NOTE 1) 6
SGHSTLA00
NOTES:

1. SHORT SLOTTED HOLES ARE REQUIRED PER AISC 360-16 FOR BEAMS W24 AND LARGER.

2. DESIGN STRENGTHS ARE BASED ON ASTM F3125 GRADE A325 BOLTS, WITH THREADS INCLUDED IN THE SHEAR PLANE, AS INDICATED IN TABLE 10-10b OF THE AISC STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, 15th EDITION.

3. DESIGN STRENGTHS ARE APPLICABLE FOR INDICATED BOLT DIAMETER AND GRADE 50 PLATE MATERIAL.

4. DESIGN STRENGTHS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO HSS CONNECTIONS. 3/8" 1/4"
3/8" 1/4"
3/8" 1/4"

44.2 KIPS

63.3 KIPS

82.0 KIPS
100 KIPS
119 KIPS
137 KIPS
155 KIPS
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/8"
3/8"
3/8"
3/8"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
2d
TYP.
2d
TYP.
3"
MAX.

TYP.
3"
TYP.
2d
TYP.

SEE
SCHED.

SHEAR PLATE,
SEE SCHED.

BOLTS, SEE
SCHED.
d = BOLT DIAMETER
52E101
K PER AISC + 1/2" MAX.

OF BOLTS
3" AT TWO ROWS

AT LOCATIONS

W/ TWO ROWS

OF BOLTS
t- 1/16"
OR AISC MIN.
"N"
SEE SCHED.
1 1/2"
TYP.
1 1/2"
TYP.
"B"
SEE SCHED.
t
HOLES AT 8-BOLT
CONDITION. SEE SCHED.
52C101
HOLES MAY BE 1/2" OVERSIZED.

IF OVERSIZED HOLES ARE USED,

PROVIDE OVERSIZED WASHERS
℄ COL. & PL
℄ COL. & PL
NOTE:

CONDITION AT ROUND
HSS SIM.
"N"
2"
TYP.
"B"
2"
TYP.

HOLES MAY BE 1/2" OVERSIZED.

IF OVERSIZED HOLES ARE USED,

PROVIDE OVERSIZED WASHERS
TYP. @

FLANGES
HOLES AT 8-BOLT

CONDITION

0.5tw + 1/8"
℄ COL. & PL
℄ COL. & PL
T
52A101

0.5tf + 1/8"
SEE SCHED.

SEE SCHED.

PLAN
6 S0.32
MILL COL. END
FIN. FLOOR LINE
T.O. FOUNDATION
52C102
℄ COL. & PL
BOLT
EMBED.

PER
SCHED.

NON-SHRINK GROUT
AS REQ., 1 1/2" MIN.

STD. BOLT HEAD OR

DOUBLE NUT WITH
THREADS DEFORMED, TYP.

COLUMN
5" PROJECTION
"t" SEE SCHEDULE
NOTES:

1. FOR BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR

BOLT INFORMATION, SEE COLUMN
SCHEDULE.

2. CONTRACTOR'S OPTION:

FOLLOWING PLACEMENT OF

GROUT, ANCHOR BOLT

PROJECTION MAY BE TRIMMED BY
SAW CUTTING. ONE COMPLETE

BOLT THREAD SHALL REMAIN

ABOVE THE TOP OF THE NUT
SURFACE FOLLOWING TRIMMING.

USE OVERSIZED

WASHERS WHERE

OVERSIZED

HOLES ARE USED
BOLT
EMBED.

PER
SCHED.

MILL COL. END MILL BASE PL FOR THICKNESS >2"

NON-SHRINK GROUT
AS REQ., 1 1/2" MIN.

COL. & PL
STD. BOLT HEAD OR

DOUBLE NUT WITH
THREADS DEFORMED, TYP.

FIN. FLOOR LINE
COLUMN
5" PROJECTION
T.O. FOUNDATION
"t" SEE SCHEDULE
SGHSTLB03
℄
7 S0.32
NOTES:

1. FOR BASE PLATE AND ANCHOR

BOLT INFORMATION, SEE COLUMN
SCHEDULE.

2. CONTRACTOR'S OPTION:

FOLLOWING PLACEMENT OF

GROUT, ANCHOR BOLT

PROJECTION MAY BE TRIMMED BY
SAW CUTTING. ONE COMPLETE

BOLT THREAD SHALL REMAIN

ABOVE THE TOP OF THE NUT
SURFACE FOLLOWING TRIMMING.

USE OVERSIZED

WASHERS WHERE

OVERSIZED

HOLES ARE USED
1/2"
2" 3" 1 1/2"

EXTEND DEEPER
GIRDER OVER COL.

PL 3/4"x8", LENGTH AS
REQ. W/ (4) 3/4"∅ A325
BOLTS ON STD. GA.

COL. SEE PLANS
1/2" FULL DEPTH
STIFF. PLATE, B.S.

COL. ABOVE,

WHERE OCCURS
SGHSTLC02
5/16
1/4

GRAVITY MOMENT CONNECTION,
SEE

DESIGNATES NUMBER
OF BOLTS REQ. AT A
TYPICAL (2-ROW)
CONNECTION. FOR

DETAILS, SEE

BEAM CAMBER
NO. OF WELDED

HEADED STUDS

SEISMIC MOMENT

CONNECTION, SEE

SPECIFIC DETAILS

WHERE APPLICABLE

SIMPLE CONNECTION,
SEE

GRAVITY MOMENT CONNECTION,
SEE

SIMPLE CONNECTION,
SEE
BEAM
BEAM
BEAM
BEAM
BEAM
BEAM W18x35 (30) C= 1/2"
10 SIMPLE CONNECTION

AT WALL, SEE

CONCRETE WALL,

SEE ELEVATION

WALL BELOW,

SEE ELEVATION

PLAN NOTES AND LEGEND
FULL DEPTH WEB PL.

SEE
BEAM
TYP. BOTTOM FLG. BRACE,
SEE
-
---
-
---
-
---
1 S0.32
5 S0.32
-
---
-
---
-
---
2 S0.32
JOB No.

SHEET
17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (714) 481-7300 | www.pacewater.com

JOB TITLE PREPARED BY
EXP.

DRAWN

DESIGNEDCHECKED
R.C.E. No.

PROJECT ENGINEER

SCALEDATE
1"
THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION".

Advanced Water Engineering
C:\Users\mtwhite\Desktop\Revit Local Files\2023\238195.00 - Hanford Treatment Plant\238195.00_R23_Hanford Treatment Plant_mwhite.rvt12/8/2023 12:07:43 AM As indicated
Checker
11/22/23
238195 Author
S0.32
Approver

HANFORD
WWTP

UPGRADES

HANFORD CA

STEEL TYPICAL DETAILS
No. BY DATE REVISIONS
3/4" = 1'-0"

BEAM TO CONCRETE
WALL SIMPLE CONNECTION 1
3/4" = 1'-0"

BEAM TO COLUMN
FLANGE - SIMPLE CONNECTION 2 3/4" = 1'-0"

BEAM TO COLUMN

FLANGE - SIMPLE CONNECTION
3 12" = 1'-0"

SCHEDULE OF BEAM CONNECTIONS
SINGLE SHEAR PLATE - 3/4" BOLTS
4 3/4" = 1'-0"
BEAM TO GIRDER SIMPLE CONNECTION 5
3/4" = 1'-0"
HSS COLUMN BASE PLATE - PLAN 6 3/4" = 1'-0"STEEL COLUMN BASE PLATE - PLAN 7 3/4" = 1'-0"
HSS COLUMN BASE PLATE - ELEVATION 8 3/4" = 1'-0"STEEL COLUMN BASE PLATE - ELEVATION 9 3/4" = 1'-0"

DETAIL OF TUBE COLUMN
10 1/8" = 1'-0"

FRAMING LEGEND
11 PROGRESS SET - NOT FORPERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION 41% DESIGN - ISSUED FOR REVIEW

Page 182 of 1565 ends

15 16 17
69'-3" 305'-0" 36'-0"
SEE 1/S1.1 SEE 1/S1.2
JOB No.

SHEET
17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (714) 481-7300 | www.pacewater.com

JOB TITLE PREPARED BY
EXP.

DRAWN

DESIGNEDCHECKED
R.C.E. No.

PROJECT ENGINEER

SCALEDATE
1"
THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION".

Advanced Water Engineering
C:\Users\mtwhite\Desktop\Revit Local Files\2023\238195.00 - Hanford Treatment Plant\238195.00_R23_Hanford Treatment Plant_mwhite.rvt12/8/2023 12:07:45 AM 1/16" = 1'-0"
Checker
12/04/23
238195 Author
S1.0
Approver

HANFORD
WWTP

UPGRADES

HANFORD CA

OXIDATION TANK

OVERALL PLAN
No. BY DATE REVISIONS
1/16" = 1'-0"

OXIDATION TANK OVERALL PLAN
1 OXIDATION TANK 3D VIEW
2 PROGRESS SET - NOT FOR
PERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION 41% DESIGN - ISSUED FOR REVIEW

Page 183 of 1565 ends

15 16
2 S1.1
B12x18B12x18
B12x18
B12x18
B12x18
B12x18
B24x30
B24x30
B24x30
B18x28
B24x30
B18x28
B24x30
B14x28B14x28
CW16A
CW18A CW18A
CW18ACW18A
CW16A
CW12
CW12
S8
EL 1000'-0"
SOG12A
EL 983'-0"
SOG12A
EL 983'-0"
SOG12A
EL 983'-0"
SOG12A
EL 983'-0"
S8
EL 1006'-0"
CW6
CW16A
S8
EL 1000'-0"

CONCRETE
STAIRS
MATCH LINE, SEE / 1 S1.2 MATCH LINE, SEE / 1 S1.2
S1.3
1 S1.3
2 BELOW
SEE FOR RADIAL S3.0

REINFORCEMENT

LAYOUT OF CURVED

SLAB-ON-GRADE
16 1000'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH LOW ROOF
1006'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH HIGH ROOF
983'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH LEVEL 1
S1.3
1 S1.3
2 SLAB NOTE SOG12A:
12" CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE REINFORCED w/
#6 @ 9" OC TRANSVERSE, T&B AND #5 @ 8" OC

LONGITUDINAL, T&B
SLAB NOTE SOG18A:
18" CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE REINFORCED w/
#8 @ 9" OC TRANSVERSE, T&B AND #6 @ 8" OC

LONGITUDINAL, T&B
SLAB NOTE SOG12R:
12" CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE REINFORCED w/
#7 @ 12" OC RADIAL, TOP AND #6 @ 12" OC

CIRCULAR TOP
SLAB NOTE SOG18R:
18" CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE REINFORCED w/
#7 @ 12" OC RADIAL, T&B AND #6 @ 12" OC

CIRCULAR T&B
SLAB NOTE S8:
8" CONCRETE SLAB REINFORCED w/ #5 @ 8" OC
T&B IN SPAN DIRECTION AND #4 @ 12" OC T&B IN
SECONDARY CONDITION.

WALL NOTE CW12:
12" CONCRETE WALL REINFORCED w/ #6 @ 6" OC
VERT EF, AND #4 @ 8" OC HORIZ EF
WALL NOTE CW16A:
16" CONCRETE WALL REINFORCED w/ #7 @ 12" OC
VERT EF, AND #4 @ 8" OC HORIZ EF
WALL NOTE CW18A:
18" CONCRETE WALL REINFORCED w/ #8 @ 8" OC
VERT EF, AND #4 @ 8" OC HORIZ EF (STRAIGHT
PORTION) OR #7 @ 8" OC HORIZ EF (CURVED

PORTION)
JOB No.

SHEET
17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (714) 481-7300 | www.pacewater.com

JOB TITLE PREPARED BY
EXP.

DRAWN

DESIGNEDCHECKED
R.C.E. No.

PROJECT ENGINEER

SCALEDATE
1"
THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION".

Advanced Water Engineering
C:\Users\mtwhite\Desktop\Revit Local Files\2023\238195.00 - Hanford Treatment Plant\238195.00_R23_Hanford Treatment Plant_mwhite.rvt12/8/2023 12:07:45 AM As indicated
Checker
12/01/23
238195 Author
S1.1
Approver

HANFORD
WWTP

UPGRADES

HANFORD CA

OXIDATION DITCH PLAN

AND SECTION - SOUTH
No. BY DATE REVISIONS
1/8" = 1'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH HIGH ROOF - South 1
1/8" = 1'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH - SECTION LOOKING WEST 2

PROGRESS SET - NOT FOR
PERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION ±19'
FFE 1000.00'
FFE 979.00'
2' RECOMMENDED

FREEBOARD
CW20A CW20A CW20A CW20A
WALL NOTE CW20A:
20" CONCRETE WALL REINFORCED w/
#8 @ 4" OC VERT EF, & #5 @ 8" OC
HORIZ EF (STRAIGHT PORTION) OR #7
@ 5" OC HORIZ EF (CURVED PORTION) EL 9797'-0" EL 9797'-0" EL 9797'-0" EL 9797'-0" #5 8"
S14

REVISED WALL
HEIGHT
SLAB NOTE S14:
14" CONCRETE SLAB REINFORCED w/
#6 @ 8" OC T&B EA WAY
B24X32 B24X32 B24X32 B24X32 B24X32
R

Page 184 of 1565 ends

15 17
2 S1.2
MATCH LINE, SEE / 1 S1.1 MATCH LINE, SEE / 1 S1.1
B14x28B18x28
B14x28B18x28
B24x30
B24x30
B24x30
CW16A
B24x30
B12x18B12x18
B12x18
B12x18B12x18
B12x18
B12x18B12x18B12x18
CW6
CW16A
CW18A CW18A
CW18ACW18A
S8
EL 1006'-0"
SOG12A
EL 983'-0"
SOG12A
EL 983'-0"

CONCRETE STAIRS
S8
EL 1000'-0"
S1.3
3 BELOW
SEE FOR RADIAL S3.0

REINFORCEMENT

LAYOUT OF CURVED

SLAB-ON-GRADE
17 1000'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH LOW ROOF
1006'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH HIGH ROOF
983'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH LEVEL 1
S1.3
3 SLAB NOTE SOG12A:
12" CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE REINFORCED w/
#6 @ 9" OC TRANSVERSE, T&B AND #5 @ 8" OC

LONGITUDINAL, T&B
SLAB NOTE SOG18A:
18" CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE REINFORCED w/
#8 @ 9" OC TRANSVERSE, T&B AND #6 @ 8" OC

LONGITUDINAL, T&B
SLAB NOTE SOG12R:
12" CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE REINFORCED w/
#7 @ 12" OC RADIAL, TOP AND #6 @ 12" OC

CIRCULAR TOP
SLAB NOTE SOG18R:
18" CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE REINFORCED w/
#7 @ 12" OC RADIAL, T&B AND #6 @ 12" OC

CIRCULAR T&B
SLAB NOTE S8:
8" CONCRETE SLAB REINFORCED w/ #5 @ 8" OC
T&B IN SPAN DIRECTION AND #4 @ 12" OC T&B IN
SECONDARY CONDITION.

PORTION)
JOB No.

SHEET
17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (714) 481-7300 | www.pacewater.com

JOB TITLE PREPARED BY
EXP.

DRAWN

DESIGNEDCHECKED
R.C.E. No.

PROJECT ENGINEER

SCALEDATE
1"
THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION".

Advanced Water Engineering
C:\Users\mtwhite\Desktop\Revit Local Files\2023\238195.00 - Hanford Treatment Plant\238195.00_R23_Hanford Treatment Plant_mwhite.rvt12/8/2023 12:07:46 AM As indicated
Checker
12/01/23
238195 Author
S1.2
Approver

HANFORD
WWTP

UPGRADES

HANFORD CA

OXIDATION DITCH PLAN

AND SECTION - NORTH
No. BY DATE REVISIONS
1/8" = 1'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH HIGH ROOF - North 1
1/8" = 1'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH - SECTION LOOKING WEST 2

PROGRESS SET - NOT FOR

PERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION
SLAB NOTE S8:
8" CONCRETE SLAB REINFORCED w/ #5 @ 8" OC
T&B IN SPAN DIRECTION AND #4 @ 12" OC T&B IN
SECONDARY CONDITION.

PORTION)
CW20A CW20A CW20A CW20A EL 9797'-0" EL 9797'-0"
WALL NOTE CW20A:
20" CONCRETE WALL REINFORCED w/
#8 @ 4" OC VERT EF, & #5 @ 8" OC
HORIZ EF (STRAIGHT PORTION) OR #7
@ 5" OC HORIZ EF (CURVED PORTION)
#5 8"
±19'
FFE 1000.00'
FFE 979.00'
2' RECOMMENDED

FREEBOARD

REVISED WALL
HEIGHT
S14 B24X32 B24X32 B24X32 B24X32
R
SLAB NOTE S14:
14" CONCRETE SLAB REINFORCED w/
#6 @ 8" OC T&B EA WAY

Page 185 of 1565 ends

15 1000'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH LOW ROOF
1006'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH HIGH ROOF
983'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH LEVEL 1
10'-0"
1'-6"
12'-0"
1'-6"
10'-0"
1'-6"
SOG12A
SOG18A
SOG18A SOG12A
SOG18A
CW18A CW12
CW16A CW12
CW18A
S8
_______
S1.3 4
15 1000'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH LOW ROOF
1006'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH HIGH ROOF
983'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH LEVEL 1
10'-0"1'-6"12'-0"
1'-6"
10'-0"
1'-6"
CW18A
SOG18A SOG12A
SOG18A SOG12A
SOG18A
CW18A
CW16A
S8
_______
S1.4 1 _______
S1.4 2
15 1000'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH LOW ROOF
1006'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH HIGH ROOF
983'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH LEVEL 1
10'-0"
1'-6"
12'-0"
1'-6"
10'-0"
1'-6"
CW6
SOG12A
SOG18A
SOG12A
CW18A
CW16A
CW18A
SOG18A
S8
SOG18A
1000'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH LOW ROOF
1006'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH HIGH ROOF
983'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH LEVEL 1
1'-6" 1'-0"
CW12

SEE PLAN
NOTES
CW18A

SEE PLAN
NOTES
1'-0"
1'-6"

LAP LENGTHLAP LENGTH
3" CLR 2"CLR

SEE PLAN FOR SLAB
INFORMATION 1'-0"
#4 U-BAR
@ 12" OC

SEE PLAN FOR SLAB

INFORMATION
JOB No.

SHEET
17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (714) 481-7300 | www.pacewater.com

JOB TITLE PREPARED BY
EXP.

DRAWN

DESIGNEDCHECKED
R.C.E. No.

PROJECT ENGINEER

SCALEDATE
1"
THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION".

Advanced Water Engineering
C:\Users\mtwhite\Desktop\Revit Local Files\2023\238195.00 - Hanford Treatment Plant\238195.00_R23_Hanford Treatment Plant_mwhite.rvt12/8/2023 12:07:47 AM As indicated
Checker
12/04/23
238195 Author
S1.3
Approver

HANFORD
WWTP

UPGRADES

HANFORD CA

OXIDATION TANK

SECTIONS
No. BY DATE REVISIONS
3/16" = 1'-0"

OXIDATION TANK SECTION - LOOKING NORTH
1 3/16" = 1'-0"

OXIDATION TANK SECTION - LOOKING NORTH
2 3/16" = 1'-0"

OXIDATION TANK SECTION - LOOKING NORTH
3 1/2" = 1'-0"

EXTERIOR WALL SECTION
4 PROGRESS SET - NOT FOR
PERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION 2'-0"
3'-0" 2" CLR R

Page 186 of 1565 ends

1000'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH LOW ROOF
983'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH LEVEL 1

SEE PLAN
NOTES

SEE PLAN FOR SLAB

INFORMATION
#4 U-BAR
@ 12" OC
CW18A
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-0"

LAP LENGTH
2" CLR 3" CLR
15 1000'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH LOW ROOF
983'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH LEVEL 1
3" CLR 2" CLR

LAP LENGTH

SEE PLAN FOR

SLAB INFORMATION

LAP LENGTH
1'-0"
1'-6"
1'-4"
CW16A

SEE PLAN
NOTES8"

SEE PLAN FOR SLAB

INFORMATION
#4 HOOKED BAR
@ 12" OC EF
1000'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH LOW ROOF
1006'-0"

OXIDATION DITCH HIGH ROOF
983'-0"
OXIDATION DITCH LEVEL 1

SEE PLAN
NOTES

SEE PLAN FOR SLAB

INFORMATION
CW18A
1'-6"
3" CLR 2" CLR
1'-0"

LAP LENGTH
1'-0"
1'-6"

SEE PLAN FOR SLAB

INFORMATION
JOB No.

SHEET
17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
P: (714) 481-7300 | www.pacewater.com

JOB TITLE PREPARED BY
EXP.

DRAWN

DESIGNEDCHECKED
R.C.E. No.

PROJECT ENGINEER

SCALEDATE
1"
THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER NOR BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION".

Advanced Water Engineering
C:\Users\mtwhite\Desktop\Revit Local Files\2023\238195.00 - Hanford Treatment Plant\238195.00_R23_Hanford Treatment Plant_mwhite.rvt12/8/2023 12:07:47 AM 1/2" = 1'-0"
Checker
12/07/23
238195 Author
S1.4
Approver

HANFORD
WWTP

UPGRADES

HANFORD CA

OXIDATION TANK

SECTIONS
No. BY DATE REVISIONS
1/2" = 1'-0"
TYPICAL EXTERIOR WALL SECTION 1 1/2" = 1'-0"TYPICAL INTERIOR WALL ELEVATION 2 1/2" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR WALL SECTION 3 PROGRESS SET - NOT FOR
PERMIT OR CONSTRUCTION 2'-0" 2'-0"
979'-0" 979'-0" 3'-0" 2'-0"
3'-0" 2" CLR
979'-0" R

Page 187 of 1565 ends

FOR REFERENCE ONLY ENGINEER NO. APP. DATE BY DATE NO
PACE JOB NO. C058-10 REVISIONS
SHEET
Xrefs: C058-00 36X24.dwg
w:\C058\engineering\C058-10\sheets\C058-10-S0.0.dwg - Tab: S3.0 - by mmills on 11/24/25 at 4:09:50 PM Dimscale = 24; LTscale = 1; PSltscale = 1; ACAD Ver. = 24.2s (LMS Tech); Visretain = 1 42% PLANS - ISSUED FOR REVIEW 17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200 | Fountain Valley, CA 92708 P: (714) 481-7300 | www.pacewater.com Advanced Water Engineering PREPARED BY: CALIFORNIA OWNER: KINGS COUNTY SHEET TITLE: MANNER NOR USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION". THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY ANDY KOMOR CXXXXX PROJECT: 1" PREPARED BY: REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL EXPIRATION DATE: XX/XX/XXXX DRAWN BY: T.GDESIGN BY: A.T.K CHECKED BY: A.T.K SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: NOV 2025 12345
S3.0
---- CLARIFIER PLAN

Page 188 of 1565 ends

ENGINEER NO. APP. DATE BY DATE NO
PACE JOB NO. C058-10 REVISIONS
SHEET
Xrefs: C058-00 36X24.dwg
w:\C058\engineering\C058-10\sheets\C058-10-S0.0.dwg - Tab: S3.1 - by mmills on 11/24/25 at 4:09:50 PM Dimscale = 24; LTscale = 1; PSltscale = 1; ACAD Ver. = 24.2s (LMS Tech); Visretain = 1 42% PLANS - ISSUED FOR REVIEW 17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200 | Fountain Valley, CA 92708 P: (714) 481-7300 | www.pacewater.com Advanced Water Engineering PREPARED BY: CALIFORNIA OWNER: KINGS COUNTY SHEET TITLE: MANNER NOR USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION". THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY ANDY KOMOR CXXXXX PROJECT: 1" PREPARED BY: REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL EXPIRATION DATE: XX/XX/XXXX DRAWN BY: T.GDESIGN BY: A.T.K CHECKED BY: A.T.K SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: NOV 2025 12345 S3.1
---- CLARIFIER SECTIONS I

FOR REFERENCE ONLY FOR REFERENCE ONLY

Page 189 of 1565 ends

ENGINEER NO. APP. DATE BY DATE NO
PACE JOB NO. C058-10 REVISIONS
SHEET
Xrefs: C058-00 36X24.dwg
w:\C058\engineering\C058-10\sheets\C058-10-S0.0.dwg - Tab: S4.1 - by mmills on 11/24/25 at 4:09:50 PM Dimscale = 24; LTscale = 1; PSltscale = 1; ACAD Ver. = 24.2s (LMS Tech); Visretain = 1 42% PLANS - ISSUED FOR REVIEW 17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200 | Fountain Valley, CA 92708 P: (714) 481-7300 | www.pacewater.com Advanced Water Engineering PREPARED BY: CALIFORNIA OWNER: KINGS COUNTY SHEET TITLE: MANNER NOR USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED "ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION". THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF P.A.C.E. AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY ANDY KOMOR CXXXXX PROJECT: 1" PREPARED BY: REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL EXPIRATION DATE: XX/XX/XXXX DRAWN BY: T.GDESIGN BY: A.T.K CHECKED BY: A.T.K SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: NOV 2025 12345 S4.1
---- CHEMICAL STORAGE BUILDING PLANS

Page 190 of 1565 ends

19 EXHIBIT I

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Page 191 of 1565 ends

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

HANFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

HANFORD, CALIFORNIA

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

SUBMITTED TO
Mr. Andy Komor
Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.
17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708

PREPARED BY
ENGEO Incorporated
September 26, 2023
PROJECT NO.
23933.000.001

Page 192 of 1565 ends

GEOTECHNICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER RESOURCES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS
17278 Golden Valley Parkway  Lathrop, CA 95330  (209) 835-0610  Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com
Project No.
23933.000.001
September 26, 2023
Mr. Andy Komor
Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.
17520 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Subject: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
Hanford, California

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Dear Mr. Komor:

We prepared this geotechnical report for the proposed wastewater treatment plant expansion project located in Hanford, California. We characterized the subsurface conditions at the site to provide the enclosed geotechnical recommendations for design.

Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicate that the risk of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the design geotechnical engineering firm to review the project plans and specifications and provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. Please let us know when working drawings are nearing completion, and we will be glad to discuss these additional services with you.

