Riverside City Council
July 5, 2022

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-06662 2007 HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT:

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 145-030-006
AND -007, CITY OF RIVERSIDE,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
TANG, BAI "TOM", CRM TECH

MICHAEL HOGAN,

DEIRDRE
ENCARNACION, and

DANIEL BALLESTER
NADB-R - 1088029; 33-015677
Submitter - CRM

TECH CONTRACT
#1993
RI-06872 2004 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Perry Cellular Site, FCC CA-8551, at 3834
Megginson Lane, City of Riverside, Riverside
County, California
Hanna, Jr., David C., SWCA, Inc.

Jason Miller, and Alex
Wesson
Submitter - SWCA
7448-168
RI-06873 2003 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Lea Wilkins Cellular Site, FCC CA-8550C, at
10785 Hole Avenue, City of Riverside,
Riverside County, California
SWCA Inc., Mission Viejo,
CA
Other - RESCOM David C. Hanna, Jr.
1102-03;
Submitter - SWCA
7447-151; RESCOM
1102-03
RI-06893 2002 Negative Property Survey Report: SR-91,
Post Mile 11.5-12.1, Riverside County
Submitter - BOE130 McLean, Deborah K.B LSA Associates, Inc.

RI-07059 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment for Cingular Wireless Facility SB156-01 City of Riverside
Riverside County, California
Carolyn E. Kyle Kyle Consulting
RI-07237 2002 Archaeological Resource Assessment for
AT&T Wireless Services Facility No. D029.2,
Riverside County, California
Curt Duke LSA Associates, Inc.

RI-07329 2007 Cultural Resource Records Search Results
and Site Visit for Royal Street
Communications, LLC Facility Candidate
LA2385D (Tyler Village), 10170 Indiana
Avenue, Riverside, Riverside County,
California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne and
Aislin-Kay, Marnie
RI-08171 2008 Cultural Resources Assessment Public
Safety Enterprise Communication Project
Riverside, Orange, San Bernadino, and San
Diego Counties, FM 04174400010
Michael Brandman
Associates
Jennifer M. Sanka and
Marnie Aislin-Kay
RI-08247 2009 Identification and Evaluation of Historical Properties, Arlington Desalter System
Expansion Project, City of Riverside County,
California
Bai "Tom" Tang and CRM TECH, Colton, CA
Michael Hogan
33-004495, 33-004791, 33-010974,
33-011361, 33-011579
Submitter - CRM
TECH Contract No.
2346
RI-08988 2013 Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report For SR-91Corridor Improvement Project, City
Of Corona, Riverside County, California,
California Department Of Transportation,
District 8
Parsons, California
Department of
Transportation, District 8
Caltrans - EA: Susan L. Bupp
0F540, PM ORE-91-
R14.43/R18.91; RIV91R0.00/R13.04; RIV15-35.64/45.14

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-08989 2013 Supplemental Finding Of No Adverse Effect Report For SR-91 Corridor Improvement
Project, City Of Corona, Riverside County,
California, California Department Of
Transportation, District 8
Caltrans - EA: 0F540 Carrie Chasteen Parsons
PM ORA-91-
R14.43/RI18.91; RIV91-R0.00/R13.04
RI-09390 2014 A Cultural Resource Report for the La Sierra Pipeline and Reach G Element of the
Western Municipal Water District's RiversideCorona Feeder Project, Riverside, California Tracy A. Stropes and
Brian F. Smith
RI-09484 2015 Cultural Resources Report: Metrolink La
Sierra Parking Lot Expansion Project
Riverside, California
Margaret Diss and Amy HDR, Inc.

Gusick
RI-09666 2016 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Lisbon Monopine Project, City of Riverside, Riverside
County, California (BCR Consulting Project
No. TRF 1609)
David Brunzell BCR Consulting
RI-09787 2016 A Cultural Resource Report for the La Sierra Pipeline and Reach G Element of the
Western Municipal Water District's RiversideCorona Feeder Project Tracy A. Stropes and Brian F. Smith & Associates
Brian F. Smith
RI-09875 2016 Addendum to Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey Arlington Basin Water
Quality Improvement Project City of
Riverside, Riverside County, California CRM
TECH Project No. 2346/3055
Other - CRM TECH Bai "Tom" Tang CRM TECH
Project No.
2346/3055
RI-10002 1999 FINAL PRELIMINARY CULTURAL

RESOURCES REPORT FOR THE

ARLINGTON REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT

MYRA L FRANK &
ASSOCIATES, INC.