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

Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
Chase Dunn Steve Harris, GE
cmd/sdh/cjn

Page 193 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
i of ii September 26, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

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

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

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

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

2.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 1

2.1 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY............................................................................................ 1

2.1.1 Geology.................................................................................................................. 1

2.1.2 Seismicity ............................................................................................................... 2

2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................................................................................... 2

2.2.1 Borings ................................................................................................................... 2

2.2.2 Cone Penetration Tests ......................................................................................... 3

2.3 SURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 3

2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................................ 3

2.5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 3

2.6 LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................... 4

2.7 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL........................................................................................ 4

3.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 5

3.1 SEISMIC HAZARDS ........................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1 Ground Rupture ..................................................................................................... 6

3.1.2 Ground Shaking ..................................................................................................... 6

3.1.3 Ground Lurching .................................................................................................... 6

3.1.4 Flooding ................................................................................................................. 6

3.1.5 Liquefaction............................................................................................................ 6

3.1.1 Dynamic Densification ........................................................................................... 7

3.2 2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS................................................................... 7

4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 8

4.1 GENERAL SITE CLEARING AND OVEREXCAVATION ................................................... 8

4.2 OVER-OPTIMUM SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS........................................................... 8

4.3 ACCEPTABLE FILL ............................................................................................................ 9

4.4 FILL COMPACTION............................................................................................................ 9

4.4.1 Grading in Structural Areas.................................................................................... 9

4.4.2 Underground Utility Backfill.................................................................................... 9

4.4.3 Surface Drainage ................................................................................................. 10

5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS – AUXILLARY BUILDINGS AND OXIDATION DITCH............................................................................................ 10

5.1 AT-GRADE FOUNDATION LATERAL RESISTANCE ..................................................... 11

5.2 AT-GRADE STRUCTURE SETTLEMENT ....................................................................... 11

5.3 INTERIOR SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION............................................................ 11

5.3.1 Slab Moisture Vapor Reduction ........................................................................... 12

5.4 EXTERIOR FLATWORK................................................................................................... 12

Page 194 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
ii of ii September 26, 2023

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS – WASTEWATER CLARIFIERS......... 12

6.1 CONTINUOUS RINGWALL FOOTING............................................................................. 12

6.2 INTERIOR CLARIFIER SLAB........................................................................................... 13

6.3 CLARIFIER LATERAL RESISTANCE .............................................................................. 13

6.4 CLARIFIER SETTLEMENT .............................................................................................. 13

6.5 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE.............................................................................................. 13

7.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN......................................................................................... 13

7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT .................................................................................................... 13

8.0 RETAINING AND SOUNDWALLS .................................................................... 14

8.1 LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES.......................................................................................... 14

9.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ....................................... 15

SELECTED REFERENCES

FIGURES
APPENDIX A – Boring Logs, Cone Penetration Tests
APPENDIX B – Laboratory Test Data
APPENDIX C – Liquefaction Analysis

Page 195 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 1 September 26, 2023

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
We prepared this geotechnical report for design of the proposed wastewater treatment plant expansion project in Hanford, California. Our scope of services included a review of previously published maps and reports regarding geological and geotechnical characteristics of the subject site, subsurface field exploration, soil laboratory testing, engineering analysis, development of recommendations, and report preparation.

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their consultants for design of this project. If any changes are made in the character, design, or layout of the development, we must be contacted to review the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to evaluate whether modifications are recommended. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without our express written consent.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The site is located southeast of the intersection of Houston Avenue and S 11th Avenue in Hanford, California, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The future improvements are located just east of the existing oxidation ditch and sludge thickeners on the west side of the wastewater plant.

Figure 2 shows our exploration locations.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on our review of the proposed site plan prepared by PACE, dated June 2023, we understand site improvements will consist of two 100-foot-diameter wastewater clarifiers and an additional oxidation ditch. In addition, we understand an adjacent chemical and electrical building will be constructed consisting of a filtering system and lift pumps.

2.0 FINDINGS

2.1 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY

2.1.1 Geology
We present the following discussion of site geology based on our subsurface exploration and review of the California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic map of California: Fresno sheet (Matthews, R.A. and Burnett, J.L., 1965).

The site is located in the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley is an elongate, northwest-trending structural trough bound by the Coast Range on the west and the Sierra Nevada on the east. The Great Valley has been, and is presently being, filled with sediments primarily derived from the Sierra Nevada. Soil in the Great Valley province can be up to 10 kilometers thick near the central portions of the Central Valley, including the vicinity of the subject property.

Page 196 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 2 September 26, 2023
Our review of the previously referenced geologic map indicate that near-surface geology consists of Holocene-aged Fan Deposits (Qf) and Quaternary Basin Deposits (Qb). These deposits are reported to consist of interbedded clay, silt, sand, and gravel.

2.1.2 Seismicity
The site is located in an area of moderate seismicity. No known active faults cross the site, and the property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone; however, large (>MW7) earthquakes have historically occurred in the Bay Area to the west and along the margins of the Central Valley and many earthquakes of low magnitude occur every year. The two nearest earthquake faults zoned as active by the State of California Geological Survey are the Great Valley fault, located approximately 25 miles west, and the San Andreas fault, located approximately 52 miles southwest (Blake, 2006). The Great Valley fault is a blind thrust fault with no known surface expression; the postulated fault location had been based on historical regional seismic activity and isolated subsurface information.

TABLE 2.1.2-1: Faults Capable of Producing Significant Ground Shaking at the Site Latitude: 36.295838, Longitude: -119.650516

FAULT NAME DISTANCE FROM SITE
(miles)

DIRECTION

FROM SITE

MAXIMUM MOMENT

MAGNITUDE
Great Valley 25 West 6.9
San Andreas 52 Southwest 7.0
San Juan 56 Southwest 7.0
Portions of the Great Valley fault are considered seismically active thrust faults; however, since the Great Valley fault segments are not known to extend to the ground surface, the State of California has not defined Earthquake Fault Zones around postulated traces. The Great Valley fault is considered capable of causing significant ground shaking at the site, but the recurrence interval is believed longer than for more distant, strike-slip faults. Recent studies suggest that this boundary fault may have been the cause of the Vacaville-Winters earthquake sequence of April 1892 (Eaton, 1986; Wong and Biggar, 1989; Moores and others, 1991).

2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION
In accordance with our agreement, we performed five cone penetration tests (CPTs) and four boring explorations. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2). The locations of our explorations are approximate and were estimated by utilizing smart phones equipped with GPS; they should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.

2.2.1 Borings
We retained a track-mounted drill rig and crew to advance the borings using hollow-stem auger methods with a diameter of approximately 8 inches. The borings were advanced to depths of approximately 31½ feet below existing grade. An ENGEO representative logged the borings in the field and collected soil samples using either 2.5-inch outside diameter (O.D.) Modified California-type split-spoon sampler fitted with 6-inch-long stainless-steel liners, or a 2-inch O.D. standard penetration test (SPT) split-spoon sampler. The samplers were advanced with a 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop, employing an automatic hammer system. The penetration of the samplers into the native materials was field recorded as the number of blows

Page 197 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 3 September 26, 2023
needed to drive the sampler 18 inches in 6-inch increments. Blow count results on the boring logs were recorded as the number of blows required for the last 1 foot of penetration.

We used field logs to develop the boring logs included in Appendix A. The boring logs depict subsurface conditions within the borings at the time the exploration was conducted. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations and the passage of time may result in altered subsurface conditions. In addition, stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; the transitions may be gradual or gradational.

2.2.2 Cone Penetration Tests
We retained a CPT rig to perform CPTs to maximum depths of approximately 50 feet. The soundings were performed with a 10-square-centimeter end area 10-ton subtraction digital cone with a pore pressure and seismic transducer. The area of the friction sleeve is 150 square centimeters and the average unequal end area ratio is 0.8. The cone, connected with a series of rods, is pushed into the ground at a constant rate. Cone readings are taken at approximately 5-cm intervals with a penetration rate of 2 cm per second in accordance with ASTM D3441.

Measurements include the tip resistance to penetration of the cone (Qc), the resistance of the surface sleeve (Fs), and pore pressure (U) (Robertson and Campanella, 1988). CPT logs are presented in Appendix A.

2.3 SURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on our site reconnaissance, the site is currently being used as an active wastewater treatment facility for the City of Hanford. Existing features and structures on-site in the vicinity of the proposed expansion consists of oxidation ditches, sludge thickeners, sludge beds, sludge lagoons, and a pump station. Site topography is relatively level on the paved surfaces with elevations ranging from approximately Elevation 220 feet on the northern boundary to approximately 216 feet on the southern boundary (MSL). However, existing basins and a supernatant pit in the vicinity of our exploration range from approximately 5 to 8 feet deep. Please refer to the Site Plan, Figure 2, for more information on site features.

2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
In our subsurface explorations, we encountered primarily loose to medium dense sand with varying amounts of fine contents within approximately 15 feet of the surface of the site.

Interbedded layers of sandy lean clay and silt approximately 3-feet-thick were encountered near 15 and 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Below the above, we encountered medium dense sand with varying amounts of fine contents to the maximum depth explored of approximately 31½ feet. Refer to the site plan and exploration logs included in Appendix A for specific subsurface conditions at each location. The logs graphically depict the subsurface conditions encountered at the time of the exploration. The boring logs contain the soil type, color, consistency, and visual classification in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

2.5 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
We observed groundwater in some of our subsurface explorations; however, we believe that this was perched groundwater influenced from nearby detention basins and lagoons. We summarize our observations in the table below.

Page 198 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 4 September 26, 2023
TABLE 2.5-1: Groundwater Observations
EXPLORATION LOCATION APPROX. DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER
(feet)
CPT-01 41
CPT-02 42
CPT-03 36
CPT-04 40
CPT-05 38
We reviewed well log data publicly available through the State of California, Sustainable Groundwater Management Program website (sgma.water.ca.gov) for water wells. Groundwater measurements within the vicinity of the project site indicate that the static water level is approximately between 100 and 170 feet below existing ground surface.

Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation practice, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made. It should be noted, explorations were not left open for extended periods of time to allow for pore pressures and groundwater levels to equalize, therefore, judgment should be taken if levels are used in design.

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

For this project, we performed moisture content, density, strength, and sieve testing. Moisture contents, dry densities, percent fines, and strengths are recorded on the boring logs in Appendix A; laboratory data is included in Appendix B.

2.7 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL
As part of this study, we obtained two representative soil samples and submitted to a qualified analytical lab for determination of pH, resistivity, sulfate, and chloride. The results are included in Appendix B and summarized in the table below.

TABLE 2.7-1: Corrosivity Test Results
SAMPLE

LOCATION DEPTH PH RESISTIVITY(OHMS-CM)

CHLORIDE
(MG/KG)

SULFATE
(MG/KG)
1-B02 2 8.35 2480 10.2 53.3
1-B04 2 8.39 1630 2.1 15.5
The 2022 CBC references the 2019 American Concrete Institute Manual, ACI 318-19, Section 19.3.1 for concrete durability requirements. ACI Table 19.3.1.1 provides the following exposure categories and classes, and Table 19.3.2.1 provides requirements for concrete in contact with soil based upon the exposure class.

TABLE 2.7-2: ACI Table 19.3.1.1: Exposure Categories and Classes

CATEGORY CLASS CONDITION
Freezing and
thawing (F)
F0 Concrete not exposed to freezing-and-thawing cycles
F1 Concrete exposed to freezing-and-thawing cycles with limited exposure to water

Page 199 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 5 September 26, 2023

CATEGORY CLASS CONDITION
F2 Concrete exposed to freezing-and-thawing cycles with frequent exposure to water
F3 Concrete exposed to freezing-and-thawing cycles with frequent exposure to water and exposure to deicing chemicals

CATEGORY CLASS

WATER-SOLUBLE
SULFATE (SO4
2-) IN SOIL,
% BY MASS[1]
DISSOLVED SULFATE (SO4
2-)

IN WATER
MG/KG (PPM)[2]
Sulfate (S)
S0 SO4
2- < 0.10 SO42- < 150
S1 0.10 ≤ SO4
2-< 0.20 150 ≤ SO4
2- ≤ 1,500
or seawater
S2 0.20 ≤ SO4
2- ≤ 2.00 1,500 ≤ SO42- ≤ 10,000
S3 SO4
2- > 2.00 SO42- > 10,000

CATEGORY CLASS CONDITION
In contact with
water (W)
W0 Concrete dry in service
W1 Concrete in contact with water where low permeability is not required W2 Concrete in contact with water where low permeability is required Corrosion
protection of
reinforcement (C)
C0 Concrete dry or protected from moisture
C1 Concrete exposed to moisture but not to an external source of chlorides C2
Concrete exposed to moisture and an external source of chlorides from deicing chemicals, salt, brackish water, seawater, or spray from these sources
[1] Percent sulfate by mass in soil determined by ASTM C1580 [2] Concentration of dissolved sulfates in water in ppm determined by ASTM D516 or ASTM D4130 Considering the S0 ‘Not Applicable’ sulfate exposure, there is no requirement for cement type or water-cement ratio; however, a minimum concrete compressive strength of 2,500 psi is specified by the building code. For this sulfate range, we recommend Type II cement and a concrete mix design for foundations and building slabs-on-grade that incorporates a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.50. It should be noted, however, that the structural engineering design requirements for concrete may result in more stringent concrete specifications.

The maximum reported chloride concentration was 10.2 mg/kg, per California Department of Transportation Test No. 422. Generally, chloride concentrations greater than 300 mg/kg are considered sufficient to attack steel embedded in a concrete mortar. Given the deep groundwater and low levels of chloride within the surficial soil, we consider the site to have a “C0” Classification chloride exposure.

If desired to investigate this further, we recommend a corrosion consultant be retained to evaluate if specific corrosion recommendations are advised for the project.

3.0 CONCLUSIONS
From a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, in our opinion, the site is suitable for the proposed improvements, provided the geotechnical recommendations in this report are properly incorporated into them design plans and specifications. The primary geotechnical concern that could affect development at the site is potentially collapsible near-surface soil. We summarize our conclusions below.

Page 200 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 6 September 26, 2023

3.1 SEISMIC HAZARDS
Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake generally include ground rupture or surface faulting, ground shaking, liquefaction, and ground lurching. The following sections present a discussion regarding the risk of these hazards as they apply to the site. Based on topographic and lithologic data, the risk of regional subsidence or uplift, seismic settlement from densification and lateral spreading, tsunamis, or seiches is considered low to negligible at the site.

3.1.1 Ground Rupture
No known active faults cross the property and the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Special Study Zone. Based on this, it is our opinion that ground rupture is unlikely at the subject property.

3.1.2 Ground Shaking
An earthquake of moderate magnitude generated by nearby faults and or the Great Valley fault is likely to cause strong ground shaking at the site. The intensity of shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the event, the distance to its zone of rupture, and local geologic conditions. Other faults capable of producing strong ground shaking at the site are also nearby, and the likelihood of the site experiencing strong ground shaking during the lifetime of the project is relatively high.

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

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

3.1.4 Flooding
Based on site elevation and distance from water sources, flooding is not expected at the subject site; however, the civil engineer should review pertinent information relating to possible flood levels for the subject site based on final pad elevations and provide appropriate design measures for development of the project, if recommended.

3.1.5 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained sand. Empirical evidence indicates that loose to medium-dense gravel, silty sand, and low- to moderate-plasticity silt and clay may be susceptible to liquefaction. In addition, sensitive high-plasticity soil may be susceptible to significant strength loss (cyclic softening) as a result of significant cyclic loading.

Page 201 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 7 September 26, 2023
We evaluated the liquefaction potential of the site soil with CPT data using methods published by by Robertson (2009). The cyclic stress ratio (CSR) was estimated for a peak ground acceleration (PGAM) value of 0.42g, which is the mapped maximum considered earthquake (MCE) geometric mean peak ground acceleration based on the 2016 ASCE 7 Standard for a Site Class D. We also used a moment magnitude (Mw) of 6.9 in our analysis, which corresponds to the maximum magnitude for the Great Valley fault based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) national seismic hazard maps.

Appendix C includes the results of our CPT-based liquefaction analysis. Consequences of liquefaction may include surface disruption, settlement, and downdrag on deep foundations.

Based on the results of our analysis and the depth of groundwater in the vicinity of the project site, the risk of surface disruption is low.

Based on our analysis, a maximum total settlement of less than ½ inch is possible due to liquefaction under a design-level earthquake. We provide specific recommendations for differential settlement in Section 7.0.

3.1.1 Dynamic Densification
Densification of loose granular soil above the groundwater table can cause settlement due to earthquake-induced vibrations. We evaluated the potential for dry-sand densification using Cliq software and estimated negligible volumetric strain of the near-surface sand layers under the design-level earthquake. Based on our analysis, it is our opinion the risk for dry-sand settlement is low to negligible.

3.2 2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
The 2022 CBC utilizes seismic design criteria established in the ASCE/SEI Standard “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures,” (ASCE 7-16). Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, we characterized the site as Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16 .

ASCE 7-16 requires a site-specific ground-motion hazard analysis for Site Class D sites with a mapped S1 value greater than or equal to 0.2; however, Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 and Supplement No. 3 provide an exception to this requirement. A site-specific ground-motion hazard analysis is not required where the value of the parameter SM1 determined by Equation 11.4-2 and shown in Table 3.2-1 is increased by 50 percent for developing the mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response, calculating SD1, and evaluating Cs in accordance with Chapter 12 of ASCE 7-16.

In Table 3.2-1 below, we provide the CBC seismic parameters based on the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS’) Seismic Design Maps for your use.

TABLE 3.2-1: 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters, Latitude: 36.295838 Longitude: -119.650516

PARAMETER VALUE
Site Class D
Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SS (g) 0.753 Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, S1 (g) 0.272 Site Coefficient, FA 1.2
Site Coefficient, FV 2.06*

Page 202 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 8 September 26, 2023

PARAMETER VALUE
MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SMS (g) 0.904 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SM1 (g) 0.560* Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SDS (g) 0.603 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SD1 (g) 0.374* Mapped MCE Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA (g) 0.326 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.274
MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM (g) 0.416 Long period transition-period, TL 12
*The parameters above should only be used for calculation of Ts, determination of Seismic Design Category, and, when taking the exceptions under Items 1 and 2 of ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8. (Supplement Number 3 https://ascelibrary.org/doi/epdf/10.1061/9780784414248.sup3).

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

4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
The relative compaction and optimum moisture content of soil and aggregate base referred to in this report are based on the most recent ASTM D1557 test method. Compacted soil is not acceptable if it is unstable. It should exhibit only minimal flexing or pumping, as determined by an ENGEO representative.

As used in this report, the term “moisture condition” refers to adjusting the moisture content of the soil by either drying if too wet or adding water if too dry. We define “structural areas” in Section 4.0 of this report as any area sensitive to settlement of compacted soil. These areas include, but are not limited to, the wastewater clarifiers, oxidation ditches, pump stations, sidewalks, pavement areas, and walls.

4.1 GENERAL SITE CLEARING AND OVEREXCAVATION
Areas to be developed should be cleared of all surface and subsurface deleterious materials (if any is observed), including debris, shrubs, dry surface soil, and associated roots. Clean and backfill excavations extending below the planned finished site grades with suitable material compacted to the recommendations presented in Section 4.0. ENGEO should be retained to observe and test all backfilling.

Following clearing, the site should be stripped to remove surface organic materials. Strip organics from the ground surface to a depth of at least 2 to 3 inches below the surface. Remove stripping’s from the site or use them in landscape fill.

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

1. Frequent spreading and mixing during warm dry weather,

Page 203 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 9 September 26, 2023

2. Mixing with drier materials,

3. Mixing with a lime or cement product, or

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

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

4.3 ACCEPTABLE FILL
On-site soil material is suitable as fill material provided it is processed to remove concentrations of organic material, debris, and particles greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension.

Non-expansive import fill should have a plasticity index less than 12. ENGEO should be allowed to sample and test proposed imported fill materials at least 5 days prior to delivery to the site.

4.4 FILL COMPACTION

4.4.1 Grading in Structural Areas
Perform subgrade compaction prior to fill placement, following cutting operations, and in areas left at grade as follows.

1. Scarify to a depth of at least 8 inches.

2. Moisture condition soil to at least 1 percentage point above the optimum moisture content.

3. Compact the subgrade to at least 92 percent relative compaction. Compact the upper 6 inches of finish pavement subgrade to at least 95 percent relative compaction prior to aggregate base placement.

After the subgrade soil has been compacted, place and compact acceptable fill as follows.

1. Spread fill in loose lifts that do not exceed 8 inches.

2. Moisture condition lifts to at least 1 percentage point above the optimum moisture content.

3. Compact fill to a minimum of 92 percent relative compaction; Compact the upper 6 inches of fill in pavement areas to 95 percent relative compaction prior to aggregate base placement.

Compact the pavement Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base section to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). Moisture condition aggregate base to or slightly above the optimum moisture content prior to compaction.

4.4.2 Underground Utility Backfill

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

4.4.2.2 Structural Areas
Place and compact trench backfill as follows.

Page 204 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 10 September 26, 2023

1. Trench backfill should have a maximum particle size of 6 inches.

2. Moisture condition trench backfill to at least 1 percentage point above the optimum moisture content. Moisture condition backfill outside the trench.

3. Place fill in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches.

4. Compact fill to a minimum of 92 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).

Jetting of backfill is not an acceptable means of compaction.

4.4.3 Surface Drainage
The project civil engineer is responsible for designing surface drainage improvements. With regard to geotechnical engineering issues, we recommend that finish grades be sloped away from buildings and pavements to the maximum extent practical. As a minimum, we recommend the following.

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

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

5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS – AUXILLARY BUILDINGS

AND OXIDATION DITCH
We developed structural improvement recommendations for the proposed at-grade electrical and chemical buildings and center oxidation ditch using data obtained from our field exploration and engineering analysis. The proposed structures can be supported on a conventional continuous strip and isolated interior footing foundation system with slab-on-grade floors bearing in compacted native soil.

We provide minimum footing dimensions as follows in the table below.

TABLE 5.0-1: Minimum Footing Dimensions
FOOTING TYPE *MINIMUM DEPTH
(Inches)

MINIMUM WIDTH
(Inches)
Continuous / Isolated 18 12
*Below lowest adjacent pad grade
Design foundations recommended above for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead-plus-live loads. Increase this bearing capacity by one-third for the short-term effects of wind or seismic loading.

The maximum allowable bearing pressure is a net value; the weight of the footing may be neglected for design purposes. All footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces below an imaginary 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the trench to the footing.

Page 205 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 11 September 26, 2023
Footing trenches should be cleared of all loose materials, and soil exposed in footing excavations should not be allowed to desiccate prior to placing concrete. The geotechnical engineer’s field representative should observe the footing trenches prior to concrete placement. The geotechnical engineer should review foundation plans when they become available.

5.1 AT-GRADE FOUNDATION LATERAL RESISTANCE
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction along the base (between the structure and the native soil) and by passive pressure along the sides of foundations. The structural engineer should design the footing layout and steel reinforcement using the criteria presented below. • Lateral Passive Resistance ...........................................300 pcf • Base Friction Coefficient ...............................................0.30 (1) Depth associated with the start of passive is taken below adjacent finish grade. (2) May be increased by ⅓ for total loads including wind and seismic. (3) Ignore upper 12 inches of passive resistance unless confined by pavement or slab. (4) If passive resistance is used in combination with base friction, reduce passive resistance by ½. (5) The above values are considered ultimate values (no factors of safety have been applied) Passive lateral pressure should not be used for footings on or above slopes.

5.2 AT-GRADE STRUCTURE SETTLEMENT
Provided our report recommendations are followed and given the proposed construction (Section 1.3), we estimate total and differential settlements will be minimal. Additionally, we anticipate the majority of settlement will occur during construction and commissioning. At the time of our report, detailed drawings of the proposed structures have yet to be provided, once drawings are available, we should be allowed to review and provide updated settlement analysis and recommendations as appropriate.

Total liquefaction-induced settlements during the design-level seismic event are estimated to be less than ½ inch with negligible differential settlement across the proposed structures. The foundations should be designed to accommodate the seismically induced settlement without collapse of the structure.

5.3 INTERIOR SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION
We recommend that interior concrete floors be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of Class 2 Aggregate Base. The base should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) to provide firm, uniform support for the slab-on-grade.

The project structural engineer should determine the appropriate thickness, concrete strength, and reinforcement of the interior slab-on-grade. The contractor should notify and consult with the structural engineer if slab-on-grade floors will be subject to construction traffic or equipment loads.

Additional slab thickness or reinforcement may be needed if the slab-on-grade floors are subject to construction loads.

Post-construction cracking of concrete slabs-on-grade is inherent in any project. The structural engineer should determine the maximum control joint spacing to minimize cracking.

Page 206 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 12 September 26, 2023

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

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

5.4 EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Exterior flatwork includes items such as concrete sidewalks, steps, and outdoor courtyards exposed to foot traffic only. Provide a minimum concrete flatwork thickness of 4 inches or as determined by the City of Hanford. Construct control and construction joints in accordance with current Portland Cement Association Guidelines.

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS – WASTEWATER

CLARIFIERS
We developed structural improvement recommendations using data obtained from our field exploration, laboratory test results, and engineering analysis. The proposed clarifier structures should be supported on continuous footings in accordance with the recommendations below.

6.1 CONTINUOUS RINGWALL FOOTING
The proposed wastewater clarifiers may be supported on continuous “ringwall” spread footings bearing in compacted fill. Provide minimum footing dimensions as follows.

TABLE 6.1-1: Minimum Footing Dimensions
*MINIMUM DEPTH (inch) MINIMUM WIDTH (inch)
24 18
*Below lowest adjacent pad grade
Design foundations recommended above for a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead-plus-live loads and including the overburden water pressure. Increase this bearing capacity by one-third for the short-term effects of wind or seismic loading.

Page 207 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 13 September 26, 2023

6.2 INTERIOR CLARIFIER SLAB
We recommend interior concrete for the tank be supported by at least 6 inches of aggregate base.

The structural engineer should provide final design thickness and additional reinforcement, as necessary, for the intended structural loads.

6.3 CLARIFIER LATERAL RESISTANCE
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction along the base (between the structure and the native soil) and by passive pressure along the sides of foundations. The structural engineer should design the footing layout and steel reinforcement using the criteria presented below. • Lateral Passive Resistance ...........................................300 pcf • Base Friction Coefficient ...............................................0.30 (1) Depth associated with the start of passive is taken below adjacent finish grade. (2) May be increased by ⅓ for total loads including wind and seismic. (3) Ignore upper 12 inches of passive resistance unless confined by pavement or slab. (4) If passive resistance is used in combination with base friction, reduce passive resistance by ½. (5) The above values are considered ultimate values (no factors of safety have been applied) Passive lateral pressure should not be used for footings on or above slopes.

6.4 CLARIFIER SETTLEMENT
Provided our report recommendations are followed, and given the proposed construction (Section 1.3), estimated total and differential settlement (across the clarifier) from static loading will be negligible. Based on the proposed depth to the bottom of the clarifiers, excavation of loose near-surface sand will eliminate the possibility for dry-sand settlement from static loading conditions.

6.5 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE
To mitigate the potential detrimental impacts of water leakage from the clarifier, consideration may be given to providing a subsurface drainage system. If desired, a perimeter subdrain could be provided along the inside edge of the ring footing. This subdrain should consist of a minimum 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe encapsulated by a clean, free-draining crushed rock or gravel layer at least 12 inches wide surrounded by filter fabric, or a 12-inch-wide layer of Class 2 permeable material. As an alternative to the gravel drain, a prefabricated subdrain system can be used.

7.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN

7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
Because surface soil varies across the site, it is our opinion that an R-value of 20 is applicable for preliminary design. Using estimated traffic indexes for various pavement-loading requirements, we developed recommended pavement sections using Topic 633 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (including the asphalt factor of safety), presented in the table below.

Page 208 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 14 September 26, 2023
TABLE 7.1-1: Recommended Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections

TRAFFIC INDEX

SECTION

ASPHALT CONCRETE
(inches)
CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE
(inches)
4 2½ 6
5 3 8
6 3½ 10
7 4 12
8 5 14
9 5½ 16
The civil engineer should determine the appropriate traffic indexes based on the estimated traffic loads and frequencies.

Compact finish subgrade and aggregate base in accordance with Section 4.4.1. Aggregate base should meet the requirements for ¾-inch maximum Class 2 AB in accordance with Section 26 of the latest Caltrans Standard Specifications.

8.0 RETAINING AND SOUNDWALLS

8.1 LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES
Proposed conventional retaining walls and sound walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from adjoining natural materials and/or backfill and from any surcharge loads. Provided that adequate drainage is included as recommended below, walls not restrained at the top should be designed for active lateral loading conditions, while walls restrained at the top should be designed for at-rest lateral loading conditions. The recommended lateral equivalent fluid pressures for retaining and sound wall design are presented below.

TABLE 8.1-1: Retaining/Sound Wall Design Parameters (Drained)

BACKFILL SLOPE CONDITION ACTIVE PRESSURE
(pcf)

AT-REST PRESSURE
(pcf)
Level 40 60
4:1 45 65
3:1 50 70
In accordance with 2022 California Building Code requirements, foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet of backfill height are to be designed for dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures corresponding to design earthquake ground motions. We recommend a dynamic seismic lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid pressure of 17 pcf for a yielding (unrestrained) wall design and 23 pcf for a non-yielding (restrained) wall design. When considering seismic earth pressures for retaining walls, the recommended seismic earth pressure increment should be added to the active earth pressures provided above.

Appropriate surcharge loads from buildings, hardscape, and vehicles should be incorporated when the surcharge loading is situated above a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) line of projection extending up the rear base edge of the bottom of the footing. A uniform horizontal surcharge load of 50 percent of the vertical surcharge load should be assumed to act over the height of the wall.

Page 209 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 15 September 26, 2023
If adequate drainage is not provided, we recommend that an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf be added to the values recommended above for both restrained and unrestrained walls.

Damp-proofing of the walls should be included in areas where wall moisture would be problematic.

Passive pressures acting on foundations may be assumed as 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) provided that the area in front of the wall is level for a distance of at least 10 feet or three times the depth of foundation, whichever is greater. The friction factor for sliding resistance may be assumed as 0.30. The upper 1 foot of soil should be excluded from passive pressure computations unless it is confined by pavement or a concrete slab. Passive pressures should be reduced by ½ if used in combination with sliding friction.

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

We strived to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices currently employed in the area; there is no warranty, express or implied. There are risks of earth movement and property damages inherent in building on or with earth materials.

We are unable to eliminate all risks; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our services.

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

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

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

This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse, that is, reusing without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires ENGEO to evaluate the document’s applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time.

Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications, or other changes to ENGEO’s documents. Therefore, ENGEO must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications, or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If ENGEO’s scope of services does not include on-site construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services,

Page 210 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 16 September 26, 2023
ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any or all claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and from any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies, or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions.

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

Page 211 of 1565 ends

Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant 23933.000.001 Geotechnical Exploration
September 26, 2023

SELECTED REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute. (2011). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary.

American Society of Civil Engineers. (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI 7-10.

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

California Building Standards Commission. (2022). California Building Code 2022, Volumes 1 and 2, Sacramento, California.

California Geologic Survey, 2008, Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.

ENGEO. 2023. Geotechnical Report, River Islands – Phase 2 Water Tanks and Pump Station, Lathrop, California; August 15, 2023. Project No. 5044.001.016.

Matthews, R.A. and Burnett, J.L., 1965, Geologic map of California: Fresno sheet: California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250000.

Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G. (1988). Guidelines for geotechnical design using CPT and CPTU. Soil Mechanics Series No, 120.

Robertson, P.K. (2009). “Performance based earthquake design using the CPT.” Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc.

Youd, T.L., et al. (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils; Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. April 2001. p. 297-313.

Page 212 of 1565 ends

FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2: Site Plan
FIGURE 3: Regional Geologic Map
FIGURE 4: Regional Faulting and Seismicity Map

Page 213 of 1565 ends

FIGURE NO.

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO. :

COPYRIGHT @ 2023 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_22000 TO 23999\23933\23933000001\GEOTECH\GEX\HANFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - GEX.APRX ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR LAYOUT: VICINITY USER: QLIANG
SCALE: AS SHOWN 1

QRL SDH
23933.000.001

HANFORD, CALIFORNIA

HANFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

VICINITY MAP
SITE
SITE

NO SCALE
BASEMAP SOURCE: ESRI MAPPING SERVICE
0 1,000 2,000
FEET

Page 214 of 1565 ends

SCALE: AS SHOWN
PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_22000 TO 23999\23933\23933000001\GEOTECH\GEX\HANFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - GEX.APRX LAYOUT: SITE PLAN PORTRAIT LETTER 8.5 X 11 USER: QLIANG COPYRIGHT @ 2023 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR
FIGURE NO.
2 DRAWN BY: QRL CHECKED BY: SDH
PROJECT NO. : 23933.000.001

HANFORD, CALIFORNIA

HANFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

SITE PLAN
a
n
t
a
F
e
Houston Ave
B
u
rlin
g
t
o
n
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
S
a
n
t
a
F
e
1-B01 1-B02
1-B03
1-B04
1-CPT01
1-CPT02
1-CPT03
1-CPT05
1-CPT04

EXPLANATION
───────────────────────────────────────── ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE Project Site
Boring (ENGEO, 2023)
Cone Penetration Test (ENGEO, 2023)
BASEMAP SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH MAPPING SERVICE 2022
0 120 240
FEET

Page 215 of 1565 ends

Qf FAN DEPOSITS
PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_22000 TO 23999\23933\23933000001\GEOTECH\GEX\HANFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - GEX.APRX ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR LAYOUT: GEOLOGIC USER: QLIANG
3 FIGURE NO.

DRAWN BY: QRL CHECKED BY:SDH
SCALE: AS SHOWN
PROJECT NO. : 23933.000.001

HANFORD, CALIFORNIA

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
SITE
BASEMAP SOURCE: MATTHEWS AND BURNETT, 1965

HANFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

EXPLANATION
0 2,500 5,000
FEET

Page 216 of 1565 ends

EXPLANATION
COPYRIGHT @ 2023 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_22000 TO 23999\23933\23933000001\GEOTECH\GEX\HANFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - GEX.APRX LAYOUT: FAULT&SEISMICITY USER: QLIANG

ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR
4 FIGURE NO.

DRAWN BY: QRL CHECKED BY:SDH
SCALE: AS SHOWN
PROJECT NO. : 23933.000.001

HANFORD, CALIFORNIA

HANFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY MAP
Project Site

FAULT TYPES
Normal
Reverse
Strike Slip
Thrust

EARTHQUAKE
Magnitude 7+
Magnitude 6-7
Magnitude 5-6
SITE
KINGS

MARIPOSA

MONTEREY
INYO

SAN BENITO
KERN
FRESNO
MADERA
SANTA

CLARA MERCED
TULARE

STANISLAUS

SAN LUIS
OBISPO
0 7.5 15
MILES
BASE MAP SOURCE:

Color Hill shade Image Based on the National Elevation Data Set (NED) at 30 Meter Resolution Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)

Page 217 of 1565 ends

APPENDIX A

KEY TO BORING LOGS

BORING LOGS

CONE PENETRATION TESTS

Page 218 of 1565 ends

%25,1*

!"#$!%&"'$
(

)*"

"
(

%+
,

.("-

(

/#'*012#$''#
$03
/#' $
(

51 4

6'131

!6.

-
888888 $

!9

((
:

-
9

;

</6103/7#6
2
=
#$
(

90#*$5<103/7#6
/

2

#$
(

/#01><><6?
2#<01?0<2'#
'6<0910><
#'141'@1
9!
.

!

:

2!2.
.
,
!".
:

2>!?
".
(
"
.
#>!>.(
"
"

".
!

.
"
$
.,

.

"
'6<$26<36'A*'$6'/'901<10><=B

'6<$26<36'A*'$6'/'=B#061
2#<01!90<'1$#'6/#01><
><6?#?/<C66<0910><D
'141
2
2

7
(

?'1!90<'1$#'6/#01
><><6?#?/<C6/<6610
><D '141
?

!

=
EB

(

?

!

.

.
"

(

261<90<4165'>
61><=B?'1
90<416
90<4165'>#410
B?'1
>'9>63#09<'2#'6
<$5'>#410
B?'1
<$
9/!
.

,

!

:

92!2.
.

,

!

".
:

5!5

,

.

:

!
.

.

:

/!
.
,
!

:

/6!'
"

(
"
.
26!'
"".

(
"
.
/#01><><6?
2#<01?0<2'#
'/<6610><
#'141'@1
261<<$5'>
61><=B?'1
016<'41$1'3 2#'123
?'1
019>)
#410
% !
!%
%!%
!
!
'6
<$
26<3
4103'??
><0$
'??
4103#?
#?
'6<$26<3 76#5%?##
!
/1$'*/ 2#<01
/1$'*/'??
!
!=
#410=
!
41036##1
2#7761 7#*6$10 ?'1 2#<01
<$ 90<416

/1$'*/$11
$11
6##1
<$<$90<416
4103$11
95!5

!

:

#6!6(
"
.
"

".
/>!1
"

(
"
.

!(
(
(

9

(

0 0
"

Page 219 of 1565 ends

ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC)

AGGREGATE BASE (AB)
SILTY SAND (SM), dark grayish brown, medium dense,
moist, fine-grained sand, 20-30% fines
decreasing fines content
grades to loose, 40-49% fines
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), brown, stiff to very stiff,
moist, medium plasticity, 15-25% fine-grained sand,
contains iron oxide
SILTY SAND (SM), dark brownish gray, loose to medium
dense, moist, fine-grained sand
SILT WITH SAND (ML), gray, very stiff, moist, low
plasticity, 15-25% fine-grained sand, contains iron oxide 36 34
9 8
22 41
24 17
12 10

2.0* PP
CM. Dunn / ZAC
Moore Twining Associates
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Hanford, California
23933.000.001
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (MSL):
8/28/2023
Approx. 31½ ft.

8.0 in.

Approx. 217 ft.

Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

Log Symbol
LATITUDE: 36.295346 LONGITUDE: -119.650238
Elevation in Feet
215
210
205
200
Depth in Feet
5 10
15 20
LOG OF BORING 1-B01

DESCRIPTION
Water LevelBlow Count/FootLiquid LimitPlastic LimitPlasticity IndexFines Content(% passing #200 sieve)Moisture Content(% dry weight)Dry Unit Weight(pcf)Shear Strength (psf)*field approximation Atterberg Limits
Unconfined Strength (tsf)*field approximationStrength Test Type LOG - GEOTECHNICAL_SU+QU W/ ELEV 1-B01_1-B04.GPJ ENGEO INC.GDT 9/19/23

Page 220 of 1565 ends

SILT WITH SAND (ML), gray, very stiff, moist, low
plasticity, 15-25% fine-grained sand, contains iron oxide SILTY SAND (SM), brownish gray, medium dense to
dense, wet, fine-grained sand, 40-49% fines, contains iron oxide
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), gray, medium dense,
moist, fine-grained sand, <5% fines
Bottom of boring at approximately 31½ feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater not encountered during
drilling.
13 26
17 24
22 105

3.25* PP
CM. Dunn / ZAC
Moore Twining Associates
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Hanford, California
23933.000.001
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (MSL):
8/28/2023
Approx. 31½ ft.

8.0 in.

Approx. 217 ft.

Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

Log Symbol
LATITUDE: 36.295346 LONGITUDE: -119.650238
Elevation in Feet
195
190
Depth in Feet
25 30
LOG OF BORING 1-B01

Page 221 of 1565 ends

ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC)

AGGREGATE BASE (AB)
SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, medium dense, moist,
fine- to medium-grained sand, 20-30% fines, weak
cementation
SANDY SILT (ML), dark brown, medium stiff to stiff,
moist, non-plastic, fine- to medium-grained sand
SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, loose, moist, fine- to
medium-grained sand
SILT WITH SAND (ML), brownish gray, medium stiff,
moist, low plasticity, fine-grained sand, contains clay fines SILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, fine-grained sand,
30-40% fines
36 16
8 8
6 50
18 85
11 12
8 28
121
94 1.0* PP
CM. Dunn / ZAC
Moore Twining Associates
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Hanford, California
23933.000.001
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (MSL):
8/28/2023
Approx. 31½ ft.

8.0 in.

Approx. 217 ft.

Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

Log Symbol
LATITUDE: 36.295354 LONGITUDE: -119.649758
Elevation in Feet
215
210
205
200
Depth in Feet
5 10
15 20
LOG OF BORING 1-B02

Page 222 of 1565 ends

SANDY SILT (ML), gray, very stiff, moist, low plasticity, 30-40% fine-grained sand
SILTY SAND (SM), gray, medium dense, moist,
fine-grained sand, 25-35% fines
grades to 15-25% fines, contains iron oxide
grades to 40-49% fines
SILT WITH SAND (ML), gray, very stiff, moist, low
plasticity, 15-25% fine-grained sand, contains iron oxide Bottom of boring at approximately 31½ feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater not encountered during
drilling.
16 32
19 3.25*

2.5*
PP
PP
CM. Dunn / ZAC
Moore Twining Associates
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Hanford, California
23933.000.001
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (MSL):
8/28/2023
Approx. 31½ ft.

8.0 in.

Approx. 217 ft.

Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

Log Symbol
LATITUDE: 36.295354 LONGITUDE: -119.649758
Elevation in Feet
195
190
Depth in Feet
25 30
LOG OF BORING 1-B02

Page 223 of 1565 ends

SANDY SILT (ML), brownish gray, hard, moist, low
plasticity to non-plastic, 35-45% fine-grained sand,
moderate cementation
SILTY SAND (SM), brownish gray, medium dense, moist,
fine-grained sand, 35-45% fines, weak cementation
SANDY SILT (ML), brownish gray, medium stiff, moist,
non-plastic, fine-grained sand
SILT WITH SAND (ML), brownish gray, medium stiff,
moist, low plasticity, fine-grained sand
SILTY SAND (SM), grayish brown, loose to medium
dense, moist, fine-grained sand, 20-30% fines
SANDY SILT (ML), grayish brown, very stiff, moist,
non-plastic, 30-40% fine-grained sand
SILTY SAND (SM), brownish gray, moist, fine-grained
sand, 20-30% fines
25 24
5 6
12 50
75 13
25 16 112
>4.5*

2.5*
PP
PP
CM. Dunn / ZAC
Moore Twining Associates
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Hanford, California
23933.000.001
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (MSL):
8/28/2023
Approx. 31½ ft.

8.0 in.

Approx. 215 ft.

Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

Log Symbol
LATITUDE: 36.29596 LONGITUDE: -119.650093
Elevation in Feet
210
205
200
195
Depth in Feet
5 10
15 20
LOG OF BORING 1-B03

Page 224 of 1565 ends

SILT (ML), gray, very stiff, moist, low plasticity,
fine-grained sand
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), brownish gray, medium
dense, moist, fine-grained sand, <5% fines
SILTY SAND (SM), grayish brown, medium dense, moist,
fine-grained sand, 15-25% fines
Bottom of boring at approximately 31½ feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater not encountered during
drilling.
16 21
17 35 24 11 96
CM. Dunn / ZAC
Moore Twining Associates
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Hanford, California
23933.000.001
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (MSL):
8/28/2023
Approx. 31½ ft.

8.0 in.

Approx. 215 ft.

Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

Log Symbol
LATITUDE: 36.29596 LONGITUDE: -119.650093
Elevation in Feet
190
185
Depth in Feet
25 30
LOG OF BORING 1-B03

Page 225 of 1565 ends

ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC)

AGGREGATE BASE (AB)
SILTY SAND (SM), grayish brown, medium dense, moist,
fine- to medium-grained sand, 20-30% fines
grades to 30-40% fines
grades to loose to medium dense, fine-grained sand
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), brown, very stiff, moist,
low to medium plasticity, fine-grained sand, contains thin lenses of clean sand
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), yellowish brown, medium
dense, moist, fine- to coarse-grained sand
39 15
10 12
18 38
82 12
19 27
121
105
94 2166 UU
CM. Dunn / ZAC
Moore Twining Associates
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Hanford, California
23933.000.001
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (MSL):
8/28/2023
Approx. 31½ ft.

8.0 in.

Approx. 220 ft.

Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

Log Symbol
LATITUDE: 36.296409 LONGITUDE: -119.65025
Elevation in Feet
215
210
205
200
Depth in Feet
5 10
15 20
LOG OF BORING 1-B04

Page 226 of 1565 ends

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), yellowish brown, medium
dense, moist, fine- to coarse-grained sand
grades to yellowish gray, fine- to medium-grained sand
SANDY SILT (ML), gray, very stiff, moist, low plasticity to non-plastic, 40-49% fine-grained sand
Bottom of boring at approximately 31½ feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater not encountered during
drilling.
17 16
21 5
CM. Dunn / ZAC
Moore Twining Associates
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lb. Auto Trip
Geotechnical Exploration
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Hanford, California
23933.000.001
DATE DRILLED:

HOLE DEPTH:

HOLE DIAMETER:

SURF ELEV (MSL):
8/28/2023
Approx. 31½ ft.

8.0 in.

Approx. 220 ft.

Sample Type
LOGGED / REVIEWED BY:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

DRILLING METHOD:

HAMMER TYPE:

Log Symbol
LATITUDE: 36.296409 LONGITUDE: -119.65025
Elevation in Feet
195
190
Depth in Feet
25 30
LOG OF BORING 1-B04

Page 227 of 1565 ends

Engeo Inc.

Project Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator JM-GM Filename SDF(254).cptJob Number 23933.000.001 Cone Number DDG1627 GPSHole Number CPT-01 Date and Time 8/24/2023 8:33:23 AM Maximum Depth 50.69 ftEST GW Depth During Test 41.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8 Cone Size 15cm² Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 9

FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% -20 100
PRESSURE U2
PSI 0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE

Page 228 of 1565 ends

Engeo Inc.

Project Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator JM-GM Filename SDF(255).cptJob Number 23933.000.001 Cone Number DDG1627 GPSHole Number CPT-02 Date and Time 8/24/2023 9:20:48 AM Maximum Depth 50.85 ftEST GW Depth During Test 42.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8 Cone Size 15cm² Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 9

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE

Page 229 of 1565 ends

Engeo Inc.

Project Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator JM-GM Filename SDF(257).cptJob Number 23933.000.001 Cone Number DDG1627 GPSHole Number CPT-03 Date and Time 8/24/2023 10:50:36 AM Maximum Depth 50.69 ftEST GW Depth During Test 35.50 ft Net Area Ratio .8 Cone Size 15cm² Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 9

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE

Page 230 of 1565 ends

Engeo Inc.

Project Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator JM-GM Filename SDF(256).cptJob Number 23933.000.001 Cone Number DDG1627 GPSHole Number CPT-04 Date and Time 8/24/2023 9:59:53 AM Maximum Depth 50.69 ftEST GW Depth During Test 40.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8 Cone Size 15cm² Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 9

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE

Page 231 of 1565 ends

Engeo Inc.

Project Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator JM-GM Filename SDF(258).cptJob Number 23933.000.001 Cone Number DDG1627 GPSHole Number CPT-05 Date and Time 8/24/2023 11:44:48 AM Maximum Depth 50.85 ftEST GW Depth During Test 38.40 ft Net Area Ratio .8 Cone Size 15cm² Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 9

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE

Page 232 of 1565 ends

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST DATA

Page 233 of 1565 ends

= = =
= = =
= = =
1-B01

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

40.6 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

10.5-11.5
[email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION:

D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 40.6
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 422.7 g
Largest particle size < No. 4 Sieve
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/12/2023
TESTED BY: V. Nunez
REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce
CLIENT: PACE - Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

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

Page 234 of 1565 ends

= = =
= = =
= = =
1-B01

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

24.4 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:
16-16.5
[email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION:

D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 24.4
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 322.3 g
Largest particle size < No. 4 Sieve
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30

REMARKS

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

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

Page 235 of 1565 ends

= = =
= = =
= = =
1-B02

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

50.2 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

5.5-6.5
[email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION:

D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 50.2
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 489.3 g
Largest particle size < No. 4 Sieve
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30

REMARKS

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

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

Page 236 of 1565 ends

= = =
= = =
= = =
17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/12/2023
TESTED BY: V. Nunez
REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce
CLIENT: PACE - Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 307.5 g
Largest particle size < No. 4 Sieve
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

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

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 85.3

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

15.5-16
[email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION: 1-B02

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

85.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

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

Page 237 of 1565 ends

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 511.1 g
Largest particle size < No. 4 Sieve
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 #DIV/0! D30 D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 50

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

5.5-6
[email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION: 1-B03

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

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

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

Page 238 of 1565 ends

= = =
= = =
= = =
1-B03

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

74.5 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

10.5-11.5
[email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION:

D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 74.5
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 400 g
Largest particle size < No. 4 Sieve
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30

REMARKS

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

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

Page 239 of 1565 ends

= = =
= = =
= = =
1-B03

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

96.0 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL = 24
SAMPLE ID:

20.5-21.5
[email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION:

D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 96.0
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
USCS: ASTM D2487
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 77 g
Largest particle size < No. 4 Sieve
* (no specification provided)
LL = 35 PI = 11

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS = CL
D10 Cu Cc
17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/12/2023
TESTED BY: V. Nunez
REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce
CLIENT: PACE - Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

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

Page 240 of 1565 ends

= = =
= = =
= = =
1-B04

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

38.2 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:
7-8
1-B04@7-8
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION:

D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 38.2
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 423.5 g
Largest particle size < No. 4 Sieve
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30

REMARKS

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

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

Page 241 of 1565 ends

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 261.6 g
Largest particle size < No. 4 Sieve
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

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

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 82.3

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

15.5-16
[email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION: 1-B04

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

82.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

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

Page 242 of 1565 ends

= = =
= = =
= = =
1-B04

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

5.0 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

20.5-21.5
[email protected]
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION:

D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 5.0
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 233.9 g
Largest particle size < No. 4 Sieve
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30

REMARKS

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

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

Page 243 of 1565 ends

= = =
= = =
= = =
1-B02

FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

COARSE MEDIUM FINE

18.4 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

10.5-11.5
[email protected]

3.3 78.3
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
LOCATION:

0.1239 mm D15
ASTM D6913, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
100.0
100.0

99.8 96.7

71.4 36.0

24.8 18.4
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
* (no specification provided)
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 0.3725 mm D85 0.3346 mm D60 0.2121 mm
D50 0.1836 mm D30

REMARKS

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

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

Page 244 of 1565 ends

12.6 Sample
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

METHOD A OR B
DEPTH (ft.)

SAMPLE ID
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

METHOD A OR B
DEPTH (ft.)

B B B B B

25.0 SAMPLE ID
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 12.1 10.3 23.9 12.3 7.6
B B B
17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com TESTED BY:

REPORT DATE:

PROJECT LOCATION:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT NAME:

CLIENT:

V. Nunez
9/12/2023
Hanford, CA
23933.000.001 PH001
REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce

MOISTURE CONTENT REPORT
ASTM D2216
Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PACE - Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.

METHOD A OR B
DEPTH (ft.) 5.5-6.5

17.0 SAMPLE ID 1-B01 1-B01 1-B01 1-B01 1-B02 1-B02 1-B03 1-B03

10.5-11.5 16-16.5 20.5-21.5 5.5-6.5 10.5-11.5 5.5-6 10.5-11.5

Page 245 of 1565 ends

17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com TESTED BY: V. Nunez
CLIENT: PACE - Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA

SAMPLE ID
REPORT DATE: 9/12/2023
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
DRY DENSITY (pcf)

METHOD A OR B
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

SAMPLE ID

METHOD A OR B
DRY DENSITY (pcf)

SAMPLE ID
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
DEPTH (ft.)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

METHOD A OR B
DEPTH (ft.) 25.5-26.5 2.5-3 15.5-16 15.5-16 2.5-3 10.5-11

MOISTURE-DENSITY DETERMINATION REPORT
ASTM D7263
SAMPLE ID 1-B01 1-B02 1-B02 1-B03 1-B04 1-B04
DEPTH (ft.)