MYRA L FRANK
RI-10057 1998 CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS

SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW FOR

A PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY: CM
149-08 CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
ROGER D MASON and CHAMBERS GROUP INC

WAYNE H BONNER
IC Record Search
Nbr - 1939;
Other - 6530C
RI-10479 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment Prepared for:

Colleen Dooley, Cingular Wireless, SB-195-
02, Harold's Saloon, 3834 Megginson Lane,
Riverside, CA 92503
Don Lewis The Alaris Group, LLC

ATTACHMENT B
Sacred Lands File Coordination
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

January 20, 2021
John O’Connor
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Kaiser Riverside Hospital Project, Riverside County Dear Mr. O’Connor:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

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

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Shane Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Denisa Torres, Cultural Resources
Manager
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 849 - 8807
Fax: (951) 922-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 849 - 8807
Fax: (951) 922-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Rd.

Pala, CA, 92059
Phone: (760) 891 - 3515
Fax: (760) 742-3189
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians
Mark Macarro, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6000
Fax: (951) 695-1778
[email protected]
Luiseno
1 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Kaiser Riverside Hospital Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2021-
000297
01/20/2021 10:59 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
1/20/2021
Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians
Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources
Coordinator
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6306
Fax: (951) 506-9491
[email protected]
Luiseno
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
[email protected]
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 749 - 1051
Fax: (760) 749-5144
[email protected]
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 297 - 2635
[email protected]
Luiseno
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Scott Cozart, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92583
Phone: (951) 654 - 2765
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
2 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Kaiser Riverside Hospital Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2021-
000297
01/20/2021 10:59 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
1/20/2021
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Michael Mirelez, Cultural
Resource Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 399 - 0022
Fax: (760) 397-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
3 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Kaiser Riverside Hospital Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2021-
000297
01/20/2021 10:59 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
1/20/2021

1 John O'Connor
From: Quechan Historic Preservation Officer <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:35 AM
To: John O'Connor
Subject: Kaiser Riverside Hospital Project, Riverside County, CA This email is to inform you that we have no comments on this project.  We defer to the more local Tribes and support their decisions on the project.

Thank you,
H. Jill McCormick, M.A.

Quechan Indian Tribe
Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ 85366‐1899
Office:  760‐572‐2423
Cell: 928‐261‐0254
E‐mail:  [email protected]
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Virus-free. www.avast.com
1 John O'Connor
From: Cheryl Madrigal <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:15 AM
To: John O'Connor
Cc: Deneen Pelton
Subject: Kaiser Riverside Hospital Project
Attachments: Kaiser Riverside Hospital Project.pdf
Hi John,
Please see attached response letter to above mentioned project.  If you have any questions or comments, please contact us.

Thank you for the opportunity to protect our cultural assets.

Cheryl
Cheryl Madrigal
Cultural Resources Manager
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cultural Resources Department
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
1 West Tribal Road | Valley Center, CA 92082
Office:760‐297‐2635 ext. 323|Cell: 760‐648‐3000
Fax: 760‐749‐8901
Email: cmadrigal@rincon‐nsn.gov
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.

Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians

CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
One Government Center Lane | Valley Center | CA 92082
(760) 749-1051 | Fax: (760) 749-8901 | rincon-nsn.gov
Bo Mazzetti
Chairman
Tishmall Turner
Vice Chair
Laurie E. Gonzalez
Council Member
John Constantino
Council Member
Joseph Linton
Council Member
February 24, 2021
Sent only via email to: [email protected]
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Environmental Consultant
John. T. O’Connor
3838 Camino del Rio North, Suite 370
San Diego, CA 92108
Re: Kaiser Riverside Hospital Project, Riverside County, California Dear Dr. O’Connor,
This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (“Rincon Band” or “Band”), a federally recognized Indian Tribe and sovereign government. We have received your notification regarding the above referenced project and we thank you for the opportunity to provide information pertaining to cultural resources. The identified location is within the Traditional Use Area of the Luiseño people, and is also within Rincon’s specific area of Historic interest.

Embedded in these cultural resources within the Luiseño territory are Rincon’s history, culture and identity. We do not have knowledge of cultural resources within the proposed project area. However, this does not mean that none exist. We recommend that an archaeological record search be conducted and ask that a copy of the results be provided to the Rincon Band.

If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience at (760) 297-2635 or via electronic mail at [email protected]. We look forward to working together to protect and preserve our cultural assets.

Sincerely,
Cheryl Madrigal
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cultural Resources Manager
From: Gonzalez Romero, Arysa (TRBL)
To: John O"Connor
Subject: Kaiser Riverside Hospital Project, Riverside Co, CA Date: Thursday, March 11, 2021 11:46:13 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Greetings,
A records check of the Tribal Historic preservation office’s cultural registry revealed that this project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. Therefore, we defer to the other tribes in the area. This letter shall conclude our consultation efforts.

Thank you,
Arysa Gonzalez Romero
Historic Preservation Technician
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Main (760)-883-1327 | Cell (760)-831-2484

ATTACHMENT C
Project Area Photographs

DPR 523i (9/2013)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
PHOTOGRAPH RECORD Trinomial
Camera Format: Digital Lens Size: Film Type and Speed: N/A Negatives Kept at: ECORP Consulting, Inc. 3838 Camino del Rio North, Suite 370 San Diego, CA 92108 Photographer:__JA________________________________ Mo. Day Time Exp./Frame Subject/Description View Toward Accession # 02 26 0820 1 Hospital building 1 N 20210226_082012
02 26 0820 2 Hospital building 3 NE 20210226_082018
02 26 0821 3 Hospital southeast E 20210226_082100
02 26 0825 4 Hospital building 2 NW 20210226_082527
02 26 0825 5 East boundary S 20210226_082559
02 26 0829 6 North east corner SW 20210226_082956
02 26 0833 7 Between parking garages W 20210226_083323
02 26 0938 8 Hospital from NE corner SE 20210226_083837 02 26 0849 9 Between medical buildings W 20210226_084916 02 26 0902 10 Lot access hospital, APN 142-293-028 NW 20210226_090219 02 26 0903 11 Lot access hospital, APN 142-293-028 W 20210226_090304 02 26 0903 12 Lot access hospital, APN 142-293-028 SW 20210226_090335 02 26 0918 13 NE area (small lot), APN 143-180-032 N 20210226_091845 02 26 0918 14 NE area (small lot), APN 143-180-032 W 20210226_091852 02 26 0919 15 NE area (small lot), APN 143-180-032 S 20210226_091952 02 26 0920 16 NE area (small lot), APN 143-180-032 W 20210226_092034 02 26 0924 17 NE large lot, APN 143-180-028 W 20210226_092450 02 26 0925 18 NE large lot, APN 143-180-028 S 20210226_092558 02 26 0927 19 NE large lot, APN 143-180-028 SE 20210226_092753 02 26 0928 20 NE large lot, APN 143-180-028 SE 20210226_092809 02 26 0947 21 SW lot, APN 132-020-033 S 20210226_094207 02 26 0942 22 Debris, APN 132-020-033 SE 20210226_094215 02 26 0945 23 From NE corner, APN 132-020-033 SW 20210226_094505 02 26 0945 24 From NE corner, APN 132-020-033 SW 20210226_094543 02 26 0946 25 From NE corner, APN 132-020-033 W 20210226_094609 02 26 0953 26 APN 132-020-033 SE 20210226_095352

ATTACHMENT D
Resumes
John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA
Southern California Cultural Resources Manager
John O’Connor, Ph.D., is a Registered Professional Archaeologist with over 11 years of archaeological experience in North America and the Pacific Islands, experience that includes cultural resources management, academic research, museum collections management, and university teaching. Dr.