METHOD A OR B

SAMPLE ID
DEPTH (ft.)
DEPTH (ft.)
B

22.4 11.3 27.7 15.6 11.7 18.5
105.3 121.1 94.4 111.6 121.4 105.0

B B B B B
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

METHOD A OR B
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
DRY DENSITY (pcf)

Page 246 of 1565 ends

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
ASTM D4318
[email protected]

SAMPLE ID TEST METHOD REMARKS
17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com PROJECT LOCATION:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT NAME:

CLIENT:

REPORT DATE:

V. Nunez
K. Lecce
TESTED BY:

REVIEWED BY:

Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
[email protected] 20.5-21.5 See exploration logs 35 24
SAMPLE ID DEPTH (ft) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI
11 PACE - Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.
23933.000.001 PH001
Hanford, CA
9/12/2023
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

PLASTICITY INDEX

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

Page 247 of 1565 ends

17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com TESTED BY: K. Lecce
REVIEWED BY: D. Bryant
23933.000.001 PH001
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA
REPORT DATE: 9/11/2023
CLIENT: Pace - Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO:

C(psf)
PEAK:

SAMPLE TYPE: In-situ RESIDUAL: 24.3 6.7
DESCRIPTION: See exploration logs
ASTM D4318

LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTIC LIMIT:

SAMPLE ID: [email protected]

SPECIMEN INFORMATION STRENGTH
PARAMETERS ɸ°
REMARKS: Consolidation data inconclusive. Default minimum shear rates used per ASTM D3080
n/a
n/a
DEPTH (ft): 16-16.5 ft 26.9 34.5
RATE (IN/MIN) 0.00181 0.00181 0.00181
DIAMETER-TO-HEIGHT RATIO 2.516 2.510 2.474
RESIDUAL STRESS (ksf) 1.99 1.25 0.23
RESIDUAL STRAIN (%) 15.00 15.00 15.00
PEAK STRESS (ksf) 2.36 1.25 0.29
PEAK STRAIN (%) 5.59 10.97 10.77
HEIGHT (IN.) 0.960 0.962 0.976
NORMAL STRESS (ksf) 4.00 2.00 1.00
SATURATION (%) 100.00 100.00 100.00
DIAMETER (IN.) 2.415 2.415 2.415
DRY DENSITY (PCF) 117.73 112.81 112.46
VOID RATIO 0.462 0.526 0.530
FINAL PARAMETERS 4 ksf 2 ksf 1 ksf
MOISTURE (%) 16.75 19.07 19.24
DIAMETER-TO-HEIGHT RATIO 2.447 2.459 2.449
SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASTM D854) 2.757 2.757 2.757
DIAMETER (IN.) 2.415 2.415 2.415
HEIGHT (IN.) 0.987 0.982 0.986
VOID RATIO 0.503 0.558 0.557
SATURATION (%) 56.69 40.77 37.85

CONSOLIDATED DRAINED DIRECT SHEAR
ASTM D3080

SPECIMEN
INITIAL PARAMETERS 4 ksf 2 ksf 1 ksf
MOISTURE (%) 10.35 8.25 7.65
DRY DENSITY (PCF) 114.49 110.50 110.55

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.5 SHEAR STRESS (ksf) NORMAL STRESS (ksf)
Peak(s) Peak Linear Regression Residual(s) Residual Linear Regression -0.028
-0.024
-0.020
-0.016
-0.012
-0.008
-0.004

0.000
0% 4% 8% 12% 16%
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (in.)
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (%)
4 ksf 2 ksf 1 ksf

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5
0% 4% 8% 12% 16%
SHEAR STRESS (ksf)
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (%)

Page 248 of 1565 ends

REMARKS

BACK PRESSURE (PSF)

2.193

COHESION AT FAILURE WITH A
ZERO FRICTION ANGLE (Ø=0)
σ1 (PSF)
σ3 (PSF)

COHESION, C (PSF)

PRINCIPLE STRESSES AT FAILURE
DIAMETER (IN.)
HEIGHT (IN.)

DIAMETER-TO-HEIGHT RATIO
LIQUID LIMIT (ASTM D4318)
[email protected]
PLASTIC LIMIT (ASTM D4318)
SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASTM D854) 2.720

ISOTROPIC UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL REPORT
ASTM D2850
2166.3
5331.9
999.4

9.962

SPECIMEN

27.31 94.30

92.70 MOISTURE (%)
PROJECT LOCATION: Hanford, CA
REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce
PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
PROJECT NO:

INITIAL PARAMETERS
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SATURATION (%)

VOID RATIO
17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 9/12/2023
TESTED BY: V. Nunez
23933.000.001 PH001
CLIENT: PACE - Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. [email protected]

0.801

2.380

5.220

FINAL PARAMETERS

CELL PRESSURE (PSF)

CELL PRESSURE
999.4
n/a

27.31 92.70

0.958
4332.5
SATURATION (%)
STRAIN RATE (%/MIN.)

PEAK DEVIATOR STRESS (PSF)
AXIAL STRAIN AT FAILURE (%)
0 500
1000
1500
2000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 SHEAR STRESS (psf)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)

MOHR CIRCLES
[email protected]
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 5 10 15
STRESS (psf)
AXIAL STRAIN (%)

Page 249 of 1565 ends

ISOTROPIC UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL REPORT
ASTM D2850
CLIENT:

PROJECT LOCATION:

REVIEWED BY: K. Lecce
PACE - Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.

PROJECT NAME: Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant
17278 Golden Valley Parkway | Lathrop, CA 95330 | T: (209) 835-0610 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com Hanford, CA
REPORT DATE: 9/12/2023
TESTED BY: V. Nunez
PROJECT NO: 23933.000.001 PH001

Page 250 of 1565 ends

APPENDIX C

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

Page 251 of 1565 ends

LI Q UEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

6.90 0.42
G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant Location : Hanford, California ENGEO Incorporated
17278 Golden Valley Parkway
Lathrop, California
CPT file : CPT-01

36.00 ft

36.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

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

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200 400
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 SBTn Plot CRR plot

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

Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress
Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

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

0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 FS Plot
During earthq.

Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/19/2023, 9:22:59 AM Project file: H:\Active Projects\_22000 to 23999\23933\Analysis\cpt-01_cpt-05.clq 1

Page 252 of 1565 ends

This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: CPT-01 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
CRR plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction analysis overall plots
FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
FS Plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction potential
LPI
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/19/2023, 9:22:59 AM 2Project file: H:\Active Projects\_22000 to 23999\23933\Analysis\cpt-01_cpt-05.clq Input parameters and analysis data F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.900.4236.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:

36.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/ANo
Yes
Sands onlyNoN/A
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high riskHigh riskLow risk

Page 253 of 1565 ends

LI Q UEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

6.90 0.42
G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant Location : Hanford, California ENGEO Incorporated
17278 Golden Valley Parkway
Lathrop, California
CPT file : CPT-02

36.00 ft

36.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

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

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
500
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 SBTn Plot CRR plot

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

Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress
Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

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

Page 254 of 1565 ends

This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: CPT-02 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
CRR plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction analysis overall plots
FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
FS Plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction potential
LPI
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/19/2023, 9:22:59 AM 4Project file: H:\Active Projects\_22000 to 23999\23933\Analysis\cpt-01_cpt-05.clq Input parameters and analysis data F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.900.4236.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:

36.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

Page 255 of 1565 ends

LI Q UEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

6.90 0.42
G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant Location : Hanford, California ENGEO Incorporated
17278 Golden Valley Parkway
Lathrop, California
CPT file : CPT-03

36.00 ft

36.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

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

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
100 200
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 SBTn Plot CRR plot

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

Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress
Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

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

Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/19/2023, 9:23:00 AM Project file: H:\Active Projects\_22000 to 23999\23933\Analysis\cpt-01_cpt-05.clq 5

Page 256 of 1565 ends

This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: CPT-03 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
CRR plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction analysis overall plots
FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
FS Plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction potential
LPI
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/19/2023, 9:23:00 AM 6Project file: H:\Active Projects\_22000 to 23999\23933\Analysis\cpt-01_cpt-05.clq Input parameters and analysis data F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.900.4236.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:

36.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

Page 257 of 1565 ends

LI Q UEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

6.90 0.42
G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant Location : Hanford, California ENGEO Incorporated
17278 Golden Valley Parkway
Lathrop, California
CPT file : CPT-04

36.00 ft

36.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

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

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

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

Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress
Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

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

Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/19/2023, 9:23:00 AM Project file: H:\Active Projects\_22000 to 23999\23933\Analysis\cpt-01_cpt-05.clq 7

Page 258 of 1565 ends

This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: CPT-04 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
CRR plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction analysis overall plots
FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
FS Plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction potential
LPI
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/19/2023, 9:23:00 AM 8Project file: H:\Active Projects\_22000 to 23999\23933\Analysis\cpt-01_cpt-05.clq Input parameters and analysis data F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.900.4236.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:

36.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

Page 259 of 1565 ends

LI Q UEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

6.90 0.42
G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant Location : Hanford, California ENGEO Incorporated
17278 Golden Valley Parkway
Lathrop, California
CPT file : CPT-05

36.00 ft

36.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

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

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

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

Qtn,cs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress
Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

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

Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/19/2023, 9:23:01 AM Project file: H:\Active Projects\_22000 to 23999\23933\Analysis\cpt-01_cpt-05.clq 9

Page 260 of 1565 ends

This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated CPT name: CPT-05 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
CRR plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction analysis overall plots
FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
FS Plot
During earthq.

Liquefaction potential
LPI
0 5 10 15 20
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
504846444240383634323028262422201816141210
8642
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.4.1.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 9/19/2023, 9:23:01 AM 10Project file: H:\Active Projects\_22000 to 23999\23933\Analysis\cpt-01_cpt-05.clq Input parameters and analysis data F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.900.4236.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:

36.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

Page 261 of 1565 ends

Page 262 of 1565 ends

www.engeo.com
20 EXHIBIT J

BIOWIN MODELING SUMMARY

Page 263 of 1565 ends

BioWin Modeling Summary
November 5, 2025
Fig. 1: Model configuration used with two aerators with similar dissolved oxygen setpoints in Aerator Zones.

Table 1: Distribution of oxidation among different biological zones Oxidation Ditch Volume (MG)
Anoxic Zone 10%
Anox 1 0.20
Anox 2 0.20
Aeration Zone 22.5% Aerator 1 0.45
Aerator 2 0.45
Non-Aeration Zone 67.5%
Zone 1 0.45
Zone 2 0.45
Zone 3 0.45
Zone 4 0.45
Zone 5 0.45
Zone 6 0.45
Total 4.0

Page 264 of 1565 ends

Table 2: Summary of effluent limitations (As Monthly Average) Water Quality Parameter Units Standards
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD), 5-day @ 20°Celsius
mg/L 40
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 40
Table 3: Scenarios tested
Scenario 1
High Strength Wastewater Influent
Flow = 4.6 MGD (57% of total Inflow)
BOD = 413 mg/L
TKN = 68 mgN/L
Scenario 2
Medium Strength Wastewater Influent
Flow = 5.0 MGD (57% of total Inflow)
BOD = 350 mg/L
TKN = 42 mgN/L

Page 265 of 1565 ends

Table 4: Water quality criteria used for Biowin modeling.

Influent Units
Scenarios
Scenario 1 (High
Strength Wastewater)
Scenario 2 (Med
Strength Wastewater)
Temperature °C 20.00 20.00
Total BOD mgBOD/L 413.00 350.00
TSS mg/L 90 90
VSS mg/L 60 60
TKN mgN/L 68 42
Ammonia mg/L 57 35
Nitrate N mgN/L 0 0
Total Phosphorus mgP/L 8.00 8.00
pH unitless 7.33 7.33
Alkalinity mg/L 277.17 277.17
Calcium mg/L mg/L 80.00 80.00
Magnesium mg/L 15.00 15.00
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 0.00 0.00

Page 266 of 1565 ends

Table 5.1: Biological reactor parameters and Biowin modelling results.

Parameters Unit
Scenarios
Scenario 1 (High
Strength Wastewater)
Scenario 2 (Med
Strength Wastewater)
Secondary Basin (Oxidation Ditch)
Flow MGD 4.6 5.0
Water Depth feet 19
Total Anoxic Volume MG 0.4
Total Ditch
Aeration+Anoxic Volume
MG 3.6
Total Volume MG 4.0
HRT hours 21 19
SRT days 11.0 10.0
MLSS mg/L 4860 4336
Process Flows
Internal Recycle Rate
(Zone 3 to Anoxic) x Qin 3.0 3.0
RAS Flow
x Qin 0.75 0.75
MGD 3.45 3.75
WAS Flow
% Qin 3.0 3.2
MGD 0.14 0.16

Page 267 of 1565 ends

Table 6: Biological reactor parameters and Biowin modelling results.

Parameters Unit
Scenarios
Scenario 1 (High Strength
Wastewater)
Scenario 2 (Med Strength
Wastewater)
Aeration
Surface Aerators with
Denit credits
HP Average = 244 (DO = 2.8 mg/L) Average = 204 (DO = 2.7 mg/L) Clarifier Parameters
Surface Overflow rate
Per Clarifier
gal/(ft^2
d)
389.83
425.13
Solids Loading Rate
Per Clarifier lb/(ft^2 d) 23.59

25.17 Waste Sludge
Flow MGD 0.14 0.16
TSS mg/L 11,108 9,907
Total Sludge Produced lb/d 13,163 13,166

Page 268 of 1565 ends

Table 5: Effluent Quality by Biowin modelling.

Parameters Unit
Scenarios
Scenario 1 (High
Strength Wastewater)
Scenario 2 (Med Strength
Wastewater)
Flow MGD 4.5 4.8
BOD mgBOD/L 5.7 5.0
TSS mg/L 17.2 15.4
Ammonia (NH3) mgN/L 1.1 0.9
Nitrate mgN/L 0 0
Nitrite mgN/L 0.12 0.02
Nitrate Plus Nitrite mgN/L 0.12 0.02
Total Nitrogen mgN/L 4.03 3.1
Total Phosphorus mgP/L 0.8 0.8
pH unitless 7.37 7.49
Alkalinity mmol/L 3.0 4.2
Alkalinity mg/L 151 209

Page 269 of 1565 ends

21 EXHIBIT K

BASELINE DESIGN DOCUMENTS

1. Exhibit B-2 - Basis of Design, only with respect to performance requirements

2. Exhibit B – Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades (Scope of Work)

3. Exhibit H – Preliminary Drawings
a. Hanford WWTP Upgrades – C Sheets 25_12_09
b. Hanford WWTP Upgrades – E Sheets 25_12_09
c. Hanford WWTP Upgrades – G Sheets 25_12_09
d. Hanford WWTP Upgrades – I Sheets 25_12_09
e. Hanford WWTP Upgrades – M Sheets 25_12_09
f. Hanford WWTP Upgrades – S Sheets 25_12_09

4. Exhibit I – Geotechnical Report (ENGEO 23_09_26)

5. Exhibit J – BioWin Modeling Summary

Page 270 of 1565 ends

13.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Approval of the Minutes of the April 7, 2026 Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Approve the Minutes of the April 7, 2026, Meeting BACKGROUND:
-
FISCAL IMPACT:

N/A
ATTACHMENTS:

1. April 7, 2026 Meeting Minutes

Page 271 of 1565 ends

Page 272 of 1565 ends

Page 273 of 1565 ends

Page 274 of 1565 ends

Page 275 of 1565 ends

Page 276 of 1565 ends

Page 277 of 1565 ends

Page 278 of 1565 ends

13.C.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Approval of the Minutes of the April 21, 2026, Meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the April 21, 2026, Meeting.

BACKGROUND:
-
FISCAL IMPACT:

N/A
ATTACHMENTS:

1. April 21, 2026 Meeting Minutes

Page 279 of 1565 ends

Page 280 of 1565 ends

Page 281 of 1565 ends

Page 282 of 1565 ends

Page 283 of 1565 ends

Page 284 of 1565 ends

Page 285 of 1565 ends

13.D.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Approval of Resolution No. 26-31-R Renewing Participation in the 2027 Kings County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Fee Program
RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution 26-31-R, extending the service fee for the Kings County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program and Service Authority.

Recommended Motion: I move to approve Resolution 26-31-R, extending the service fee for the Kings County Abandon Vehicle Abatement Program and Service Authority.

BACKGROUND:

The Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program was established in 1973, which charged a onedollar service fee on all registered vehicles in California. The funds are used to abate abandoned vehicles in accordance with City ordinances and the State of California Vehicle Code.

Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) is the designated Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority for the Kings region and is responsible for administering the Kings County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program. The current AVA program is set to expire following a ten-year period on May 31, 2027. Under prior laws, Assembly Bill 468, Chapter 389, and the Statutes of 2007, the extension of AVA program fees in California is allowed. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 9250.7(g), the sunset provision of the $1 fee collected for the AVA program. This program service fee may be extended in increments of up to ten (10) years if the County Board of Supervisors, by a two-thirds vote, and a majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population within the county adopt resolutions providing for the extension of the fee. Each county is required to submit a letter of intent with a new resolution to the CA Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) formally requesting the extension.

If approved, KCAG will submit the approved resolutions and a formal letter requesting a ten-year extension to the DMV by the deadline of July 1, 2026. This will extend the AVA program fee, effective June 1, 2027, to May 31, 2037.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City receives approximately $6,500 annually from this program for its abandoned vehicle program

Page 286 of 1565 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 26-31-R

2. KCAVASA Program Letter to the City Manager

Page 287 of 1565 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 26-31-R

IN THE MATTER OF EXTENDINGTHE SERVICE FEE FOR THE KINGSCOUNTY ABANDONED

VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND SERVICE AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program was established under Section 22710 of the California Vehicle Code; and
WHEREAS, the Kings County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program and Service Authority were created pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement between the County of Kings and the cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford and Lemoore on June 25, 1996; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Section 9250.7 of the California Vehicle Code, the County of Kings established a service fee of one dollar ($1) on vehicles registered to owners in Kings County to fund the Service Authority; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9250.7 of the California Vehicle Code, the service fee shall remain in effect only for a period of 10 years from the date that the actual collection of the fee commenced unless the fee is extended pursuant to this subdivision, and the fee may be extended in increments of up to 10 years each if the board of supervisors of the county, by a two-thirds vote, and a majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population within the county, adopt resolutions providing for the extension of the fee; and WHEREAS, the service fee was extended in 2017; and
WHEREAS, without a new extension, the service fee will expire on May 31, 2027; and WHEREAS, the City of Hanford finds the service fee is necessary to provide funding for the proper removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Hanford approves the extension of the one dollar ($1) vehicle registration service fee for a period of 10 years upon the expiration of the current fee.

The foregoing Resolution was adopted on a motion by ___________________, and seconded by _____________________, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _____________ 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
___________________________

MARK KAIRIS
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
Attest:

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

Page 288 of 1565 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF KINGS )

CITY OF HANFORD )
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 19h day of May, 2026.

Date:

City Clerk

Page 289 of 1565 ends

H:\KCAVASA\Renewal 2027\KCAVASA Program Reso_Ltr.docx
February 26, 2026
Chris Tavarez, City Manager
c/o Natalie Corral, City Clerk
319 N. Douty St.

Hanford, CA 93230
RE: 2027 Renewal of the Kings County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Fee Program

Dear Mr. Tavarez,
Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) is the designated Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority for the Kings region and is responsible for administering the Kings County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program. The current AVA program is set to expire following a ten year period on May 31, 2027. Under prior laws Assembly Bill 468, Chapter 389, and the Statutes of 2007, the extension of AVA program fees in California is allowed. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 9250.7(g), the sunset provision of the $1 fee collected for the AVA program. This program service fee may be extended in increments of up to ten (10) years if the County Board of Supervisors, by a twothirds vote, and a majority of the cities having a majority of the incorporated population within the county adopt resolutions providing for the extension of the fee. Each county is required to submit a letter of intent with a new resolution to the CA Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) formally requesting the extension.

KCAG has prepared a draft resolution for participating member agencies to take before their respective approving authorities. If approved, Staff will submit the signed resolutions and a formal letter requesting a ten year extension to the DMV by the deadline of July 1, 2026. This will extend the AVA program fee effective June 1, 2027 to May 31, 2037.

If your City Council approves by resolution to extend the County’s AVA program service fee, you must submit a signed resolution to KCAG no later than Tuesday, May 5, 2026. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Terri King at (559) 852-2654 or myself at (559) 852-2657.

Sincerely,

KINGS COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Terri King, Executive Director
Teresa Nickell
Teresa Nickell, Regional Planner
cc: Gavino Barrera, Code Compliance Officer

Page 290 of 1565 ends

13.E.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Adopt a Resolution Approving a Historic Resources Application HRA0022-26 for 295 N. Redington Street (APN 012-052-001) – Kindred Care
RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt Resolution 26-27-R conditionally approving Historic Resources Permit 0022-26.

Recommended Motion: I move to adopt Resolution 26-27-R conditionally approving Historic Resources Permit 0022-26.

BACKGROUND:

The property is a noncontributing building located in the Historic District, shown below in Figure 1– circled in black.

Figure 1
“Noncontributing building” means a structure within a historic district which, in its present condition, does not contribute to the sense of time and place of the immediate area and the district. "Noncontributing building" may include those buildings constructed after the time period featured in a historic district or buildings in which the historical characteristics have been irreparably modified.

Page 291 of 1565 ends

"Noncontributing building" may also include buildings which, while noncontributing at present, may become contributing through the application of appropriate design criteria.

In accordance with the Municipal Code Section 17.48, alterations to the exterior of a building located within the Historic Overlay Zone are required to be approved through a Historic Resources Permit, which must be approved by the City Council.

Section 17.48.040
No improvement or exterior architectural feature of any improvement shall be constructed or altered or enlarged which is located in the Historic Overlay District or identified as a historic site outside the District, unless a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter. The section shall not apply to any interior alteration which has no effect on the condition or appearance of any exterior architectural feature of an improvement. No structure listed on a State or National Register shall be moved or demolished, unless a permit is issued pursuant to the terms of this chapter.

Section 17.48.070
A. A historic resource permit shall be required for any alteration of the exterior features of a building within a designated historic district, or a designated historic building or site, or to construct a new building or improvements upon property within a designated historic district except as otherwise provided in this Chapter 17.48, the City Council shall determine whether a historic resources permit shall be issued. A permit shall not be required for ordinary maintenance and repairs as defined in this section.

B. Permit Procedures. An application for a historic resource permit shall be made on a form prescribed by the Community Development Department and shall be accompanied by the fees established by resolution of the City Council. The application shall include the information required by Section 17.60.020 for site plan review, complete elevation drawings of the proposed alterations, samples of proposed colors and materials, color photographs of all sides of any existing improvement, building or structure on the site, and such other information as may be required by the Community Development Department. If applicable, the application shall include the information required by Chapter 17.58 (permit for conditional uses) and Chapter 17.62 (planned unit development).

Applications for permits requiring City Council approval shall be placed on the next regular meeting of the City Council. The City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit.

Building Description
According to historic records, maintained by the Community Development Department, it is estimated the building was constructed in 1972, although Assessor records suggest the building was constructed in 1950.

In 1987, Historic Resources Permit 87-23 was approved, which proposed the installation of triangular red vinyl awnings and the repainting of the building to light gray, similar to the approved HC-172.

Historic photographs included in the project proposal for Historic Resources Permit 87-23 indicate the preexisting awnings to be metal cantilevered canopies. The awnings proposed in this project closely resemble the original metal cantilevered canopies. See Figure 2. Historic Resource Permits 88-09,

Page 292 of 1565 ends

93-11, and 98-16 were approved proposals to add and/or change signage and the color of awnings.

Presently, the building is painted gray with a black parapet flashing and a black awning. See Figure

3. Figure 2: Historic Photograph depicting metal cantilevered canopies Figure 3: Current Street view 295 N. Redington Street
Proposal
The applicant of 295 N. Redington Street, located on the Southeast corner of Redington and Eighth St., proposes to repaint the existing CMU wall white, existing CMU block pop-outs and columns gray, existing parapet flashing gray, and repaint the existing privacy screen, as shown in Attachment

1. Site modifications will include the installation of a new pre-manufactured metal awning over the storefront and above existing windows, new composite wood backdrop for signage, and a new exit door within the east-facing wall.

Evaluation

17.48.150 Design criteria
B. Design Guidelines. The following design guidelines are to be used to formulate plans for the

Page 293 of 1565 ends

rehabilitation, preservation, and continued use of old buildings consistent with the intent of this chapter. The guidelines apply to buildings of all occupancy and construction types, sizes and materials and to all permanent and temporary construction on the exterior of historic buildings as well as new attached or adjacent construction.

9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing buildings, structures or sites shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, materials and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.

Analysis: Since the addition of a new exit door on the east-facing exterior wall of the building does not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, and the design of the door is compatible with the existing exit door at the rear of the building, the addition of the door can be approved.

C. Rehabilitation Standards. The provisions of this subsection are intended to provide reasonable design for the rehabilitation of historic buildings so that the basic historic and architectural presentation of the buildings is retained and enhanced.

1. Storefronts.
a. Where original old store fronts remain, their appearance should not be altered. Such store fronts should be repaired and preserved. Where store fronts have been altered, the original design should be determined by examining photographs from the period and by investigating any original architectural fabric which remains beneath the changes. As much original material and detail should be retained in the rehabilitation as possible. Retention of cast iron elements is particularly important for structural and waterproofing reasons. Wood or stone steps, stone sills, and other elements which contribute to the character of store front entries should be preserved.

Analysis: The storefront of this building has been altered through the approval of previous Historic Resource Permits which changed awning materials. After examining photographs from the building’s earliest use in the Community Development historic file, it can be determined the original material of the awning was a metal cantilevered canopy. Therefore, installing a new pre-manufactured metal cantilevered canopy would be rehabilitating the storefront so that the historic presentation of the building may be retained.

5. Building Materials.
a. Brick.
i. Brick is a dominant building material in the historic district. Brick should be treated and maintained in a manner which will preserve it and should not be treated in a manner which will deface it or accelerate deterioration. Brick should not be covered by synthetic brick or stone, or wood shingles, by wood or aluminum siding, or by synthetic materials of any other kind.

Analysis: As the bricks of the front CMU wall are currently covered by a synthetic painted façade, the

Page 294 of 1565 ends

removal of the painted façade and repainting of the bricks underneath will restore the appearance of the dominant building material of the historic district.

E. General Building Standards. The standards set forth in this subsection should be applied to all alterations or new construction in the historic district.

1. Color.
a. Exterior colors should harmonize with other colors on the same building and on the streetscape. Exterior colors should complement the colors of neighboring buildings and should be selected to be mutually supportive and beneficial to the overall historic character of the streetscape.
b. Where wood or metal surfaces of windows, doors, porches and details, other than cornices, are to be painted, the following colors shall be used: During the early twentieth century, muted colors and earth colors were favored. They included gray, dark brown, dark green, blue gray, beige, brick red, and terra cotta. A slightly grayish-white paint, was frequently used for major surface areas and for details. This grayish-white is an appropriate choice for window sash and frames and for other details. In some instances, black or dark gray may be appropriate for the fixed window or door frame. If the original color of a cornice cannot be determined, grayish-white, buff or sandstone color are preferred choices.
c. Where brick has been painted, repainting in a color which approximates that of the natural brick is appropriate. Mortar joints might also be suggested in a color approximating the natural color of the mortar (not a pure white). Depending on the paint history of a building, grayish-white paint may be an acceptable alternative for the façade. Where brick was unpainted and remains unpainted, the use of paint on the exterior shall be discouraged, since unpainted brick is a strong design tradition in the historic district. d. Paint colors which were not produced or used during the early twentieth century should be discouraged in the historic district. Bright, new colors are to be avoided, even when used sparingly.