O’Connor meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology. He has worked on professional and academic projects throughout California, Oregon, Hawai’i, French Polynesia, and the Kingdom of Tonga. Dr. O’Connor is currently the Southern California Cultural Resources Manager for ECORP Consulting, Inc., where he serves as a Principal Investigator, Project Manager, Task Manager, and Field Director for cultural resources management projects in San Diego and throughout the State of California.

Dr. O’Connor has extensive archaeological field experience, including exploratory and inventory survey, feature mapping, subsurface testing, data recovery, artifact analysis, lithic analysis, remote sensing data capture, geospatial data processing, underwater archaeology, and scientific diving. He is well versed in the evaluation of impacts to cultural resources for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 projects, the review of archaeological and ethnographic reports for agreement with Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) protocol, and the recovery and handling of cultural materials in accordance with Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) compliance recommendations. Dr. O’Connor has applied knowledge of inter-institutional coordination with Native American and Native Hawaiian organizations for the ethical treatment of ethnographic and archaeological resources. He has written or otherwise contributed to environmental compliance documents at the federal, state, and local level, including Findings of Effect (FOE), Historic Property Treatment Plans (HPTP), Environmental Assessments (EA), Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), and numerous technical studies and project reports.

Education
2013-19 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of Oregon
- Committee: Jon Erlandson, Scott Fitzpatrick, Frances White, Scott Pratt - Dissertation: Historical Ecology and Community Patterning at Raʻiātea, Society Islands, French Polynesia
2016-18 Advanced Certificate of Completion, Graduate Teaching Initiative, Teaching Engagement Program, University of Oregon
- TEP Advisor: Jason Schreiner, Faculty Mentor: Frances White 2012-13 M.A., Anthropology, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa - Committee: Terry Hunt, Richard Gould, Christian Peterson John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

- Papers: Settlement Patterning and Community Organization in Polynesia; Isotope Analysis in Pacific Archaeology: Methods and Applications; Chronology, Settlement, and Social Interaction at Koʻolau, Oʻahu: Proposal for Archaeological Research
2010-12 B.A. (Highest Honors), Anthropology, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa - Committee: Terry Hunt, Carl Lipo, Ethan Cochrane
- Thesis: Fishhook Variability in East Polynesia
2009-10 Archaeological Training (San Diego focus), San Diego City College - Faculty Mentor: Stephen J. Bouscaren
Registrations, Certifications, Permits and Affiliations  Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA# 36341398)  American Academy of Underwater Sciences (AAUS) 100-Hour Scientific Diver  National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI) Rescue Scuba Diver  National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI) Advanced Open Water Diver  Bureau of Land Management, California Cultural Resource Use Permit - Field Director  Bureau of Land Management, Nevada Cultural Resource Use Permit - Principal Investigator  State of Nevada Antiquities Permit - Field Director
 Permitted Archaeologist, Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources  Qualified Archaeologist, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office  Orange County Certified Archaeologist
 Riverside County Qualified Archaeologist
 California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Authorized User  Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) 40-hour Training (with 8-hour refresher updates)
 EMS Adult, Pediatric, and Infant First Aid and Basic Life Support (CPR/AED)  Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society
 Phi Beta Kappa Society
 American Association for the Advancement of Science
 Association of Environmental Professionals
 Society for American Archaeology
 Society for California Archaeology
 Society for Hawaiian Archaeology
 San Diego County Archaeological Society
John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

Selected Professional Experience
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Emergency Vehicle Operations Center (EVOC), Los Angeles County – Los Angeles County Public Works (2020-ongoing). Principal Investigator and Project Manager for cultural resources surveys and construction monitoring at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s EVOC Project at the Pitchess Detention Center. Duties include management of archaeologists for cultural resources survey, management of Native American monitors and tribal compliance monitors for construction monitoring, coordination with lead agency and construction personnel, coordination with Native American tribal representatives, and reporting.

San Marcos Staff Augmentation, San Diego County – City of San Marcos, sub to Harris & Associates (2020-ongoing). Principal Investigator and Project Manager providing AB 52 and SB 18 support for the City of San Marcos, California. Duties include management and tracking of AB 52 and SB 18 tribal consultation processes for City projects, assisting planners with data organization, maintenance of the administrative record, tribal outreach and consultation, staff education on cultural resources issues, and technical writing and editing.
1395 East Washington Street Hotel, San Bernardino County – City of Colton Development Services Department (2020-ongoing). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for cultural resources inventory in the City of Colton, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, direction of field archaeologists, and reporting.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion, Riverside County – Michael Baker International (2020-ongoing). Principal Investigator and Project Manager for cultural resources inventory in the City of Riverside, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, direction of field archaeologists, coordination with Native American Tribes, and reporting.