Analysis: As the brick of CMU wall and wall elements are currently painted, repainting of the CMU wall and wall elements is acceptable. The proposed gray paint color for CMU pop-outs, CMU columns, and parapet flashing aligns with the muted colors favored in the early twentieth century.

Although the paint color white is not explicitly called out as an approved color, it can be argued that white is not necessarily a bright color. In the approval of HRA 87-23 which proposed a red vinyl awning, argued red could be allowed as the building is a stand-alone, non-contributing building with no historical significance on the far edge of the Historic District. These factors also support the approval of the use of white as a paint color.

Conclusion:

Since the proposal complies with the requirements of the Historic Resource Overlay District standard, as described above, staff recommends approval of the Historic Resource Permit as proposed.

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL

Page 295 of 1565 ends

In accordance with Section 17.48 of the Hanford Municipal Code, staff recommends conditional approval of Historic Resources Permit HRA0022-26, and that the conditional approval of the historic resources permit will allow private investment in the Downtown area, enhance property values, allow the increase of economic and financial benefits to the City and its property owners and inhabitants, and make the following findings:

1. That the proposed rehabilitation of the façade will not impact the Historic Overlay Zone since the façade improvements will be consistent with the Historic Overlay Zone Design Guidelines for a noncontributing building built after 1935 in the Historic Overlay Zone District.

2. That the proposed project will provide a complementary setting and environment in the Historic District.

3. That the proposed project will rehabilitate the façade in a way that restores the historic presentation of the awning from the first historical use.

4. That the proposed project will promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of structures so that the objectives set forth in this section can be attained under this policy.

5. That the request will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Hanford
RECOMMENDATION – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the permit.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 26-27-R conditionally approving Historic Resources Permit No. 0022-26, with the following conditions:

1. That approval of this project does not exempt compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance, Public Works Improvement Standards, fees, or other City Ordinances.

2. That the alterations to the site be completed in accordance with the proposed changes. Future changes may be approved by the Community Development Director or forwarded to the City Council for review.

3. Signage will be reviewed at the time of sign permit submittal. Signage shall meet size requirements as stated in Sections 17.48 and 17.56 of the Municipal Code. If required standards are not met, proposed signage shall be reviewed by City Council through a new historic resources permit.

Applicant:

Carlos Reyes
2206 E. Monte Verde Ct.

Visalia, CA 93292
Owner:

Page 296 of 1565 ends

Elizabeth Zayas
810 W. Main St. Unit: Suite D
Visalia, CA 93291
FISCAL IMPACT:

No Impact
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment 1 HRA0022-26

Page 297 of 1565 ends

FLOOR PLAN
0' - 0"
10' PLATE
10' - 0"
(E) TOP PLATE
12' - 4"
(E) PARAPET
15' - 8"
1 2
3 4 9 2 3 9
57 A B C D E F G

FLOOR PLAN
0' - 0"
10' PLATE
10' - 0"
(E) TOP PLATE
12' - 4"
(E) PARAPET
15' - 8"
1 2
3 4 9 2 3 9

G F E D C B A
10 FLOOR PLAN
0' - 0"
10' PLATE
10' - 0"
(E) TOP PLATE
12' - 4"
(E) PARAPET
15' - 8"
14 51
6 6
7 8 8 8
9 1 2 3 4 5
10' PLATE
10' - 0"
(E) TOP PLATE
12' - 4"
(E) PARAPET
15' - 8"
1 3 4 9
1 5 4 3 2 1

FLOOR PLAN
0' - 0"
10' PLATE
10' - 0"
(E) TOP PLATE
12' - 4"
(E) PARAPET
15' - 8"
1 4
5 8 7

EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE
123

EXISTING EXTERIOR CMU WALL, PAINT WHITEEXISTING EXTERIOR CMU BLOCK POP-OUTS, PAINT GRAYEXISTING EXTERIOR CMU COLUMNS, PAINT GRAY 4 EXISTING PARAPET FLASHING, PAINT GRAY5 NEW PRE MANUFACTURED AWNING ANCHORED TO

BUILDING OVER EXISTING STOREFRONT DOORS
6 NEW AWNING AT EXISTING STOREFRONT WINDOWS7 COMPOSITE WOOD BACKDROP FOR SIGNAGE8 SIGNAGE, PER SEPERATE PERMIT9 EXISTING PRIVACY SCREEN AT MECHANICAL

UNITS, RE-PAINT
10 NEW EXIT DOOR IN EXISTING MASONRY WALL.

REFER TO STRUCTURAL
WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"
NW ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"

REVISIONS
JOB NO:

Vision & Design Group
REV
[email protected](559) 679-9246

DATE DRAWN NOTES

A DRAFT RELEASE
DATE:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT:
vdg.design
02/24/2026 XX
OWNER:
295 N REDINGTON ST
HANFORD, CA 93230
(760) 835-9448
2/25/2025
Carlos
Carlos

25.1006

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

KINDRED CARE H&W

TENANT IMPROVEMENT
295 N REDINGTON ST
HANFORD, CA 93230

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
A300

KINDRED CARE H&W

Page 298 of 1565 ends

13.F.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Road Abandonment No. 2026-01, a recommendation to adopt Resolution 26-24-R, a Resolution of Intention to Vacate 8,145 square feet of dedicated street right-of-way on Millerton Street (an undeveloped road) and set June 16, 2026 as the date for public hearing. Location: The project is located on Millerton Street, east of S. Alpine Avenue, Tract 881 Unit II.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 26-24-R, in order to:

1. Declare the City Council’s intent to abandon approximately 8,145 square feet of right-of-way, Millerton Street, an undeveloped street.

2. Set the public hearing for June 19, 2026 for Roadway Abandonment No. 2026-01.

3. Direct staff to notice and post the declaration of intent to abandon, in accordance with the requirements of the Streets & Highways code.

Recommended Motion: I move to adopt Resolution No. 26-24-R.

BACKGROUND:

Abandonment No. 2026-01 is a request by San Joaquin Valley Homes to abandon approximately 8,145 square feet of right-of-way, Millerton Street, an undeveloped street, as shown in Figure 1 (and Attachment 1).

The road abandonment is sought to abandon the portion of Millerton Street located south of lots 215 and 216 of Tract 865 Unit II in order for the developer to finalize Tract 865 Unit II and allow issuance of the Notice of Completion for this tract. The cost of utility connection within Millerton Street to accommodate development of these two remaining lots exceeded the developer’s ability, due to utility connection costs associated with only developing a portion of the street and therefore, the intent is to abandon the right-of-way, merge the lots with the property to the east, and develop these lots with future Tract 912, when funds are in place to develop Millerton Street wholly. In order to ensure adequate access to the slough/basin to the south, an access easement will be granted to the City – Attachment 2.

Tract 865 Unit II is attached for reference – Attachment 3.

Tentative Tract 912 is attached for reference – Attachment 4.

Page 299 of 1565 ends

Figure 1: Area to be Abandoned
Figure 2: Aerial Showing Abandonment Location
(proposed abandonment area shown in red)

Page 300 of 1565 ends

Figure 3:

Tract 865 Unit II
(proposed abandonment area shown in red)

PROJECT EVALUATION
The Planning Commission made a finding of General Plan consistency for the Road Abandonment on April 28, 2026. Resolution No. 2026-06 is attached – Attachment 7.

Page 301 of 1565 ends

General Plan Designation and Zoning for the Area:

The General Plan designates the property to the north of the area to be abandoned as Low-Density Residential. The property is zoned R-L-5 Low-Density Residential, in accordance with the LowDensity designation. The area to the south is designated as Open Space and zoned CO Conservation, as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Figure 3. General Plan Land Use Designation
Figure 4. Zone District

Page 302 of 1565 ends

General Plan Conformity
The Planning Commission determined conformity of the proposal with the General Plan on April 28, 2026.

Figure 5: Circulation Map

Page 303 of 1565 ends

Millerton Street is designated as a local road and is therefore not shown on the Circulation map. The proposed roadway abandonment would not limit circulation, as the portion of the street proposed to be abandoned is undeveloped and does not provide connectivity to adjacent roadways. Therefore, the proposed abandonment does not conflict with the General Plan.

Section 65402(a) of the Government Code pertaining to Conservation and Planning states, in part, the following: “If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized, if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof.” (emphasis added)
Interpretation of Zone Boundary Line
An additional finding of ambiguity was made by the Planning Commission, determining that the area of abandonment and the adjacent property be designated in the General Plan as Low-Density Residential and zoned R-L-5 Low-Density Residential.

Procedure for Abandonment
The California Streets and Highways Code governs the procedure for road and alley way abandonment. The procedure requires that a "Notice of Intent to Abandon” is adopted by the City Council prior to holding a public hearing to abandon the street.

Page 304 of 1565 ends

The "Notice of Intent to Abandon", if approved, would be published in the Hanford Sentinel following the City Council’s May 19th meeting, as well as being posted on the area to be abandoned for the two-week period. Concurrently, staff will notify by mail all property owners within 300 feet of the abandonment.

On April 1, 2026, planning staff notified all utility companies that may be affected by the proposed roadway abandonment. A fourteen (14) day response time for the utility companies was allowed. A response was received by Southern California Gas Company (dated April 2, 2026) noting that SoCal Gas has a 2-inch plastic main crossing Alpine Ave on the south side of Millerton St. SoCalGas company requested that their rights must remain intact if the street vacation affected this facility. The response letter is attached as Attachment 5.

Upon review by the Engineering and Surveying Divisions, the main remains unaffected by the proposed abandonment; therefore, no easement is required.

Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from further environmental review, as per Section 15305/Class 5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. There are no exceptions to this exemption, as per Section 15300.2 Exceptions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared and is attached as Attachment 6.

Condtions of Approval

Page 305 of 1565 ends

Anticipated conditions of approval for the road abandonment will be incorporated into the resolution following the item's pubilc hearing on June 16, 2026 including the following:

1. That a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan be developed for the abandonment area.

2. That the abandonment area be kept free of weeds and debris.

3. That the developer is responsible for all costs associated with the abandonment, including, but not limited to recording fees and review by the City Attorney.

4. That a timber barricade be maintained, prohibiting access to and through Millerton Street.

5. That an access easement be recorded and maintained for continued City access to the slough/basin.

Staff Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 26-24-R, in order to:

1. Declare the City Council’s intent to abandon approximately 8,145 square feet of right-of-way, Millerton Street, an undeveloped street.

2. Set the public hearing for June 19, 2026 for Roadway Abandonment No. 2026-01.

3. Direct staff to notice and post the declaration of intent to abandon, in accordance with the requirements of the Streets & Highways code.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No Impact
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Road Abandonment No. 2026-01

2. Access Easement

3. Tract 865-II

4. TT 912

5. So Cal Gas Utility Consultation

6. Notice of Exemption No. 2026-25

7. Resolution 26-24 Declaration of Intention to Abandon and Set a Public Hearing

Page 306 of 1565 ends

Page 307 of 1565 ends

Page 308 of 1565 ends

Page 309 of 1565 ends

Page 310 of 1565 ends

Page 311 of 1565 ends

Page 312 of 1565 ends

Page 313 of 1565 ends

Page 314 of 1565 ends

Page 315 of 1565 ends

Page 316 of 1565 ends

Page 317 of 1565 ends

Page 318 of 1565 ends

Page 319 of 1565 ends

Page 320 of 1565 ends

Page 321 of 1565 ends

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
April 1, 2026

NOTIFICATION OF ROAD ABANDONMENT
City of Hanford Water
Pacific Gas & Electric
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
SBC
Comcast
RE: Notification to Utilities concerning Road Abandonment No. 2026-01 The Community Development Department of the City of Hanford is requesting your comments concerning Road Abandonment No. 2026-01. The application was filed by the City of Hanford requesting the following:

Abandonment of approximately 8,145 square feet of dedicated street right-of-way on Millerton Street, east of S. Alpine Avenue.

See enclosed Exhibits and legal descriptions.

Please review this project and provide any comments and/or recommendations that you feel are appropriate, including any scientific or factual information that would be useful in our evaluation. It is the lead agency (City of Hanford) opinion that a Categorical Exemption (Section 15305.a) should be processed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15305.a allows for minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with a slope of less than 20% and includes minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel.

It is requested that your comments, if any, be transmitted to this office, by Friday, April 17, 2026.

Failure to comment will indicate approval of the project and no additional information will be sent to you. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project please call me at (559) 585-2578.

Sincerely,

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Gabrielle Myers
Principal Planner

Page 322 of 1565 ends

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 317 N. DOUTY ST. HANFORD, CA 93230 559.585.2500 | WWW.HANFORD.CITY
I (do) (do not) have comments regarding this Road Abandonment Application _______________________________________________________________ Signature Agency Date
Attachment
cc: File
SoCal Gas 04/02/26
SoCal Gas has a 2-inch plastic main crossing Alpine Ave on the south side of Millerton St. SCG's rights must remain in tact if the street vacation affects this facility.

Page 323 of 1565 ends

Notice of Exemption 2026-25
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 212
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
County Clerk
County of Kings
Kings County Government Center
Hanford, CA 93230
From: City of Hanford
317 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Project Title: Roadway Abandonment No. 2026-01
Project Location –
Millerton Street, East of Alpine Avenue
Project Location – City: Hanford Project Location – County: Kings County Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: Finding of Conformity for Roadway Abandonment No. 2026- 01, a request by San Joaquin Valley Homes to abandon approximately 8,145 square feet of right-of-way, Millerton Street, an undeveloped street. The recommendation also includes a finding of ambiguity clarification pertaining to the land use and zoning on the abandoned property.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Hanford, Planning Division Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: CM Construction Services Exempt Status: (check one)
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 152698);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269 (a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Categorical Exemption: State type and section number: Minor alterations in land use limitations (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305/Class 5)
Statutory Exemption. State code number:

Reasons why project is exempt:

The City of Hanford determined the project to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Section 15305 states that Class 5 exemptions consist of projects characterized as minor alterations in land use limitations. This project involves the abandonment of a roadway that will not result in the creation of new lots or increased densities.

Lead Agency
Contact Person: Gabrielle Myers Area Code/ Telephone: (559) 585-2578 Signature: Date: April 24, 2026 Title: Principal Planner Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:

Signed by Applicant

Page 324 of 1565 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 26-24-R

PUBLIC NOTICE PERTAINING TO A PUBLIC HEARING TO DECLARE THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ABANDON APPROXIMATELY 8,145

SQUARE FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY, MILLERTON STREET, AN UNDEVELOPED STREET, LOCATED EAST OF S. ALPINE AVENUE, ALONG MILLERTON STREET.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 19, 2026, the City Council of the City of Hanford declares its intention to abandon approximately 8,145 square feet of right-of-way, Millerton Street, an undeveloped street, located east of S. Alpine Avenue, along Millerton Street, which is described as depicted in Exhibit A.

Roadway Abandonment No. 2026-01 is set for public hearing before the Hanford City Council on Tuesday, June 16, 2026 at 7:00 pm or thereafter in the City Council Chambers located in the Civic Auditorium at 400 N. Douty Street in Hanford, California, at which time and place any person interested in or objecting to the proposed abandonment may appear and be heard.

As per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15305(a) the project is categorically exempt, and a Notice of Exemption was prepared.

All interested persons may appear to present testimony at the hearings. If you challenge any action or decision by the Hanford City Council regarding the subject of the public hearing described in this notice in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Hanford City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Page 325 of 1565 ends

Council Members
AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of Hanford
ATTEST:
_______________________
Natalie Corral

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS )ss.

CITY OF HANFORD )
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing resolution was duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford on the 19th of May 2026.

Dated:____________________ ___________________________
Natalie Corral
City Clerk

Page 326 of 1565 ends

Page 327 of 1565 ends

Page 328 of 1565 ends

13.G.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Approval of a Change Order in the amount of $25,000 with Sysco Foods for the Purchase of Softball Concessions Product Increasing the Total Blanket Purchase Order to $73,000, and an additional appropriation of $20,000 from the General Fund to be offset by Concession Revenues.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve a change order in the amount of $25,000 with Sysco Foods for the purchase of softball concessions product increasing the total blanket purchase order to $73,000, and an additional appropriation $20,000 from the General Fund to be offset by concession revenues.

Recommended Motion: I motion that the City Council approve a change order in the amount of $25,000 with Sysco Foods for the purchase of softball concessions product increasing the total blanket purchase order to $73,000, and an additional appropriation of $20,000 from the General Fund to be offset by concession revenues.

BACKGROUND:

The Parks and Community Services Department operates concession services at the Hanford Softball Complex, the 10th Avenue softball field, and Harris Street Ball Park during youth sports leagues, tournaments, and other community events. Due to increased participation and expanded concession operations, concession sales and product demand have significantly exceeded initial projections for the fiscal year.

The current blanket purchase order with Sysco Foods is for $48,000. The proposed change order would increase the total blanket purchase order amount above $50,000 requiring Council approval.

The department is approaching the blanket purchase order limit earlier than anticipated due to increased concession activity and expanded tournament scheduling at 10th Avenue and Harris Ball Park. Attendance has been consistently high, and concession sales have been strong throughout the current season. Resulting in increased demand for concession inventory, including food products, beverages, snack items, and disposable supplies necessary to support daily operations and tournaments.

Approval of the proposed change order will allow staff to continue purchasing concession inventory through Sysco Foods in an efficient and cost-effective manner, ensuring uninterrupted concession operations through the remainder of the fiscal year.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Page 329 of 1565 ends

While this amount was not originally budgeted for, the additional appropriation of $20,000 from the General Fund is offset by higher-than-anticipated concession revenues from higher tournament activity and concession sales.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

Page 330 of 1565 ends

13.H.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Adoption of Resolution 26-29-R authorizing the submission of a grant application for the Centennial Drive Safety Improvements Project in the amount of $6,343,000 through California Transportation Commission's Active Transportation Program (ATP), and amend the budget to recognize the grant funding, appropriate $6,343,000 from the Gas Tax fund (including 11.47% local match of $727,543), if the ATP Grant is awarded to the City; and appropriate $49,960 from the Gas Tax Fund for grant writing consultant services from Ardurra Consulting
RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

That the City Council, by motion:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 26-29-R authorizing the submission of a grant application for the Centennial Drive Safety Improvements Project in the amount of $6,343,000 through the California Transportation Commission's Active Transportation Program (ATP).

2. Amend the budget to recognize the grant funding, appropriate $6,343,000 from the Gas Tax Fund (including a 11.47% local match of $727,543) if the ATP Grant is awarded to the City.

3. Request an appropriation of $49,960 from the Gas Tax Fund (0044) for grant writing consultant assistance from Ardurra Consulting.

Recommended Motion:

I make a motion to

2. Amend the budget to recognize the grant funding, appropriate $6,343,000 from the Gas Tax Fund (including a 11.47% local match of $727,543) if the ATP Grant is awarded to the City.

3. Request an appropriation of $49,960 from the Gas Tax Fund (0044) for grant writing consultant assistance from Ardurra Consulting.

BACKGROUND:

Centennial Drive serves as a key north-south connector and provides access to multiple community facilities, including recreational fields and school zones. In response to safety concerns at the intersection of Centennial Drive near the Softball Field entrance, the City commissioned a traffic study by Peters Engineers. Although the pedestrian volume at the location did not warrant a marked crosswalk, the study recommended enhanced crossing treatments due to high vehicle speeds and

Page 331 of 1565 ends

roadway width.

City staff has developed a conceptual project scope for Centennial Drive from Lacey Boulevard to Fargo Avenue including:
• Installation of curb bulb-outs and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) to increase pedestrian visibility and safety at the Softball Field intersection; and • Class 2B protected bike lanes on Centennial Drive from Lacey Boulevard to Fargo Avenue; and
• Pedestrian crossing improvements at the intersection of Centennial Drive and the Softball Field entrance; and
• Traffic-calming improvements at locations along Centennial Drive for the length of the project.

The proposed enhancements are consistent with the Hanford Active Transportation Plan (ATP) 2025, which calls for safe, connected multimodal infrastructure and improved access to recreational and educational destinations, and encourages increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking. Staff has been working with Ardurra Consultants for grant application support at a proposed cost of $49,960.

This project is currently unfunded. City staff intends to submit a competitive ATP grant application before the June 22, 2026 deadline in the amount of $6,343,000 for project design and construction phases (Attachment 2). The City has received multiple letters of support from residents and school stakeholders to strengthen the application. The ATP grant program requires that the city provide an

11.47% match of the fund request. If the project is awarded the grant, the Federal cost share (88.53%) will be $5,518,410, and the City cost share (11.47%) will be $727,543.

Staff recommends adopting Resolution No. 26-29-R to formally support the Centennial Drive Safety Improvements Project and authorize the submittal of the ATP grant application. These improvements will enhance safety, support active transportation goals, and increase accessibility for residents and students.

FISCAL IMPACT:

An appropriation of $49,960 from the Gas Tax Fund (0044) is requested for grant writing consultant assistance from Ardurra Consultants. NO GENERAL FUND $ IS PROPOSED.

If awarded, the ATP Grant would support the construction of the proposed improvements. Per the grant requirements, the City must provide a 11.47% match in funding. An appropriation of $6,343,000 funding from the Gas Tax Fund (0044) is requested to provide the 11.47% match ($727,543) if the ATP grant is awarded to the City.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 26-29-R Centennial ATP

2. Centennial Bikeway Improvements Estimated Project Costs

Page 332 of 1565 ends

RESOLUTION 26-29-R

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD STATING THE CITY’S SUPPORT FOR THE ACTIVE TRANSPORATION (ATP) GRANT PROGRAM TO FUND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON

CENTENNIAL DRIVE FROM LACEY BOULEVARD TO GRANGEVILLE

BOULEVARD
At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on May 19, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Auditorium, it was moved by Council Member _________ ___ , and seconded by Council Member , and duly carried, that the following resolution be adopted:

WHEREAS, the City of Hanford has approved the East Lacey Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements project from 10th Avenue to east of Sierra Drive; and WHEREAS, the proposed project provides protected bicycle and pedestrian pathways along the corridor where current conditions have no sidewalk for pedestrians or bike lanes marked along the corridor; and
WHEREAS, the recommended improvements include installation of curb and gutter and sidewalk and a combination of protect bicycle lanes and shared pedestrian and bicycle paths to improve safety and visibility; and
WHEREAS, City Council has approved a Complete Streets Design project that would include the installation of improvements including sidewalks, protected bicycle lanes and pathways, bus transit stops, and safety lighting; and
WHEREAS, these improvements support the City’s goals as outlined in the Hanford Active Transportation Plan (ATP) 2025, which establishes a long-term vision for a well-connected, safe, and accessible multimodal network that encourages walking and bicycling throughout Hanford; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements would improve connections to Downtown

Page 333 of 1565 ends

Hanford and commercial areas, including to the future High Speed Rail Station, and is consistent with the ATP’s recommendations for expanded safe routes and pedestrian safety enhancements near key destinations; and
WHEREAS, the project is currently under funded and City staff intends to pursue a grant application under the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, due May 26, 2026, to secure additional funding for construction; and WHEREAS, public letters of support have been collected from residents and local schools to strengthen the grant application and demonstrate community need.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hanford supports the East Lacey Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project and authorizes staff to submit an application to the SS4A grant program for project funding.

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on May 19, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: ____________________________________________________________________ NOES: ____________________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: _________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: __________________________________________________________________ APPROVED: _______________________________________
MAYOR of the City of Hanford

Page 334 of 1565 ends

ATTEST: ________________________________

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS )ss

CITY OF HANFORD )
I, NATALIE CORRAL, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford, held on __________________________, 2026 Date: __________________________________
_______________________________________

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

Page 335 of 1565 ends

OMB Number: 4040-0008
Expiration Date: 02/28/2025
BUDGET INFORMATION - Construction Programs
NOTE: Certain Federal assistance programs require additional computations to arrive at the Federal share of project costs eligible for participation. If such is the case, you will be notified.

COST CLASSIFICATION a. Total Cost

FEDERAL FUNDING
b. Costs Not Allowable
for Participation
c. Total Allowable Costs
(Columns a-b)

1. Administrative and legal expenses2. Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc.3. Relocation expenses and payments4. Architectural and engineering fees5. Other architectural and engineering fees6. Project inspection fees7. Site work8. Demolition and removal9. Construction10. Equipment11. Miscellaneous12. SUBTOTAL (sum of lines 1-11)14. SUBTOTAL15. Project (program) income

17. Federal assistance requested, calculate as follows: (Consult Federal agency for Federal percentage share.) Enter the resulting Federal share.

16. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (subtract #15 from #14)13. Contingencies Enter eligible costs from line 16c Multiply X
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$
$$
%
$$$$$$
$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$
$
200,300.00 200,300.00
420,720.00 420,720.00808,380.00 808,380.00386,100.00 386,100.00191,000.00 191,000.00470,000.00 470,000.00 2,897,000.00 2,897,000.00
93,000.00 93,000.00
5,466,500.00 5,466,500.00
876,500.00 876,500.00
6,343,000.00 6,343,000.00
6,343,000.00 6,343,000.00
87 5,518,410.00

Page 336 of 1565 ends

13.I.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Adoption of Resolution No 26-28-R authorizing the submission of a grant application for the East Lacey Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improvements project in the amount of $15,000,000 through the U.S. Department of Transportation's Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, and amend the budget to recognize the grant funding, appropriate $15,000,000 from the Gas Tax-RMRA Fund (including 20% local match of $3,000,000), if the SS4A grant is awarded to the City.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

That the City Council, by motion:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 26-28-R authorizing a grant application in the amount of $15,000,000 for the East Lacey Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project through the U.S. Department of Transportation's Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program.

2. Amend the budget to recognize the grant funding, appropriate $15,000,000 from the Gas TaxRMRA Fund (including 20% local match of $3,000,000), if the SS4A grant is awarded to the City.

Recommended Motion:

I move to:

2. Amend the budget to recognize the grant funding, appropriate $15,000,000 from the Gas TaxRMRA Fund (including 20% local match of $3,000,000), if the SS4A grant is awarded to the City.

BACKGROUND:

The East Lacey Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project extends from 10th Avenue to east of Sierra Drive. This is an approved project that provides curb, gutter, and sidewalks, protected bicycle lanes, transit bus stops, safety lighting and traffic-calming improvements to become a Complete Streets design providing safe modes of transportation for all users.

The SS4A grant program aims to significantly reduce or eliminate roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The program focuses heavily on projects that demonstrate a clear, direct impact on improvement safety projects that reduce severe injury and fatality risks.

East Lacey Boulevard is an excellent candidate for the grant program as there have been multiple injury accidents over the past years, and the proposed improvements will provide significant strides to improve safety along the corridor.

Page 337 of 1565 ends

Staff intends to submit a competitive grant application before the May 26, 2026, deadline. The City is actively working with Ardurra Consulting on the grant application for support in strengthening the application.

Staff recommends adopting Resolution No. 26-28-R to formally support the East Lacey Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improvement and authorize the SS4A grant application. These improvements will enhance safety, support active transportation goals, and increase accessibility for businesses and residents.

Construction of the East Lacey Boulevard street improvements from 10th Avenue to east of Sierra Drive project is planned to begin in 2028.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The application submittal deadline for the SS4A grant is May 26, 2026. Staff is receiving grant application support from Ardurra Consultants in the amount of $35,380 utilizing existing East Lacey Boulevard Capital Improvement project budget from the Gas Tax Fund (26650000-823619).

If awarded, the SS4A grant would support the construction of the proposed improvements including the railroad crossing, center medians, landscaping and irrigation, and the East Lacey Boulevard intersection with 10th Avenue. Per the grant requirements, the City must provide a 20% match in funding. An appropriation of $15,000,000 of funding is requested from the Gas Tax-RMRA Fund, (including a 20% local match of $3,000,000) if the SS4A grant is awarded to the City.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 26-28-R

Page 338 of 1565 ends

RESOLUTION 26-28-R

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD STATING THE CITY’S SUPPORT FOR THE SAFE STREETS AND
ROADS FOR ALL (SS4A) GRANT PROGRAM TO FUND SAFETY

IMPROVEMENTS ON EAST LACEY BOULEVARD
FROM 10TH AVENUE TO STATE ROUTE 43
At a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on May 19, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Auditorium, it was moved by Council Member _________ ___ , and seconded by Council Member , and duly carried, that the following resolution be adopted:

Page 339 of 1565 ends

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on May 19, 2026, by the following vote:

Page 340 of 1565 ends

ATTEST: ________________________________

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS )ss

NATALIE CORRAL

CITY CLERK

Page 341 of 1565 ends

13.J.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 5/19/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

Approval of a Notice of Completion for Tract No. 881 Unit 1 located at the southeast corner of Alpine Avenue and Hume Avenue and the Sand Slough Interconnect Project located on Houston Avenue west of Alpine Avenue and a reimbursement to Presidio JJR Hidden Oaks II 130, LLC in the amount of $399,726.12 from the Storm Drain Fund for the construction of the improvements.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

That the City Council, by motion,

1. Approve the attached Notice of Completion for Tract 881, Unit No. 1 and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder’s Office

2. Approve the attached Notice of Completion for the Sand Slough Interconnect Project and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with Kings County Recorder’s Office.

3. Authorize a reimbursement for the construction of the Sand Slough Interconnect Project to Presidio JJR Hidden Oaks II 130, LLC in the amount of $399,726.12 from the Storm Drain Fund.

Recommended Motion:

I make a motion that the City Council,

1. Approve the attached Notice of Completion for Tract 881, Unit No. 1 and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest and file said Notice with the Kings County Recorder’s Office

3. Authorize a reimbursement for the construction of the Sand Slough Interconnect Project to Presidio JJR Hidden Oaks II 130, LLC in the amount of $399,726.12 from the Storm Drain Fund.

BACKGROUND:

Page 342 of 1565 ends

NOC - Live Oak East, Hidden Oaks, Tract No. 881 Unit 1:

Live Oak East, Hidden Oaks, Tract No. 881 Unit 1, is a 56-lot single-family residential development located at the southeast corner of Alpine Avenue and Hume Avenue, as shown on the attached Final Map (Attachment 1) and Aerial Map (Attachment 2). The Final Map for Tract No. 881 Unit 1 was approved by the Hanford City Council on December 19, 2023.

The developer, Presidio JJR Hidden Oaks II 130, LLC (San Joaquín Valley Homes), has completed all required public improvements for the subdivision per the Subdivision Agreement (Attachment 3), and has provided a Warranty Bond provided in the acceptable form of a Maintenance Bond (Attachment 4) in the amount of $470,130.04, representing ten percent (10%) of the total improvement costs for the subdivision development. The Warranty Bond is held for one year following the recording of the Notice of Completion and serves as a warranty for the public improvements installed under the Subdivision Agreement.

Per the Subdivision agreement, the developer is responsible for payment of applicable Traffic Impact Study (TIS) fees associated with the project. As identified in the Live Oak Development traffic analysis, developments within the Live Oak area are required to contribute a proportionate share toward future improvements to the 13th Avenue and State Route 198 interchange. The fee was due at the time of building permits, but was not collected. Therefore, the amount is being assessed with the Notice of Completion.

This phase, consisting of 56 single-family residential lots, is subject to a per-lot fee of $523.48, resulting in a total TIS obligation of $29,314.88 (56 lots × $523.48), which will be applied toward the project’s fair share of the Live Oak Development requirement of 36% share regional transportation improvements.

Therefore, the SH198 at 13th Avenue Interchange fee identified in the Live Oak Development Traffic Impact Analysis to be paid by the developer: $29,314.88 Upon Council approval, the Mayor will execute a Notice of Completion (Attachment 5), and the City Clerk will file the notice with Kings County Recorder’s office.

Reimbursement - Houston Avenue Sand Slough Interconnect Pipeline On February 18, 2025, City Council approved a construction contract and authorized a reimbursement in the amount of $461,681.00 to Presidio JJR Hidden Oaks II 130, LLC for the construction of the Houston Ave Sand Slough Interconnect pipeline and Culvert (CIP 823624). The Developer's contractor was subsequently notified to proceed with construction of the improvements.

The project installed a storm drain pipe, culvert crossing on Houston Avenue, and inlet and outfall structures that provide a connection from the north end of the existing Sand Slough to the existing Live Oak East storm drainage basin (Attachment 6). The connection provides additional storm water capacity to the Sand Slough stormwater storage basin south of Houston Avenue, and manages storm water capacities between the two sloughs.

The Sand Slough Interconnect pipeline and culvert construction was completed on April 15, 2026.

There was (1) contract change order on this project (Attachment 7), which is summarized as follows; • Change in Trench Paving Scope and Additional Soils Testing for a net decrease of

Page 343 of 1565 ends

$32,640.00
The total amount of the contract change order resulted in a net decrease in the final contract price to be $429,041.00, which is the reimbursement amount to be paid to Presidio JJR Hidden Oaks II 130, LLC for the Houston Ave Sand Slough Interconnect improvements.

The project was initially approved to proceed with construction in February 2025 and experienced multiple delays due to various issues, including weather and conflicts found with existing utilities in Houston Avenue. The project was initially to be completed in 45 days. A contract extension was approved in October 2025 to winterize the project due to weather, with a remobilization in March 2026. Additional delays occurred due to a required redesign of pipe alignment and trench paving on Houston Avenue due to utility conflicts found during construction. The project was completed on April 15, 2026.

A copy of the Final Project Construction and Finance History for the Sand Slough Interconnect Project (Attachment 8) is attached for reference
Reimbursement and fees for Tract 881 Unit 1 and Sand Slough Interconnect Project are due to JRR Presidio Hidden Oaks II 130 LLC and are summarized below for payment:

Houston Ave Sand Slough Interconnect Pipeline - Budget Summary:

FY 23/24 Budget $151,130.00
Additional appropriation approved 2/18/25 $363,099.00
Total Budget: $514,229.00
Project Costs:

Construction Award 2/18/2025 $461,681.00
Change Order #1 -$32,640.00
Total Reimbursement Due: $429,041.00
Balance Remaining: $85,188.00
Any remaining funds will be unencumbered and returned to the originating fund source (0359 Storm Drain Capital Fund). The fund is used for needed capital storm water projects.

Upon Council approval, the Mayor will execute the attached Notice of Completion (Attachment 9), and the City Clerk will file the notice with Kings County Recorder’s office.

FISCAL IMPACT:

For Tract 881 Unit 1, all required right-of-way dedications and easements for Tract No. 881 Unit 1, Presidio JJR Hidden Oaks II 130, LLC (San Joaquín Valley Homes) Subdivision, were provided at no cost to the City. All subdivision improvements were constructed at the developer’s expense.

Maintenance of public improvements within this subdivision shall be funded through Community

Page 344 of 1565 ends

Facilities District No. 2022-01 (Live Oak), which includes the annexation of Tract No. 881 Unit 1 into the District. The CFD provides for the ongoing maintenance of improvements such as landscaping, irrigation, lighting, and related infrastructure, as outlined in the Engineer’s Report and associated district documents. The establishment and annexation into the CFD ensures that all applicable properties within the subdivision will share in the cost of maintaining these public improvements through the levy of annual special taxes, replacing the previous use of a Landscape and Lighting Assessment District for similar developments.

As noted above, the developer is responsible for payment of applicable Traffic Impact Study (TIS) fees associated with the project. As identified above, the fee for the TIS obligation is a credit of $29,314.88.

For the Sand Slough Interconnect project, the reimbursement due to the Developer as noted above is $429,041.00.

Therefore, the total reimbursement due to JRR Presidio Hidden Oaks II 130 LLC is $399,726.12 to be funded from the Storm Drain Fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Tract 881-1: Recorded Final Map

2. Tract 881-1: Aerial Map

3. Tract 881-1: Subdivision Agreement (Signed)

4. Tract 881-1: Maintenance Bonds

5. Tract 881-1: NOC Recorders Form

6. Tract 881-1: NOC Recorders Form

7. Sand Slough Improvement plan

8. Executed Contract Change Order

9. NOC Finance report - Sand Slough Interconnect

10. NOC - Recording Original - Sand Slough Interconnect

Page 345 of 1565 ends

OWNERS' STATEMENT.

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, DO HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF, OR HAVE SOME RIGHT, TITLE

OR INTEREST IN ANO TO THE REAL PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN UPON THIS MAP

AND THAT WE ARE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS A CLEAR TITLE TO SAID

PROPERTY ANO THAT WE CONSENT TO THE MAKING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINES.

TRACT NO. 881

LIVE OAK EAST

HIDDEN OAKS
UNIT NO. 1
THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED IN FEE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES:

ALL PUBLIC STREETS, LOTS C, F, G AND H AS SHOWN UPON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION AND THOSE CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND DESIGNATED AS "FUTURE STREETS", RESERVING TO OURSELVES, FOR

THE USE OF OURSELVES, AND THE SUCCESSIVE OWNERS, ALL ORDINARY USES OF SAID LAND UNTIL

SUCH TIME AS THE PROPER LEGISLATIVE BODY SHALL ACCEPT DEDICATION OF, OR ACQUIRE LYING IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EAST, M.D.B.&M.

ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY, TO CONSTITUTE THE PERMANENT WIDTH AND/OR EXTENSION OF THOSE STREETS HAVING A PARTIAL WIDTH AND/OR DEAD-ENDING, AS SHOWN HEREON.

THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED AS AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES:

ALL PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS ANO THE 2-FOOT BLOCK WALL EASEMENT AS SHOWN UPON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION.

CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS,

CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER, 2021

RELINQUISH TO THE CITY OF HANFORD ALL ACCESS RIGHTS FROM LOTS AT THE PROPERTY LINES BACKING OR SIDING ONTO:

Q)i}RTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
620 12th Street, Modesto, CA 95354
(209) 524-3525
HUME AVENUE, S. ALPINE AVENUE AND BUTTERFIELD LANE, EXCEPT FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS, AS SHOWN UPON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION.

OWNERS: PRESIDIO JJR HIDDEN OAKS II 130, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY:----+~~~l.....:~~~~~=~---
sb~e.f'i-\ A· (.EAL,> .Pe£sit:::e.rv-;-
(PRINT NAME AND TITLE)
BY; _________________ _ DATE ----------
(PRINT NAME AND TITLE)
NOTARY'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE

IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
/i.

COUNTY OF I UtA u l S.S.
oN OctJ>o/d )1. ;>o;;b . BEFORE ME. Amtw!Y\ t?A--ro& . A NOTARY PUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED ~0~6'\A, A- /,fA,L.

WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO 8£ THE PERSON(S) WHOSE

NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HERjTH£/R AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HERjTH£!R SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON{S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER OF PERJURY. NDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRA S TRUE AND RRECT.

WITNESS MY HAND: -h~:.:.l~!t::r,ii...,..1./..j.;r._~- PRINTED NAME.: ,01)"1.q,,..,~A f.9/tl,~ PRINCIPAL COUNTY OF BUSINESS: ---J,().f.A(.g. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 04/Jt:, /.;ldr;)t, '
COMMISSION NUMBER: J 3 j V q 3 8
TAX COLLECTOR'S CERTIFICATE.

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 8 OF CHAPTER 4 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH REGARDING DEPOSITS.

ERIK URENA, C.P.A., DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
DATE
RIGHT TO FARM.

IF YOUR REAL PROPERTY IS NEAR PROPERTY USED FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, YOU

MAY BE SUBJECT TO INCONVENIENCES OR DISCOMFORTS ARISING FROM SUCH OPERATIONS, ON ANY 24 HOUR BASIS. SAID DISCOMFORTS MAY INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO EQUIPMENT NOISES, ODORS FROM MANURE OR OTHER CHEMICALS, AND DUST OR SMOKE.

THE CITY OF HANFORD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE USE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR

AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IS A HIGH PRIORITY AND FAVORED USE TO THE CITY AND THE

COUNTY ANO WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED A NUISANCE FOR THOSE INCONVENIENCES OR

DISCOMFORTS ARISING FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, PROVIDED SUCH OPERATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH ACCEPTED CUSTOMS, STANDARDS AND LAWS.

K: \JIJ-12J8 Uve Oak East\DWG\Mapp;ng\SUBDIVISION\PHASE J HIDDEN OAK\1J-12J8 Live Oak East - H;dden Oak - SHTI C£RT. dwg

PROJECT
LOCATION__.__+-,

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE
SEE SHEET 6 FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NOTARY'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE

IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF _________ _ l S.S.

ON _______ , BEFORE ME, _____________ , A NOTARY PUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED--------------------~---

WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE

NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HERjTH£/R AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HERjTH£JR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

WITNESS MY HAND: __________ PRINTED NAM£- ________ _
PRINCIPAL COUNTY OF BUSINESS: _______ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ____ _ COMMISSION NUMBER: ________ _
CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE.

THIS JS TO CERTIFY THAT AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE HANFORD CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THE 19tti DAY I.2ue.mber . 20 Z_Q, AN oRDER wAs DULY AND REGULARLY MADE

AND ENTERED APPROVING THIS MAP AND SUBDIVISION AND ACCEPTING, SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENT,

ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, THE STREETS, LOTS C, F, G AND H AND EASEMENTS INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN UPON THIS MAP.

DAT~ DAY OF -~Q~"-~-~-=-~------• 20.J-:!,.

NATALIE CORRAL, CITY CLERK
27-40
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT•
THE SURVEY FOR THIS MAP WAS MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION ON OCTOBER 13, 2018, AND THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN.

THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD

SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF JJR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC ON APRIL 29, 2020. I

HEREBY STATE THAT ALL THE MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED OR THAT THEY WILL BE SIT IN THOSE POSITIONS BEFORE MAY 31, 2022, THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE, OR WILL BE, SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE

RETRACED AND THAT THIS FINAL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP.

DATED THIS 23.(~y OF Qctob,t..( , 20.22
~n,u~
ICOLECANNEL..5.99
Ni~t Ccu,f\t\\~ P.L':, qoqq
CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT•
/, LISA A. DOCK, HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE

ANNEXED MAP, THAT THE SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME

AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP, AND ANY APPROVED ALTERATIONS

THEREOF AND THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF ANY LOCAL ORDINANCES AND SECTIONS 66425 THROUGH 66450 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. 6 ,..;,
DATED THIs n_ ·DAY oF fu_ember . 2o_g_, ~'
68225 ,,.
c,;* 'f-,0.,
..r;: c,. !,to,
~'lOF Clll
LISA A. DOCK, CITY ENGINEER R.C.E. 68225
ACTING CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT•
/, MICHAEL RAY SUTHERLAND, HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED

THE ANNEXED MAP, THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT SAID MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 66425 THROUGH 66450 INCLUSIVE, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.

DATED THIs ~!!:!. DAY oF DeCEMb.e~-• 20 c3
MICHAEL RAY SUTHERLAN , P.L.S. 5815

ACTING FOR THE CITY OF HANFORD
. . . . . .
• 0 ••
. ..

PLANNING COMMISSION CERT/FICA TE•

APPROVED BY THE HANFORD PLANNING COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW IN DULY AUTHORIZED MEETING HELD -illl!JLL'b..T q , 20 C!J.

DATED THIS 11 DAY OF Jc;\() U.t:t IJ , 201.~ .

JASON WATERS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
RECORDER'S STATEMENT.

DOCUMENT NO. ol4 DOO\Y2> FEE PAID ~°13 ,
00 RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

ON THIS l'o~ DAY OF .hn\l~ . 20.2:l
AT 5'-1 MINUTES PAST ) I O'CLOCK ..8. .M. IN
VOLUME dl OF LICENSED SURVEYORS' PLATS, AT PAGE '-fO

KINGS COUNTY RECORDS

KRISTINE LEE, COUNTY RECORDER
1 OF 6

Page 346 of 1565 ends

HANFORD-ARMONA 34 I~ FD. 2H BRASS DISC ON 2-1/2H IRON PIPE IN MONUMENT WELL, STAMPED ROAD- 3 .. ,~ LS 4375 AT THE NE COR. SEC. 3 T19S/R21E PER (A) & K.C.C.R. /2102 TRACT-No. 1 902 - I J
-uvE OAK NORTH- Noo·oo'OO"E (BASIS OF BEARINGS}y#,.~!t f,cfo:i•· FD 2• BRASS DISK STAMPED RCE 21489
IN CONCRETE: AT INTE:RIOR CORNER SEC.
2 n9S/R21£ P£R 21-LSP-12, K.C.R.
25-LSP-67 2862_85 1/4 S£CT10N UNE JO' , M A) fl' 1-.C· • fl' 1-.c.1<· HUME A VE 1UE S89tJ7',t.9•E 264J.95'(M)--J'---------+---'----------~\..r__.._..__.__....,_____.___, rK-----------------,=~-=-=-:~==-=-=---=--=--:~-=.:;:=-:=-==-==-==--..:::.....::~:....::....,;;-~- _T_I_T _T--7 111116115/ 74 I
169 I 10 I 11
~ --t - t--
1071108 109
---t-,
W. DEER
I I ,
/ 196/ 1971
-~-j22i 227
229 I 226
--!- - 230 I 225
--t--
231 I 224
232: 223
233 I 222
--+-- - 234 I 221
-:=-1- - 2351 220 vi
23;r 219
12551254
.l._L_
290
I
290
--------3
I
I
4 ' '
i'
~
...,
~
!O
FD. 2• BRASS DISC IN C0NCR£TE. STAMPED
"KINGS COONTY SUR\Otlli'• AT W. 1/4 C<R.

SEC. 2 7795//121£ PER K.C.C.R. /1991
- - L ~1P~11~~R~As~~~NT - - - -
_,,-/ ---- 753-0R-660
OF BEARINGS:

A COURSE OF SOUTH FOR THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE ANO MERIDIAN AS SHOWN ON TRACT No. 902 LNE Q4K NORTH, RLED IN VOLUME 25 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS' PLATS, AT PAGE 67, KINGS COUNTY RECORDS, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF ALL MEASURED BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS MAP.

EX DITCH EASEMENT
--PEOPLE'S DITCH COMPANY
1153-0R-686

OMITTED
RES UL T.,L\J'\JT
PARCEL 2
(EJ
LOT "A,.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 66436 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT THE SIGNATURES OF THE FOLLOWING INTEREST HOLDERS HA V£ BEEN OMITTED:

KINGS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT FOR AN EASEMENT TO SPILL, DUMP, SINK AND SPREAD WATERS RECORDED NOV£MBER 29, 1960 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 12431, BOOK 768, PAGE 943, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-------J
I I
I \., \ I
I 1-.?,.cS ~j,, I
I ?r \'3/ I
LOT .., B"
PAR)<
( BJ
B'
~ ~
" 0 2 ...,
:g J
4 5
_.-
Cl
<'(
0 a:::
..J
..J
-
~
JB'
t) 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 -.J
W. AMBER HARVEST DR.
~ 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 ~ 48
~r-.--r---t--t---t--+--t-f--+--+--l 49 3 ~
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 it 1---S_O -ill
r-----~....__...___....._ ................ __.____,_......,, m 51 Ill 1----t■ h'
W. TEAKWOOD DR. 52 ,..
..,.......,-,---,-,--,--,-,-,---,---,---,--- ~ 53 j
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 111 ~ 54 _.
""""'~"""""'""""""-~--....j-............. ....i (I) 55 ...:
\ \ \ I 21ol209l2oti,20-}i20~ 205 56
~ £'.P>s-r --,----.. it 200
IOp,}< z I ..J
J v£'. J rr J-.._J o. . -~~2041, ...:

SCALE: f • 200'
\ /
53 ( 60
----r54 I 59
55 i 58
56 I 57
L.)J'- ( L?) I I _IL f-~ - -j
I , \ 1
1 81 /BJ 18e 1as/1a4/ 183/ I I
I
✓, ui
115 I 115111711 lBJ 1191180 181/
J. _I_ l_ _l _I_~ --l
1"
I;

EX WATER DITCH //I
173 I I I I EASEMENT
59-DEEDS-375--II
II
'E
75/75/7
68 \ 1 10 I
7 >-+_Jr 6 'y I I
5 Y 64 / 63 I 6
. SUNSET LANE ~
_e:AS-( ...:
"- . o.PJ< 1 51 52 I
VB:'. J-.._j O • I
J u1-.._Jrr, e) 1 r-11-1
• I I 39 IJB I I I
,J 42 41 40
~
~ ~-.-.--,--,----,----,....._ ._, 32 33
~ 28 I 29 I 30 I JI I I I 35 I
~ - L _J - _l_ _I_ .l - U~ - ~ E:l 111111, 10
Q:: 27 I 25 I 25 I 24 I 23 I 22 I 21 20 I
II
II
215 ,216 \,
I + 169.97'(M)(A)
/
/
/
I I
I I
LANDSCAPE1
I LOTHc" I ~
I I ~
I I * ~ ::::i
~ I LOT ''J'A" ' ~ / SLOU,GH ~ J:::
\ (BJ., ;::;.._~
I I :t: "':

I • ~x'" I ~"1~
I I ,:-,-
I I a
\ \ ~ KINGS COUNTY
\ I~-;--- WATER DISTRICT
LANDSCAPE \ 768-0R-943
LOJ "D" I
I I
I I
I I __ ...___ _ _, vi _....._~_,._..._____,_____.___. I \ W. SAWTOOTH PLACE I I I
I ?'t-/1 I
I I 6 I 1 I B I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 113 114 115 I 15 I 11 I ,a 19 I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I , \ I I :

I \_ // 4 2 _ _j __ L_j_...L_l _ _l_L_j_...L_l _ _l_j___l _ _J r----------\ I ~-------l ______ _L_ ______ _L ______ _u ,.., \ HOUSTON A VENUE I I
j -~-----t ,/
//
10 \'~i1
- - r-l -------tJ20.BO'(M)-------rl ------~-~--•1'''_:-:-::-_~~~~-=:-1~~~~~'~\.____ ;:~~-=-N-89_7_5-:-'2-1-=-•w-,(1-.~-0.-8-4'-ru_D_(A_? _______ J_____ YJ--- -r~ ~FD. 2• BRASS DISC IN CONCR£TE. STAMPCD "KINGS 1NB975'
2 t•w 264106,t.'(M)(A) S£CT10N UNE I FD 2• ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS ,iJ75J I COUNTY SUR\Otlli'. AT SW C<R. SEC. 2 n9S//121E HOUS 7:oN : : A VENUE I AT SOUTH 1/4 CORN£R SEC. 2 ,' PER K.c.c.R. /2596 , , , nss~21£ P£R K.c.c.R. mso
k: \)73-1238 live ook eosl\dwg\'mapping\subdivision\phase 3 hidden oak\13-1238 live ook eost - hidden oak - ·sh/2 bndy 9/29/2023 1: 19 PM TRACT NO. B81

LIVE OAK EAST

HIDDEN OAKS
UNIT NO. 1

LYING IN A PORTION OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EAST, M.D.B.&M.
400

CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS,

CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER, 2021
c;/i)RTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
620 I 2th Street, Modesto, CA 95354
(209) 524-3525
REFERENCES:
(A) D.N. 2020-2100.J, K.C.R.
(B) LIV£ OAK £AST UNIT NO. 1 -
26 - LSP - 9.J, K.C.R.
(C) D.N. 2123158, K.C.R.
(D) LIV£ OAK £AST UNIT NO. 2 -
27 - LSP - 05, K.C.R.
(£) LOT LIN£ ADJUSTMENT ___ _
NOTES:

1. ALL LINES ADJACENT TO CURVES AR£ TANGENT
UNLESS A RADIAL BEARING JS SHOWN.

2. 5££ SH££T 6 OF 6 FOR UNIT BOUNDARY.

LEGEND:
-0-
-0-
e
I
-•-
FD
SFN
(A)
(M)
K.C.R.

K.C.C.R.

U.O.N.

PM
LS.P.

O.R.

Cale.

GLO
D.N.
lllm
SET 3/4"xJo· IRON PIPE, TAGGED LS 9099, U.O.N.

SET STREET INTERSECTION SURVEY MONUMENT PER CITY OF
HANFORD STANDARD DRAWING NO. GE-14 WITH 2" BRONZE
SURVEY MARKER STAMPED LS. 9099
SET 1.00 FOOT WITNESS CORNER {3/4• x 24" IRON PIPE
TAGGED L.S. 9099) MEASURED ALONG THE LOT LINE, FROM
ACTUAL LOT CORNER, U.O.N.