Surf Ranch CUP Amendment 2020, Kings County – Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (2020- ongoing). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for 33.51 cultural resources inventory in support of in Lemoore, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, direction of field archaeologists, and technical writing as report author.

Vega SES 2, 2b, and 3, Imperial County – ZGlobal (2020-ongoing). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for cultural resources inventory in support of proposed solar field project in Imperial County, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, direction of field archaeologists, and technical writing as report author.

Vega SES 2 and 5, Imperial County – ZGlobal (2020-ongoing). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for cultural resources inventory in support of proposed solar field project in Imperial County, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, direction of field archaeologists, and technical writing as report author.

San Felipe Fan Plot Studies, Imperial County – Imperial Irrigation District Water Department (2020-ongoing). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for 191-acre cultural resources inventory in Imperial County, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, management of field archaeologists, and technical writing as report author.

Clubhouse Plot Studies, Imperial County – Imperial Irrigation District Water Department (2020- ongoing). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for 128.71-acre cultural resources inventory in Imperial County, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, management of field archaeologists, technical writing as report author, and Section 106 tribal consultation assistance to Bureau of Reclamation.

Holtville Pine Crossing Family Apartments, Imperial County – AMG & Associates, LLC (2020- ongoing). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for 2.07-acre cultural resources inventory in support of a proposed housing project in the City of Holtville, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field survey, recording of cultural resources, and technical writing as report author.

Vega SES 6, Imperial County – ZGlobal (2020-ongoing). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for cultural resources inventory in support of proposed solar field project in Imperial County, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, direction of field archaeologists, and technical writing as report author.

Cardiff School Modernization and Reconstruction Project, San Diego County – Cardiff School District (2019-ongoing). Principal Investigator and Assistant Project Manager for archaeological monitoring of ground disturbing activities associated with rebuild of Cardiff Elementary School in Encinitas, California. Duties include project management, direction of cultural resources monitors, lead agency coordination, worker awareness training, coordination with paleontological and Native American monitors, and reporting.

John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

Brawley Farmworker Housing, Imperial County – AMG & Associates, LLC (2020-21). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for 4.64-acre cultural resources inventory in support of a proposed housing project in the City of Brawley, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field survey, recording of historic-period structure, and technical writing as report author.

Vega IID S-Line, Imperial County – Apex Energy Solutions, LLC (2020-21). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for 18-mile linear cultural resources inventory in Imperial County, California.

Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, direction of field archaeologists, and technical writing as report author.

Vega SES 4, Imperial County – Vega SES 4, LLC (2020-21). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for 528-acre cultural resources inventory followed by subsurface testing and evaluation of resources in southern Imperial County, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, shovel-testpit excavation, artifact analysis, archival research, and technical writing as report author.

El Centro Town Center Village Phase IV, Imperial County – City of El Centro, sub to Michael Baker International (2020). Principal Investigator and Assistant Project Manager for 11.6-acre cultural resources inventory in El Centro, California. Duties include records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, client coordination, field survey, and reporting.
1967 North Vulcan Avenue, San Diego County – Vulcan Encinitas LLC (2020). Principal Investigator and Project Manager for cultural resources inventory in Encinitas, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, and technical writing as report author.

Casa De Oro Library, San Diego County – County of San Diego, sub to Michael Baker International (2020). Cultural Task Manager for cultural resources inventory of 2.24-acre property in the community of Casa De Oro, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, and technical writing as report author.

Equus Winery Project, San Diego County – Ballena Vista Farm, sub to Michael Baker International (2020). Cultural Task Manager for cultural resources inventory of 40-acre property in Ramona, California.

Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, and technical writing as report author.

Sunshine Gardens Project, San Diego County – Sunshine Encinitas, LLC (2020). Principal Investigator and Project Manager for cultural resources inventory in Encinitas, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, and technical writing as report author.

Beverly Drive Emergency Improvements Project, San Diego County – City of Vista, sub to Harris & Associates (2020). Principal Investigator and Project Manager for cultural resources tasks associated with emergency improvements to collapsing road embankment in Vista, California. Duties include cultural resources technical study, records searches of the California Historical Resources Information System and the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field survey, documentation and evaluation of cultural resources, report author, direction of archaeological monitors, coordination with Native American monitors, Native American consultation, and lead agency coordination with the City and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Montiel Lift Station and Force Main Replacement Project, San Diego County – Vallecitos Water District, sub to Michael Baker International (2020). Principal Investigator and Project Manager for cultural resources survey in anticipation of sewer repair and replacement project in San Marcos, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, AB 52 agency guidance and support, and technical writing as report author.

Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update EIR, San Bernardino County - City of Rancho Cucamonga, sub to PlaceWorks, Inc. (2020). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for creation of spatial sensitivity model for cultural resource planning as part of the 2020 General Plan Update in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Duties include California Historical Resources Information System records requests, document and site record review, evaluation of spatial data, map creation, coordination with city officials, AB 52 guidance and support, and technical writing as author of sensitivity model document and co-author of existing conditions report.

Com-Power Building Addition Project, Orange County – Com-Power Corporation (2020). Senior Archaeologist and Senior Reviewer for cultural resources survey for proposed industrial building addition in Lake Forest, California. Duties include field inventory survey, cultural resources recording, document editing, formatting, and review for detail and compliance protocol.

Avenue 66 Grade Separation Project, Riverside County – California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 8, sub to Anser Advisory (2020). Senior Archaeologist for cultural resources monitoring and subsurface testing for development project at Mecca, California. Duties include John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

archaeological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities, documentation of subsurface disturbances, reporting, client coordination, and controlled subsurface testing of cultural resources.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Land Management Plans, South Coast Region, San Diego County – State of California Wildlife Conservation Board, sub to San Diego Natural History Museum (2020). Project Manager for water quality sampling and aquatic resources delineation technical studies at Batiquitos Lagoon, California. Duties include client coordination and direction of staff for technical studies.

Pioneer Bluff / Stone Lock District Project, Yolo County – City of West Sacramento, sub to SCS Engineers (2020). Senior Reviewer for architectural history evaluation report for Buildings and Structures at the William G. Stone Lock Facility, West Sacramento, California. Duties include document editing, formatting, and review for detail and compliance with state and federal evaluation criteria.

McSweeney Farms, Riverside County – Raintree Investment Corporation (2020). Senior Archaeologist and Tribal Liaison for repatriation and reburial of tribal cultural resources in Riverside, California. Duties include laboratory inventory of archaeological materials, coordination with Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, transfer of materials to tribe from third party, and facilitation of confidential reburial.

Fox Point Farms Project, San Diego County – City of Encinitas, sub to Michael Baker International (2020). Principal Investigator and Assistant Project Manager for cultural resources survey in Encinitas, California. Duties include management of cultural resources and paleontological resources tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, evaluations of eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources, and National Register of Historic Places, and technical writing as report author.

The Reserve at Chino Hills Expansion Project, San Bernardino County – City of Chino Hills Community Development Department (2020). Senior Reviewer for cultural resources inventory and evaluation report for project in Chino Hills, California. Duties include document editing, formatting, and review for detail and resource evaluation protocol.

Malibu High School/Middle School Campus Master Plan Project, Los Angeles County – Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, sub to PlaceWorks, Inc. (2020). Senior Archaeologist for historical building evaluation inventory survey of Malibu High School/Middle School and Cabrillo Elementary School in Malibu, California. Duties include field survey, building documentation and resource recording, map analysis, client coordination, and reporting.

Coachella Valley Link Multi-Modal Transportation Corridor Project, Riverside County – Coachella Valley Association of Governments, sub to Anser Advisory (2020). Senior Archaeologist for cultural resource support for 50-mile transportation corridor in the Coachella Valley, California. Duties include cultural document review, cultural resources planning and advisal, scope planning, and direction of cultural resources staff toward fulfillment of mitigation measures associated with project construction.