SET 3.00 FOOT WITNESS CORNER (3/4" x 24" IRON PIPE
TAGGED L.S. 9099) MEASURED ALONG THE LOT LINE, FROM
ACTUAL LOT CORNER, U.O.N.

SET 3/4" x 30" IRON PIPE TAGGED LS. 9099 AT ALL LOT
CORNERS U.O.N.

FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED
FOUND

SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING

SEE REFERENCES

MEASURED

KINGS COUNTY RECORDS

KINGS COUNTY CORNER RECORDS

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

PARCEL MAP

LICENSED SURVEYORS' PLATS
omCIAL RECORDS

CALCULATED FROM RECORD

GENERAL LAND OFFICE

DOCUMENT NUMBER

STREET ADDRESS NUMBER

THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED AS AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES:

P.U.E.
•

PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT NOW OFFERED FOR DEDICATION

AREA NOW OFFERED FOR DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC STREET ANO
UTILITY PURPOSES.

AREA NOW OFFERED FOR DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC UTILITY AND
LANDSCAPE PURPOSES.

SHEET 2 OF 6

Page 347 of 1565 ends

------
819.44'{M}(E)
SEE DETAIL;
-SHEET 4 OF 6
N00'52'1 f"E __

16. OO'{M}(E)
N89V7~9"W------
J0. 22'(M){E) soo-s2·11·w

10.00'{M){E)
N89V7'49"W

23.00'{M){E)
1' FUTURE STREET
25' WIDE FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT -.---i
'G:i' =
~
( _______________ SEE-SHEET-4-, .,., i
'it:
•
I
• ----LOT "C"
13,341 SF
'
194
HUME ~ ---,-- - - -:-:--:-:---- - - N89"07'49"W 1738.45'{M){E) 919.01'M E
AVENUE
~ 1/4 SECT/_Q_N_L_IN_E_
196 197 198 199
195
9/29/2023 1:21 PM
200 201 202 203
NOTES:

1. ALL UN£S ADJACENT TO CURVES AR£

TANGENT UNLESS A RADIAL BEARING IS
SHOWN.
204

2. S££ SH££7 2 OF 6 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS,
R£F£R£NC£S, LEGEND ANO NOTES.
47'
TRACT NO. 881

LIVE OAK EAST

HIDDEN OAKS
UNIT NO. 1

LYING IN A PORTION OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EAST, M.D.B.&M.
.....
~ Q.
..J
q:
(I)

CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS,

CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER, 2021
Q/i)RTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC
620 12th Street, Modesto, CA 95354
(209) 524-3525
MONUMENT LEGEND:
-0-
-0-
e
I
~
I
-•-
-@-
SET J/4"xJO" IRO'N PIPE, TAGGED LS 9099, U.O.N.

SET STREET INTERSECTION SURVEY MONUMENT PER CITY OF
HANFORD STANDARD DRAWING NO. GE-14 WITH 2" BRONZE
SURVEY MARKER STAMPED L.S. 9099
SET 1.00 FOOT WITNESS CORNER (3/4" x 24" IRON PIPE
TAGGED L.S. 9099) MEASURED ALONG THE LOT LINE, FROM
ACTUAL LOT CORNER, U.O.N.

SET 3.00 FOOT WITNESS CORNER (3/4" x 24" IRON PIPE
TAGGED L.S. 9099) MEASURED ALONG THE LOT LINE, FROM
ACTUAL LOT CORNER, U.O.N .

SET 3/4" x 30" IRON PIPE TAGGED L.S. 9099 AT ALL LOT
CORNERS U.O.N.

FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE TAGGED LS 9099 U.O.N.

FOUND 2• BRONZE SURVEY MARKER STAMPED LS 9099 IN
MONUMENT WELL U.O.N.

CURVE TABLE

CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH
CJ 31·44•42• 200.00' 110.81'
C4 90·52•01· 20.00' 31.72'
cs 89"07'59" 20.00' 31.11'
C7 9V4'53" 532.00' 84.32'
CB 75·34•55• 20.00' 26.73'
C9 7V5'07" 230.00' 28.44'
C10 7'50'33" 582.00' 79.66'
C21 5'54'47" 582.00' 60.06'
C23 22"45'27" 200.00' 79.44'
C24 89V7'59" 20.00' 31.11'
C25 T28'3J" 1000.00· 130.48'
C26 7'28'33" 1000.00· 130.48'
C27 53V7'48" 20.00' 18.55'
C28 36V0'09" 20.00' 12.57'
C29 90'52'01" 20.00' 31.72'
CJO 1'24'15" 1008.00' 24.70'
C31 2'50'45" 1008.00' 50.07'
CJ2 2'51'23" 1008.00' 50.25'
CJJ 0'22'10· 1008.00' 6.50'
CJ4 7'28'33" 1008.00' 131.52'
C35 2·31'50• 992.00' 43.81'
CJ6 2·53'37" 992.00' 50.10'
C37 2V3'06" 992.00' 35.52'
CJ8 7'28'JJ" 992.00' 129.43'
C39 22·43'20· 70.00' 27.76'
C40 52°34'15" 50.00' 45.88'
C41 45'51'52" 50.00' 40.02'
C42 36"08'32" 50.00' 31.54'
C43 134°34'39" 50.00' 117.44'
C44 15·44•19• 70.00' 19.23'
C45 6'59'01" 70.00' 8.53'
C46 22"43'20" 70.00' 27. 76'
C47 89V7'59" 20.00' 31.11'
C48 90·52'01" 20.00' 31.72'
C49 89V7'59" 20.00' 31.11'
SHEET 3 OF 6

Page 348 of 1565 ends

. - - ---•-- - - --- - -
---- --- - - --•
I \_ FD. 2· BRASS DISC IN CONCRETE. ------------------- I STAMPED i<INGS COUNTY SURVEYOfr
AT W. 1/4 COR. SEC. 2 T19S/R21E
PER K.C.C.R. /1991
I
I
I
I ci
0 100
SCALE= 1· - 100'
HUME A VENUE I - - '--..,____ 1/4 SECTlON LINE
N89V7'49•w 1738. 45'(M)(C)(E) 20' 10' WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY 200
819.44'(M)(E)---, ___ OFFER OF DEDICA TlON 919.0T'(M)(E) N00'52'11»E

16.00'(M)(E)
N89"07'49•

30.22'(M)(, ...,., _____ ..,
N00'52'11•E •
87 (M)(!) 8
TO.OO'(M)(E) 89V749 E
~-2' BLOCK

WALL EASEMENT
S00'52'11 ·w----
108.00'(M)(E)
LOT "B 1111
N89'07'49•w
DETAIL 23.00'(M)(E)

NOT TO SCALE
LOT "B" ~- 9,459 SF

25. 00' WIDE FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT
g
<tj W. AMBER '<1-
'<I- HARVEST
DRIVE
-
~ LOT 33
~ "G"
...
• I
12 W. TEAKWOOD
DRIVE
o------.----11
S42'53'16.E

10.00'(M)(E)
tJ=38V6'12•
R=230.00'
L=152.96'
S89V7'49•E

25.00'(M)(E)
LOTA
"H" 11
EX. DITCH EASEMENT
-- PEOPLE'S DITCH COMPANY
1153-0R-686
' {;J
I
(M)(E)
tJ=90'00'00.

R=20.00'
L=31.42'
j 3l_ 2 HOUSTON AVENUE I
--"'-•---- --- 'o 10 \!.!_ FD. 2• BRASS DISC IN CONCRUE, STAMPED "KINGS COUNTY 5VR~•
AT SW COR. SEC. 2 779S/R21E PER
K.C.C.R. /2596
(M)(A)(C)(E)
tJ=26'JJ'50•
R=380.00'
L=176.18'
N89'07'49•w

65.24'(M)(E)
k: \JIJ-1238 live oak east\dwg\mopping\subdivision\phase J hidden aak\13-1238 hidden oak fm large lot sht 4 LOT

22.51 ACRES
9/29/2023 1:22 PM
-----------
LOT
45 74611·
34 35 36
@ W. AMBER HARVEST
DRIVE
FD 2" BRASS DISK STAMPED
RC£ 21489 IN CONCRETE AT
INTERIOR CORNER SEC. 2
T19S/R21E PER 21-LSP-12.

K.C.R.

CURVE TABLE
SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET 0----.----,---r--"T"" CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH NOTES:

1. ALL UN£S ADJACENT TO CURVES AR£

TANGENT UNLESS A RADIAL BEARING IS
SHOWN.

2. S££ SHEET 2 OF 6 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS,
REFERENCES, LEGEND AND NOTES.
.:;:;-
--.::..
~ ~
8 C\j
~
~
('\j
--
If)
~ 25.00' WIDE FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT
(M)(E)
tJ= 13'58'33•
R=582.00'
L=141.97'
- S18'48'1o•E

66.00'(M)(E)
S89'07'49•E

25.00'(M)(E)
S00'52'11•w _...,
106. oo'(M)(E)
MONUMENT LEGEND:
-0- SET 3/4•x30• IRON PIPE, TAGGED LS 9099, U.O.N.
-0-
33 11
32 31
C10 7'50'33" 582.00'
C11 7'45'56· 522.00'
C12 54i7'18" 20.00'
C14 85i4'09• 20.00'
C16 84'39'18. 20.00'
C17 85'4B'5r 20.00'
C21 5·54•4r 582.00'
C22 1'55'46" 582.00'

LINE TABLE
W. TEAKWOOD
DRIVE
10 9
LINE
L26
L27
L28
L29
L30
L31
LJ2
LJ3
L34
L35
LJ6
L37
LJ8
L39
L40
L41
L42
L43
L44
L45
L46
TRACT NO.

BEARING LENGTH
N46'52'54•E 104.75'
S65'27'57"E 40.97'
S71'36'16•E 47.69'
S78i2'3r£ 47.69'
S84'48'48•E 41.69'
N88.34'57"£ 41.69'
N81'58'41•E 47.69'
N75'22'25"E 47.69'
N68'46'09•E 47.69'
N62V9'54"E 47.69'
N55i4'04"E 52.40'
N45i4'34.E 91.77'
N34'54'56"E 57.23'
N26'59'18"E 57.23'
N19'03'41•E 57.23'
N11V8'04"E 57.23'
N03i2'27"E 51.23'
N04'43'11 •w 57.23'
N12'38'4B•w 57.23'
N20'06'31 "W 50.53'
N46'52'54"£ 23.77'
881

79.66'

70.75'

18.95'

29.75'

29.55'

29.96'

60.06'

19.60'
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)

LIVE OAK EAST

HIDDEN OAKS
UNIT NO. 1
e
I

SET STREET INTERSECT/ON SURVEY MONUMENT PER CITY OF
HANFORD STANDARD DRAWING NO. GE-14 WITH 2• BRONZE
SURVEY MARKER STAMPED L.S. 9099
SET 1.00 FOOT WITNESS CORNER {3/4• x 24• IRON PIPE
TAGGED L.S. 9099) MEASURED ALONG THE LOT LINE, FROM
ACTUAL LOT CORNER, U.O.N.

LYING IN A PORTION OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EAST, M.D.B.&M.
ill
I
- •-
-@-
SET 3.00 FOOT WITNESS CORNER (3/4• x 24• IRON PIPE
TAGGED L.S. 9099) MEASURED ALONG THE LOT LINE, FROM
ACTUAL LOT CORNER, U.O.N.

SET 3/4• x 30• IRON PIPE TAGGED L.S. 9099 AT ALL LOT
CORNERS U. O.N.

FOUND MONUMENT AS NOT[D

FOUND STREET INTERSECT/ON SURVEY MONUMENT PER CITY
OF HANFORD STANDARD DRAWING NO. GE-14 WITH 2•
BRONZE SURVEY MARKER STAMPED L.S. 9099 (8) UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOT[D.

CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS,

CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER, 2021
Q/i:JRTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
620 12th Street, Modesto, CA 95354
(209) 524-3525
SHEET 4 OF 6

Page 349 of 1565 ends

---•-- - - --- - - ---
(/ I \_ FD. 2· BRASS DISC IN CONCRETE.

I I STAMPfD "KINGS COUNTY SVR~·
I AT W. t/4 COR. SE'C. 2 n9S/R21£
P£R K.C.C.R. /1991
0 100 200
SCALE: 1' • 100'
EX. DITCH EASEMENT
- - PEOPLE'S DITCH COMPANY
1153-0R-686
(M)(E)
IF90VO'oo·
R=20.00'
L=Jl.42'
S42'5J'16"E

10.00'(M)(E)
IFJ8V6'12"
R=2JO.OO'
L=152.96'
(M)(E)
N89V7'49"W

65.24'(M)(E) LOT ,, A,,

22.51 ACRES
' .J',i;.,, ', o,,._

40.32'(M)(E)
(M)(E)
IF13'58'33"
R=582.00'
L=141.97'
',~ .. (M)(E) ',%
IF8'55'01" '
R=582.00'
L=90.58'
- s18·4e•1o·E

66.00'(M)(E)
NOTES:

1. ALL UN£S ADJACENT TO CUR',£5 ARE
TANGENT UNL£SS A RADIAL BEARING IS
SHOWN.

2. SEE SHEET 2 OF 6 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS,
REFERENCES, LEGEND ANO NOTES.

I
(M)(A)(C)(E)
1J=25·33'50•
R=J80.00'
L=176.18'
I NJ!~kf~ ~o
N89V7'49"W N89V7'49"W o,_..._,_0
244.92'(M)(A)(C)(E) ___ 100.00' ~ S6f'18'2/"W
11--1o O (M)(A)(C)(E) 71.43(M)(A)(C)(E)
Noo-s2 .
1 ,-E ___/'0 .......................... 0 soo-s2·11·w

16. 71'(M)(A)(C)(E) 48.86'(M)(A)(C){E)
/
/ 130
/
/
/
/ 123
128
N75"2J'27"E _,,,- _,,,-
/
/
/
/ J 19 /
/
/
/ 118

71.79'(M)(C)(D)~•- - ---"f
r=r---f:-'.4_R_C_EL- 3---r---------f:-'.4_R_C_E'L__
2 _"""':;s'.:i:e9n-,~3•~54~•Eri713.;';2~1.0~'2;':j,(M~~v.(E~)---------"'T"'"-----------~~-~--• \ \ 127 ½ PM 13 54 PM 13-54, , -/ \ 126 \
I ~ I - ' SOUTH J /2 OF THE NE CORNER OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF_/ l 25 \ \ \ ~r SW 1 /4 OF THE SW f /4 THE SW 1/4 OF TH£ SW 1/4 OF \ \ SECTION 2 SECTION 2
~--!_ 2 HOUSTON A VENUE --•---- - - - ___ _ _ _ W. pOPPV 10 \!!._ FD. 2· BRASS DISC IN ~TE. STAMPED "KINGS COUNTY SPRINGS LN, SUR~l1l'i'• AT SW CCR. SEC. 2 179S,/R21E PER K.C.C.R. /2596 ,.. - k: \j/3- 1238 live oak east \dwg \ mapping \ subdivision \phose 3 hidden oak\ 13- 1238 hidden oak fm large lot sht 5 9/29/2023 1: 23 PM fl 7

CURVE TABLE

CURVE DELTA RADIUS
C/0 7°50'33" 582.00'
C11 7°45'56" 522.00'
C12 54i7'18" 20.00'
C14 85i4'09" 20.00'
C16 84:39'18" 20.00'
C17 85.48'57" 20.00'
C21 5'54'47" 582.00'
C22 1'55'46" 582.00'

LINE TABLE

LINE BEARING LENGTH
L26 N46.52'54"E 104. 75'
L27 S65"27'57"E 40.97'
L28 S71'J6'16"E 47.69'
L29 S78i2'J2"E 47.69'
LJO S84•48'48"E 47.69'
LJ1 N88'J4'57"E 47.69'
LJ2 Ne1·5e•41"E 47.69'
LJJ N75"22'25"E 47.69'
LJ4 N68.46'09"E 47.69'
LJ5 N62V9'54"E 47.69'
LJ6 N55'14'04"E 52.40'
LJ7 N45'14'34"E 91.77'
LJB N34'54'56"E 57.23'
LJ9 N26'59'18"E 57.23'
L40 N19VJ'41"E 57.23'
L41 N11V8'04"E 57.23'
L42 NOJ'12'27"E 57.23'
L4J N04'43'11"W 57.23'
L44 N12'J8'48"W 57.23'
L45 N20'06'J1"W 50.53'
L46 N46.52'54 "E 23.77'
LENGTH

79.66'

70.75'

18.95'

29.75'

29.55'

29.96'

60.06'

19.60'
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M){C)(D){E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M){C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M){C){D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
(M)(C)(D)(E)
MONUMENT LEGEND:
-0-
- 0 -
e
I
IZ
I
-•-
-@-
SET 3/4"xJO" IRON PIPE, TAGGED LS 9099, U.O.N.

SET STREET INTERSECTION SURVEY MONUMENT PER CITY OF
HANFORD STANDARD DRAWING NO. GE-14 WITH 2• BRONZE
SURVEY MARKER STAMPED L.S. 9099
SET 1.00 FOOT WITNESS CORNER (3/4• x 24" IRON PIPE
TAGGED L.S. 9099) MEASURED ALONG THE LOT LINE, FROM
ACTUAL LOT CORNER, U.O.N.

SET 3.00 FOOT WITNESS CORNER (3/r x 24" IRON PIPE
TAGGED L.S. 9099) MEASURED ALONG THE LOT LINE, FROM
ACTUAL LOT CORNER, U.O.N.

SET J/4" x JO" IRON PIPE TAGGED L.S. 9099 AT ALL LOT
CORNERS U.O.N.

FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED

FOUND STREET INTERSECTION SURVEY MONUMENT PER CITY
OF HANFORD STANDARD DRAWING NO. GE-14 WITH 2•
BRONZE SURVEY MARKER STAMPED L.S. 9099 (BJ UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.

TRACT NO. 881

LIVE OAK EAST

HIDDEN OAKS
UNIT NO. 1

LYING IN A PORTION OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EAST, M.D.B.&M.

CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS,

CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER, 2021
g/K)RTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
620 12th Street, Modesto, CA 95354
(209) 524-3525
SHEET 5 OF 6

Page 350 of 1565 ends

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

BEING ALL OF LOT 149 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENnTLED 'LIVE OAK EAST UNIT NO. 2 "RECORDED IN VOLUME 27 OF LICENSED SURVEYORS'PLATS, AT PAGE 05, KINGS COUNTY RECORDS AND A PORnON OF PARCEL 2 AS DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED TO IMPLACABLE PROP£RnES, LLC RECORDED ON AUGUST JO, 2022 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2216244, KINGS COUNTY RECORDS, SITUA T£ IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF S£CnON 2, TOr,r,/SH/P 19 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF KINGS, CALIFORNIA, SAID PROPERTY BEING MORE PARnCULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID S£CnON 2; THENCE
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH'M:ST QUARTER OF S£CnON 2, SOUTH 8975'21" EAST 1320.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECnON 2; THENCE
ALONG THE WEST UN£ OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECnON 2, NORTH DOTJ1'16" EAST 66J.07 FEET TO THE

NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECnON 2, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPnON; THENCE
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH'M:ST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECnON 2, BEING ALSO THE SOUTHERLY UN£ OF SAID PARCEL 2, NORTH 897J'54• 'M:ST 1321.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID S£CnON 2, 8£/NG ALSO THE SOUTH'M:ST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECnON 2, BEING ALSO THE 'M:ST LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, NORTH 0000'10" EAST 324. 72 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY UN£ OF SAID PARCEL 2 THE FDllOltlNG SEVENTEEN (17) COURSES:
1) SOUTH 89TJ7'49" EAST 244.92 FEET;
2) SOUTH 00"52'11" WEST 16.11 FEET;
3) SOUTH 89TJ7'49" EAST 100.00 FEET;
4) NORTH 00"52'11" EAST 48.86 FEET;
5) SOUTH 88"50'J1" EAST 76.23 FEET;
6} NORTH 6478'21" EAST 71.43 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A

NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCA VE NORTHEASTERLY TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF JB0.00 FEET, TO 'Mi/CH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 6478'21" WEST AND HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26:J3'50"; THENCE 7) ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 176.18 FEET;
B) NORTH 00"52'11" EAST 214.65 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET AND HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9000'00"; THENCE
9} ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, Jt.42 FEET; THENCE
LEAVING SAID WESTERLY UN£ OF PARCEL 2, SOUTH 89TJ7'49• EAST

65.24 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00"52'11" EAST 117. 72 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCA VE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2JO.OO FEET AND HA I/ING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF J8TJ6'12~· THENCE
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 152.96 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET TO 'Mi/CH A RADIAL UN£ BEARS SOUTH 51TJ1'J7" EAST AND HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 81 "51 'JB~· THENCE
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 28.57 FEET,· THENCE
NORTH 42"53'16" WEST 10.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 47TJ6'44" EAST 60.00 FEET,· THENCE
SOUTH 42"5J'16" EAST 46.23 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 47TJ6'44" EAST 108.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 42"5J'16" EAST 255.29 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCA VE SOUTHEASTERLY, HA I/ING A RADIUS OF 582.00 FEET TO 'Mi/CH A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 55"59'20" WEST AND HA I/ING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08"55'02"; THENCE
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 90.58 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET TO 'Mi/CH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 47TJ4'19" EAST AND HA I/ING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 85WJ'57"; THENCE
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 29.96 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 42"53'16" IIE"ST 57.00 FEET,· THENCE
NORTH 47TJ6'44" EAST 60.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 42"53'16" EAST 58.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET AND HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 84:J9'19"; THENCE
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 29.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCA VE SOUTHEASTERLY, HA I/ING A RADIUS OF 582.00 FEET TO 'Mi/CH A RADIAL UNE BEARS NORTH J7:J2'J4 • 'M:ST AND HA I/ING A CENTRAL ANCLE OF 1J'58'JJ"; THENCE
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 141.97 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCA VE NORTH£RL Y, HA I/ING A RADIUS OF 20. 00 FEET TO 'Mi/CH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 23:J4'01" EAST AND HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 8574'09~· THENCE
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 29. 75 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 18WJ'10" WEST 66.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 7171'50" EAST 52.9J FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET TO 'Mi/CH A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 56"57'17" EAST AND HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09'50'3J"; THENCE
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 39.51 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 42"53'16" WEST 54.25 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 47TJ6'44" EAST 40.J2 FEET,· THENCE
SOUTH 89TJ7'49" EAST 520.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00"52'11" EAST 106.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89TJ7'49" WEST 25.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00"52'11" EAST 332.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 89TJ7'49" EAST 23.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00"52'11" EAST 108.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89TJ7'49" WEST 115.87 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00"52'11" EAST 10.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89TJ7'49" WEST 30.22 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00"52'11" EAST 16.00 FEET TO A POINT 20.00 FEET DISTANT AT

RIGHT ANCLES FROM THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECnON 2, BEING ALSO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE
ALONG SAID NORTH UNE OF PARCEL 2, PARALLEL ltlTH SAID QUARTER S£CnON LINE, SOUTH 89TJ1'49" CAST 919.01 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, SOUTH 0000•10• WEST 654.32

FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCA VE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET AND HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90"52'01"; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 31.72 FEET,·
NORTH 89TJ7'49" WEST 18.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET AND HA I/ING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89TJ7'59"; THENCE
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, Jl.11 FEET,· THENCE
NORTH 89"59'50" WEST 60.00 FEET,· THENCE
NORTH DOTJ0'10• EAST BJ. 77 FEET,· THENCE
NORTH 89TJ7'-#9" IIE"ST 561.56 FEET,· THENCE ]B FD. 2· BRASS DISC IN CONCRETE, STAMPED ~ I T TRACT NO. 881 SOUTH 00"52'11 " 'M:ST 13.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCA VE .KINGS COUNTY SURVEYOR. AT w. 1/4 COR. ~ LI' 'E OAK EA s T 1<;:d;E-;J'i':j,41~-1/1:Eic:AD/US OF 200.00 FEET AND HAVING A CENTRAL • SEC. 2 T19S/R21E PEJ K.C.C.R. /1991 HUME A VENUE V I ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 110.81 FEET; THENCE ---• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~;==~~~~~~=:e~§~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ ~~~=== SOUTH 30"52'J1" EAST 19.33 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY UN[ - ,___ 819. 44' HIDDEN OAKS OF SAID PARCEL 2 AND THE BEGINNING OF A NON/TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE 919.01' ___ , SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 532.00 FEET TO 'M-1/CH A RADIAL 20' 1 LINE BEARs NORTH 30"52•31• WEsT AND HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF S££ DETAIL •c·-.! 09TJ4'53"; ALONG THE THENCE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 84.32 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A .• ._r( UNIT NO • 1 REVERSE CURVE CONCA VE NORTHWESTERLY, HA I/ING A RADIUS OF _e:S l.)l-"f,AP j

20.00 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 39"57'24" EAST AND L55 l< ,Al<cf'.l.- HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 76:J4'56~· THENCE p (f'.)
LEA I/ING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID L56 CURVE, 26.73 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE ci Z SOUTH'M:STERL Y, HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET TO WHICH A RADIAL p,Af<Cf'.l.- L57 UNE BEARS NORTH 36:J7'J2" EAST AND HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF -p.['11' ,-, L58 07TJ5'07~· THENCE J<_e:5LJJ..1'. (f'.)
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 28.44 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CONCA VE SOUTHIIE"ST£RL Y, HA I/ING A RADIUS OF 582. DO FEET TO 'M-1/CH A RADIAL UNE BEARS NORTH 29:J2'25" EAST AND HAVING A , , rCENTRAL ANGLE OF 07'50'3J"; THENCE I I I v' ~ v, N ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 79.66 FEET; THENCE 1o1,1
SOUTH 21'41'52" WEST 60.00 FEET TO THE NORTH'M:ST CORNER OF SAID LOT ""' 149 AND THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO SOUTH'M:STERLY, HAVING :; S££ DETAIL •9'!, A RADIUS OF 522.00 FEET TO 'Mi/CH A RADIAL LINE BEARS ' { NORTH 21"41 '52" EAST AND HA I/ING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01"45'56~· THENCE I 11 ALONG THE NORTH£RL Y, EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 149, ~ L22
LD LAN ____ ,,-
1 I I I Isµ:; q 'l

I I I I I I I I
)-....J 7L f- -/-JL f -f
THE FOI..LOltlNG FOUR (4) COURSES: ~ L71
1) ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 10.15 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A L ... LI I i:.J>.

COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE TO SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 (( ~ L o..Ai< O· :2 FEET TO 'Mi/CH A RADIAL UNE BEARS NORTH 29"27'48" EAST AND HAVING A L72 L4 ff ~--0~ CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5477'18"; THENCE L9 C2 L4 -/_..
2) ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 18.95 FEET,· THENCE L
4 3) SOUTH 46"52'54" WEST 104.15 FEET; THENCE
4) NORTH 65"27'57" IIE"ST 40.97 FEET TO SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID L 4 LOT 149, BEING ALSO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY UNE OF SAID C1 L PARCEL 2; THENCE
ALONG THE EASTERLY UNE OF SAID PARCEL 2, THE FOI..LOltlNG TWENTY- ONE ~ - <.'' (21} COURSES: LJ i''
1) NORTH 71:J6'16" WEST -17.69 FEET; THENCE , <\•{x; \,V,.· 2) NORTH 7872'32" WEST 47.69 FEET; THENCE L4 LB ,V
3) NORTH 84'48'48" 'M:ST -#7.69 FEET; THENCE «,
4) SOUTH 88:J4'57" WEST 47.69 FEET; THENCE ,-. L2
5) SOUTH 81'58'41 " WEST 47.69 FEET; THENCE .._
6) SOUTH 75"22'25" WEST 47.69 FEET; THENCE ...
7) SOUTH 68"46'09" WEST 47.69 FEET,· THENCE ~
8) SOUTH 62TJ9'54" WEST 47.69 FEET; THENCE .-
9) SOUTH 55H'04" WEST 52.40 FEET; THENCE
10} SOUTH 45'14'J4" WEST 91.77 FEET; THENCE
RESULTANT PARCEL 1
{E)
L1
I I I
: TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
I I 11) SOUTH 34"54'56" WEST 57.23 FEET; THENCE
12) SOUTH 26"59'18" WEST 57.23 FEET; THENCE ----J I
13) SOUTH 19TJJ'41" WEST 57.23 FEET; THENCE
14) SOUTH 11TJ8'04" WEST 57.23 FEET; THENCE
15) SOUTH 0372'27" WEST 57.23 FEET; THENCE
16) SOUTH OHJ'11" EAST 57.23 FEET,· THENCE
17) SOUTH 12:J8'48" EAST 57.2J FEET; THENCE
18} SOUTH 20TJ6'31" EAST 50.53 FEET,· THENCE
19) SOUTH 46"52'5-I" WEST 23.11 FEET,· THENCE
20) SOUTH 4JTJ7'06" EAST 634. 77 FEET,· THENCE
21) SOUTH 75"23'27" 'M:ST 71. 79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 2 I
I
I r------7
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I

I I I '
~ -
_.,
~ i::::
(ij
~

LYING IN A PORTION OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 21 EAST, M.D.S.&M.

I
I

CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS,

CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER, 2021
Q/i)RTHSTAR ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
620 12th Street, Modesto, CA 95354
{209) 524-3525

LINE TABLE

LINE BEARING LENGTH LINE BEARING
L1 N89i3'45"W 1321.02' L37 S45i4'J4"W
L2 N00V0'/0"£ 324.72' L38 s34·54•55•w
LJ S89"07'49"E 244.92' L39 S26'59'/B"W
L4 s00·52'11 ·w 16.71' L40 S19V3'41"W
L5 S89V7'49"£ 100.00· L41 S11'08'04"W
L6 N00?52'11 "E 48.86' L42 S03i2'27"W
Ll S88'50'3/"E 16.23' L4J S04 '43'11 "E
LB N64i8'2/"E 11.43' L44 S12'J8'48"E
L9 N00?52'1/"E 214.65' L45 S20V6'31"E
L10 N89V7'49"W 240.00' L46 S46?52'54"W
Lt/ N00"52 '11"£ 11.71' L47 S43V7'06"E
L12 N89V7'49"W 192. 18' L48 S75'23'27"W
L/3 Noo·oo·1o·E 540.06' L49 s00·52•11·w
L14 S89V7'49"£ 200.36' L50 S89V7'49"E
L15 N00'52'//"E 12.14' L51 s00·52•11·w
L16 N00?52'tr£ 134.00' L52 S89'07'49"E
L17 S89V7'49"E 1738.45' L5J s00·52•11·w
ENGTH

91. 77'

57.23'

50.53'

23.77'
634.77'

71. 79'

16.00'

30.22'

10.00'
115.87'
108.00'
~
r-"-,- L18 s00·00·10·w 654.32'
L19 N89V7'49"W 18.01 '
L54 N89V7'49"W 23.00'
L55 soo-s2·11·w 332.00' 1 -
!)
I
I
I
I
L20
L21
L22
L2J
L24
N89?59'50"W 60.00'
N00V0'to·w 83.77'
N89V7'49"W 561.56'
S00?52'1/"W 13.45'
S30'52'31 "£ 19.33'
L56 S89V7'49"£ 25.00'
L57 s00·52•11"w 106.00'
L58 N89°07'49"W 520.00'
L59 S47V6'44•w 40.32'
L60 S42?53'16"£ 54.25'
CONTAINING JJ.99 ACRES MORE OR LESS
NOTES:
======1=()=~1•-11 i SB::~~;::
l POINT 6F COMMENCEMENT
S89i5'21"E 264~.64' 1 1 Il __ .,-- A VENUE : : : i :

FD 2• ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED :

L25 S21"41'52"W 60.00'
L26 S46?52'54"W 104.75'
L27 N65'27'57"W 40.97'
L28 Nll 'J6'16"W 47.69'
L61 S71i1'50"W 52.93'
L62 s1a·4a'10·£ 66.00'
L63 N42°53'16"W 58.01 '
L64 S47V6'44•w 60.00'

1. 2.

ALL UNES ADJACENT TO CURVES ARE

TANGENT UNLESS A RADIAL BEARING
IS SHOWN.

SEE SHEET 2 OF 6 FOR BASIS OF

BEARINGS, REFERENCES, LEGEND AND
NOTFS.

DETAIL "'A"'

HUME AVENUE
.t RESULTANT L49 <o I 1 PARCEL I
<o (£) ~
L50 L5,I I RESULTANT L52 PARCEL 2
(£) DETAIL "C"
FD. 2• BRASS DISC IN CONCRETE, STAMPED ___ _ LS4J75 AT SOUTH 1/4 CORNER SEC. 2 1------ •KINGS COUNTY SURVEYOR• AT SW COR.

SEC. 2 n9S/R21E PER K.C.C.R. 12596
DETAIL "D" ~
;
L21 RESULTANT L18 ~
205 PARCEL J ~ {EJ a:

L20 .... C5 C4 ~
L19 ~

RESULTANT
PARCEL 2
(£)
T19S/R21E PER K.C.C.R. /2660
L58
W. BUTTERFIELD LANE DETAIL "B"

RESULTANT
PARCEL l
IE)
C/6

RESULTANT
PARCEL l
IE)
I
I
I
I JANIJSCAPE 1/ 7 LOT 'A' //
L23-

RESULTANT
PARCEL 1
IE)
L29
LJ0
L31
LJ2
LJJ
LJ4
LJ5
L36
N78i2'32"W
N84°48'48"W
S88'J4'57"W
S81 ?58'41 "W
S75'22'25"W
S68°46'09"W
S62V9'54"W
S55i4'04"W
L22
\ I
LJVE OAK £AST
UNIT NO. 2
27- LSP- 05
' I \ I
\ 213 I
I \
\ \
\
\
\
I

47.69' L65 S42?53'16"£ 57.00'

47.69' L66 N42?53'/6"W 255.29'

47.69' L67 S47V6'44•w 108.00'

47.69' L68 N42?53't6•w 46.23'

47.69' L69 S47V6'44"W 60.00'

47.69' Ll0 S42?53'16"£ 10.00'

47.69' Lll s00·52•1,·w 117. 72'

52.40' L72 N89'07'49•w 65.24'

CURVE TABLE
CURVE. DELTA RADIUS LENGTH
CT 26'JJ'50• 380.00' 176. 18'
C2 govo·oo· 20.00' 31.42'
CJ 9ovo·oo· 480.00' 753.98'
C4 90"52'01· 20.00' 31.72'
C5 89V7'59• 20.00' 31.11'
C6 31·44•42• 200.00' 110.81'
Cl 9°04'53" 532.00' 84.32'
CB 75·34'55• 20.00· 26.73'
C9 7V5'07" 230.00' 28.44'
C10 7"50'33" 582.00' 79.66'
Cl/ 7"45'56" 522.00' 70.75'
C12 54;1·,a· 20.00' 18.95'
C13 9·50'33• 230.00' 39.51'
C14 8574'09" 20.00' 29.75'
C15 13'58'33• 582.00' 141.97'
C16 s4·39'19• 20.00' 29.55'
C17 a5·4a•5r 20.00' 29.96'
C18 a·55•02· 582.00' 90.58'
C19 81?51'38" 20.00· 28.57'
C20 3a·o5•1r 230.00' 152.96'
SHEET 6 OF 6
k: \ j1J-1238 Jive oak east \ dwg\mapping \ subdivision \phase 3 hidden oak\13-1238 live oak east - hidden oak - sht 6 bndy 10/6/2023 10:39 AM

Page 351 of 1565 ends

Page 352 of 1565 ends

Page 353 of 1565 ends

Page 354 of 1565 ends

Page 355 of 1565 ends

Page 356 of 1565 ends

Page 357 of 1565 ends

Page 358 of 1565 ends

Page 359 of 1565 ends

Page 360 of 1565 ends

Page 361 of 1565 ends

Page 362 of 1565 ends

Page 363 of 1565 ends

Page 364 of 1565 ends

Page 365 of 1565 ends

Page 366 of 1565 ends

Page 367 of 1565 ends

Page 368 of 1565 ends

Page 369 of 1565 ends

Page 370 of 1565 ends

Page 371 of 1565 ends

Page 372 of 1565 ends

Page 373 of 1565 ends

Page 374 of 1565 ends

Page 375 of 1565 ends

RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

CITY OF HANFORD
When recorded return to:

City Clerk
City of Hanford
315 North Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230-3951

G.C. 27361.3 - Fee NIL

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The work of Improvement is located near: Southeast corner of Alpine Avenue and Hume Avenue, in the City of Hanford

2. The Improvement is particularly described as: Tract 881 Unit 1 Subdivision Infrastructure Improvements.

3. The date of completion of the work of Improvement: 4/16/26

4. The Owner of the work of Improvement: City of Hanford

5. The nature of the owner’s interest or estate: Fee Simple

6. The name of the original contractor for the work of Improvement: Presidio JJR Hidden Oaks II 130, LLC (San Joaquín Valley Homes)

7. The surety for the work of Improvement: Markle Insurance Company – Bond 4458579

8. Accepted by minute action of the City Council of the City of Hanford on: , 2026.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated this __________day of _______________________, 2026.

BY:

Mark Kairis, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California

Page 376 of 1565 ends

I, the undersigned, say:

I am the person who signed the foregoing notice. I have read the above notice and know its contents, and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed at Hanford, California, this day of 2025.

BY: ________________________________________
Mark Kairis, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
Authority: Section 1181 Civil Code

Page 377 of 1565 ends

RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

CITY OF HANFORD

When recorded return to:

City Clerk
City of Hanford
315 North Douty Street
Hanford, California 93230-3951

G.C. 27361.3 - Fee NIL

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The work of Improvement is located near: Southeast corner of Alpine Avenue and Hume Avenue, in the City of Hanford

2. The Improvement is particularly described as: Tract 881 Unit 1 Subdivision Infrastructure Improvements.

3. The date of completion of the work of Improvement: 4/16/26

4. The Owner of the work of Improvement: City of Hanford

5. The nature of the owner’s interest or estate: Fee Simple

6. The name of the original contractor for the work of Improvement: Presidio JJR Hidden Oaks II 130, LLC (San Joaquín Valley Homes)

7. The surety for the work of Improvement: Markle Insurance Company – Bond 4458579

8. Accepted by minute action of the City Council of the City of Hanford on:
, 2026.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated this __________day of _______________________, 2026.

BY:

Mark Kairis, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California

Page 378 of 1565 ends

I, the undersigned, say:

I am the person who signed the foregoing notice. I have read the above notice and know its contents, and the facts stated therein are true of my own knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed at Hanford, California, this day of 2025.

BY: ________________________________________
Mark Kairis, Mayor
City of Hanford, County of Kings, State of California
Authority: Section 1181 Civil Code

Page 379 of 1565 ends

STORM GENERAL NOTES

WATER GENERAL NOTES

1. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STORM DRAIN MAINS, MANHOLES, AND

STUBS TO BE PERFORMED IN STRICT CONFORMANCE TO CITY OF HANFORD STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL STORM DRAIN MANHOLE OR STORM DRAIN

DROP MANHOLE (WHERE APPLICABLE) PER CITY OF HANFORD STANDARD DETAILS SS-11 AND SS-14 AND THE CITY OF HANFORD STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

3. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL STORM DRAIN CURB INLET CATCH BASIN PER CITY OF HANFORD STANDARD DETAIL SD-17 AND SD-17A (FOR CATCH BASINS DEEPER THAN 6', SEE DETAIL SD-17A ), AND THE CITY OF HANFORD STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

PP
JP
JP
TEL
JP
ICV

EXISTING TREELINE
(25' APART)
19 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
12+19

FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY
FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY 30' 55' 55'
31 169
3 4b 4a
4 151
EX4
N2 Ex12"W Ex8"SS
Ex30"SS Ex18"SD
Ex18"W
Ex18"W Ex18"W
EX18"IRR
EX18"IRR Ex18"SD

CONSTRUCT SLOUGH INTERCONNECT

INLET STRUCTURE
O3a
DTL 1, SHT C5.05
225.72FL END
222.31FL(36")S
SDMH-N2b
DTL 3, SHT C5.05
229.11RIM
222.27INV(36")N
222.27INV(45")S
BOTTOM BOX = 221.27 36"SD 29"x45"
SDMH-250
230.43RIM
222.16FL(29"X45"")N
222.16FL(36")E
36"SD
SDMH-251
231.05RIM
221.78FL(36")W
221.78FL(36")E
36"SD
343LF 36"SD S=0.0012 315LF 36"SD S=0.0012
92LF 29"x45"ELLIPTICAL S=0.0012
31LF 36"SD S=0.0012
REMOVE EX. SD-STUB
AND CONNECT TO EX. SDMH
221.36FL(36")W
221.36FL(33")E
221.26FL(36")S
SDMH-O3a (1)
222.93RIM
220.94FL(36")N
Ex33"SD
36"S
D

CONNECT TO
EX. SD-PIPE
221.20FL(36")S
S=0.0080
33LF 36"SD
S=0.008
216.69 FG
222.44 CC
222.33 INV
PROPOSED 29"x45"

ELLIPTICAL PIPE
INVERT=222.27'
NTS

RIM GRADE PER PLAN
TOP OF WEIR = 226.50'
(HWL = 226.50') 12' MIN
WATERMAN SLIDE WEIR 60"
GATE SS-254-1 OR

APPROVED EQUAL
60"x60" PRECAST

JUNCTION BOX

WATERMAN GATE

VALVES ON ALL

CONNECTED PIPES

TRAFFIC RATED LID

TOP OF BANK
TOP OF BOX = 229.11'±
BOTTOM OF BOX = 221.27'
29"x45" ELLIPTICAL PIPE 29"x45" ELLIPTICAL SD PIPE 36" SD PIPE (TO BASIN) PROPOSED 36" SD PIPE
INVERT=222.27'
EXISTING GRADE @ SD PIPE
FINISHED GRADE @ SD PIPE 60"X60" BOX - N2B 60" W/WEIR GATE STA: 11+01.91 RIM: 229.11 IN INV: 222.27(36")N OUT INV: 222.27(29")S

CONCRETE SADDLE
PER COH STD DTL ST-11 EX. SS PIPE STA: 11+57.43 INV: 218.58 EX. W PIPE STA: 11+71.25 INV: 225.39

PROFILE SCALE

HORIZONTAL

VERTICAL

CONCRETE SADDLE
PER COH STD DTL ST-11 SDMH-250 60" SDMH STA: 11+94.25 RIM: 230.43 IN INV: 222.16(29")N OUT INV: 222.16(36")E 92 LF 45"SD S=0.0012
(29"x45" ELLIPTICAL PIPE)
HWL: 226.50' BOTTOM = 217± OF BASIN 224.89 SD-OUTFALL-O3A STA: 10+70.60 RIM: 225.72 OUT INV: 222.31(36")S 4:1 MAX
4:1 MAX R/W CL HOUSTON
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
11+00 12+00 12+50
31 LF 36"SD
S=0.0012
TOP OF BANK 229.11'

SEWER GENERAL NOTES

UTILITY GENERAL NOTES

1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING MANHOLES, INLETS, CLEANOUTS,

WATER VALVES, FIRE HYDRANTS, AND/OR WATER SERVICES DURING THE

COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IF DAMAGED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST EXISTING

MANHOLES, INLETS, CLEANOUTS, WATER VALVES AND/OR FIRE HYDRANTS TO FINISH GRADE PER THESE PLANS; SEE GRADING PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING INFORMATION.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM MAIN, SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN, MANHOLE, AND/OR STUB. IF NECESSARY CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EXISTING BLOWOFF OR CLEANOUT. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE

EXISTING SEWER MAINS, STORM DRAIN MAINS, WATER MAINS, MANHOLES,

AND/OR STUBS AT ALL PROPOSED POINTS OF CONNECTION OF LINES AND

LATERALS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY THE HORIZONTAL AND

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF ANY PORTION OF THE PROPOSED UTILITY SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR SHALL INFORM THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY.

3. ALL TRENCHING AND REPATCHING FOR PROPOSED UTILITY LINES AND

LATERALS SHALL BE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF HANFORD STANDARD DETAILS ST-8 AND ST-10 (WHERE APPLICABLE) AND THE CITY OF HANFORD STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

4. UTILITIES TO BE LOCATED IN THE STREET IN ACCORDANCE WITH CROSS SECTION "UT" ON SHEET C1.03 AND CITY OF HANFORD STANDARD DETAIL ST-41. 5. LANDSCAPE SLEEVES SHOWN ON PLANS FOR CLARITY, CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM LOCATIONS WITH MOST RECENT LANDSCAPE PLANS.

6. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CONCRETE SUPPORT FOR PIPES WITH LESS THAN 1' OF SEPARATION.
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 27+50

PROFILE SCALE

HORIZONTAL

VERTICAL
FINISHED GRADE @ SD PIPE
EXISTING GRADE @ SD PIPE
EX 30"SS EX 30"SS SDMH-251 60" SDMH STA: 23+65.18 RIM: 231.05 IN INV: 221.78(36")W OUT INV: 221.78(36")E SDMH-250 60" SDMH STA: 20+50.00 RIM: 230.43 IN INV: 222.16(29")N OUT INV: 222.16(36")ESDMH-EX4 STA: 27+14.49 RIM: 229.98 OUT INV: 221.26(36")S IN INV: 221.36(36")WIN INV: 221.36(33")E SSMH-169 STA: 23+85.81 RIM: 230.92 IN INV: 219.65(8")N IN INV: 218.40(30")W OUT INV: 218.40(30")E EX 18"W EX 18"W EX. 8" VALVE STA: 23+63.17 EX. 8" VALVE STA: 23+73.17 EX. 8"X8"X6" TEE STA: 23+34.48 8" TEE STA: 23+68.17 EX. FIRE HYDRANT STA: 20+16.58 EX. IRR PIPE CROSSING.

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY
CROSSING.CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ENGINEER OF
ANY CONFLICTS IMMEDIATELY.
315 LF 36"SD S=0.0012

REMOVE EX SD-STUB AND
CONNECT TO EX. SDMH
349 LF 36"SD S=0.0012
ICV
228.0
225.0
224.0
225.0
225.0
222.0
223.0
224.0
226.0
227.0
228.0
229.0
223.0
222.0
224.0
223.0
221.0
222.0
225.0
220.54 CC
221.08 EG
220.54 CC
220.90 EG
223.30 EG
224.04 EG
222.39 EG
224.75 EG 36"S
D
FUTURE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

KEY MAP
NTS
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
10+00 11+00 SDMH-EX4 STA: 10+00.00 RIM: 229.98 OUT INV: 221.26(36")S IN INV: 221.36(36")W IN INV: 221.36(33")E EX. SS PIPE STA: 9+62.49 INV: 218.21 EX. W PIPE STA: 9+72.01 INV: 225.60 33 LF 36"SD
S=0.0080
EX 36"SD SD- OUTFALL-O4A STA: 10+40.04 RIM: 222.93 IN INV: 220.94(36")N EXISTING GRADE @ SD PIPE
HWL: 221.68'

PROFILE SCALE

HORIZONTAL
VERTICAL EX. SD-36" END STA: 10+07.52 IN INV: 221.20(36")N,S 4' MIN APPROVED
SHEET
NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTIONS REVISIONS NO. CALIFORNIA
JOB #:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN:

DESIGN:

BT / CV

BT / EP
07/28/2022
HANFORD, LIVE OAK EAST PHASE 2 TRACT 865-2 IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR C5.05

APPROVALS

APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE DATA SHOWN, THE CITY OF HANFORD AND THE

UNDERSIGNED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ERRORS AND/OR OMISSIONS THAT MAY BE PRESENT ON THESE PLANS.
__________________________________________________________________________

CITY ENGINEER DATE SLOUGH INTERCONNECT UTILITY PLAN

AS SHOWN
0 1" =
40 20 40
40'

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY CROSSING. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY
ENGINEER OF ANY CONFLICTS IMMEDIATELY. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING STUB ELEVATION.. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY
ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCY IMMEDIATELY.

BOTTOM

OF BASIN
NOTES:

1. WIDTH OF ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION TO
EXTEND MINIMUM 3' ON EACH SIDE OF
DISCHARGE STRUCTURE. RIPRAP SHALL

SLOPE FROM THE EDGE OF THE
STRUCTURE TO EXISTING GROUND.

2. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS A, 6
SACK (3250 PSI)
12" SCARIFIED & RECOMPACTED
SUBGRADE TO 95% R.D.

DISCHARGE STRUCTURE
3"-6" COBBLE RIPRAP,
MINIMUM 18" THICK AT

STRUCTURE EDGE
3"-6" COBBLE RIPRAP, MINIMUM
18" THICK AT STRUCTURE EDGE
ALL SIDES. EXTEND TO THE

BOTTOM OF THE BASIN

PLAN VIEW

SECTION
#5 HOOP 36" SD PIPE
INV: 222.33
CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 1/8" x 1"

STEEL BAR TRASH GRATE WELDED
AT 2" INTERVALS ALL SIDES AND
EPOXY COATED GRID.
4:1 MAX
36" RCP STORM DRAIN PIPE
.25"/FT SLOPE

EXISTING IRRIGATION LINE

BASIN SIDE SLOPE
HWL: ±221.68'
1 ADDED SLOUGH INTERCONNECT UTILITY PLAN SHEET 12/14/2022 4 2 REVISED SLOUGH INTERCONNECT UTILITY PLAN SHEET 11/07/2023 2 CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE/REPLACE EXISTING
OUTFALL PER DETAIL 2, SHEET C5.05.

CLASS "A" CONC.
#5 @ 12" ALL WAYS
90% RC
(TYP)12" MIN. DEPTH
NOTES:

1. WIDTH OF ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION TO
EXTEND MINIMUM 3' ON EACH SIDE OF
DISCHARGE STRUCTURE. RIPRAP SHALL

SLOPE FROM THE EDGE OF THE
STRUCTURE TO EXISTING GROUND.

2. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS A, 6
SACK (3250 PSI)
12" SCARIFIED & RECOMPACTED
SUBGRADE TO 95% R.D.

DISCHARGE STRUCTURE
3"-6" COBBLE RIPRAP,
MINIMUM 18" THICK AT

STRUCTURE EDGE
3"-6" COBBLE RIPRAP, MINIMUM
18" THICK AT STRUCTURE EDGE
ALL SIDES. EXTEND TO THE

BOTTOM OF THE SLOUGH

PLAN VIEW

SECTION
#5 HOOP
36" SD PIPE
INV:220.94
36" RCP STORM DRAIN PIPE
CLASS "A" CONC.
90% RC
(TYP)12" MIN. DEPTH
3' MIN 6" 6'
6" 18" MIN 12"
4' 16' 2' MIN
6" MIN ABOVE GRADE 12"
9'
6" MIN
3"
3' 48" MIN 6'
6" 18" MIN 48" MIN
ELEV=220.90'
CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 1/8" x 1"

STEEL BAR TRASH GRATE WELDED
AT 2" INTERVALS ALL SIDES AND
EPOXY COATED GRID.

SOFFIT
INV:223.94

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY
CROSSING OF SEWER AND WATER. CONTRACTOR TO
NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY CONFLICTS IMMEDIATELY.

IF THERE IS A BELL IN THE WATERMAIN AT THE PIPE

CROSSING, ADJUST ALIGNMENT AND MOVE SDMH
250 TO THE EAST SO BELL IS NOT IN SADDLE AND
PIPE SEPERATION IS MAXIMIZED OR - DROP 18" WM TO
CLEAR UNDER SD, CENTERED ON FULL WM STICK.

8.5'
8' MIN. 17'
#5 @ 12" EACH WAY

THROUGHOUT STRUCTURE
#5 @ 12" EACH WAY

THROUGHOUT STRUCTURE

DISCHARGE STRUCTURE

DISCHARGE STRUCTURE
3 REVISED 24" SD PIPE TO 36" AND 29"X45" ELLIPTICAL PIPES 11/07/2023 3 3
6" TYP

CONSTRUCT CUT-OFF WALL

AROUND ENTIRE PERIMETER
3" CUTOFF WALL

0.64% 222.44 FL END
6" FUTURE R/W
4:1 MAX
BACKFILL 90% R.C.

0.5%
6"
4" WALL
225.77
4 HWL: 221.68'
4:1 MAX
HWL: 226.50'
4 CHANGE TO WEIR BOX - 60"X60" AND CORRECTIONS
MATCH - 221.0±

BOTTOM OF SLOUGH
10/11/2024

Page 380 of 1565 ends

Hanford City CouncilMay 19, 2026

Hanford City Council
May 19, 2026