John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

Valencia Solar Projects, Imperial County – Imperial County Planning and Development Services (2020). Senior Archaeologist for cultural resources monitoring of solar project near Brawley, California.

Duties include archaeological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities, documentation of subsurface disturbances, reporting, and client coordination.

National Environmental Policy Act Review for 10 Sites to be Rehabilitated, Butte County – Housing Authority for the County of Butte (2020). Senior Reviewer for cultural resources and architectural history evaluation report for Buildings at Ten Public Housing Projects and One Administration Building in the cities of Biggs, Chico, Gridley, and Oroville, California. Duties include document editing, formatting, and review for detail and compliance with state and federal evaluation criteria.

Yellen Park Project, Los Angeles County – City of Palmdale, sub to Baranek Consulting Group (2020). Senior Reviewer for cultural resources records search and literature review report. Duties include document editing, formatting, and review for detail and compliance protocol.

The Vintage Lima Property, San Benito County – Richland Real Estate Fund, LLC (2020). Principal Investigator for cultural resources inventory for offsite improvements associated with the Vintage development in San Benito County, California. Duties include authoring of report, data creation and organization, coordination with field archaeologists, and client coordination.

Village Christian School Softball Field Project, Los Angeles County – Village Christian School (2020). Senior Reviewer for cultural resources inventory report for proposed sports field project. Duties include document editing, formatting, and review for detail and compliance protocol.

City of Poway Emergency Permitting, San Diego County – Psomas Engineering (2020). Cultural Task Manager for cultural resources emergency monitoring for sewer repair project in Poway, California.

Duties include management of cultural resources tasks, lead agency and client coordination, direction of archaeologists, and compliance reporting.

Nathan Prenk Cultivation Project, Riverside County – Nathan Prenk (2020). Senior Reviewer for cultural resources inventory report for proposed industrial development project in Desert Hot Springs, California. Duties include document editing, formatting, and review for detail and compliance protocol East Covell Bike Path Project, Yolo County – City of Davis, sub to Rolls, Anderson & Rolls (2020).

Senior Reviewer for cultural resources inventory and evaluation report for bike path project in Davis, California. Duties include document editing, formatting, and review for detail and resource evaluation protocol.

San Joaquin River Fyke Trapping Project, San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties – FISHBIO Environmental, LLC (2020). Senior Reviewer for cultural resources inventory report for proposed project that will install fish traps and supports on the San Joaquin River, California. Duties include document editing, formatting, and review for detail and compliance protocol.

John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

High Desert Solar Project, San Bernardino County – City of Victorville, sub to AECOM (2020).

Principal Investigator for development of testing plan, shovel test pit excavations, and cultural resources monitoring of ground disturbing activities associated with relocation of Joshua Trees in the West Mojave Desert. Duties include development of testing plan for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, direction of field crews, cultural resources monitoring, coordination with contractors, coordination with Native American monitors, and report writing as author of testing report.

Lemon Grove Sewer Replacement Project, San Diego County – City of Lemon Grove, sub to Michael Baker International (2019-20). Principal Investigator and Project Manager for cultural resources study and Native American consultation for sewer replacement project in Lemon Grove, California. Duties include project management, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field survey, client and lead agency coordination, technical writing as report author, and Native American consultation and AB 52 guidance and support on behalf of the lead agency.

CIP 8200 Green Oak Trunk Sewer Replacement Project, San Diego County – Buena Sanitation District, sub to Butier Engineering, Inc. (2019-20). Principal Investigator and Project Manager for environmental compliance monitoring for City of Vista and Buena Sanitation District Sewer Master Plan Update project in Vista, California. Duties include management of environmental resources tasks (biology, archaeology, paleontology), lead agency and client coordination, direction of archaeologists and paleontologists, coordination with Native American monitors, archaeological monitoring of ground disturbing activities, and compliance reporting.

Otay Lakes County Park Sewer-Septic Project, San Diego County – County of San Diego, sub to Michael Baker International (2019-20). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for feasibility study related to the proposed revision and update of the wastewater disposal system at Otay Lakes County Park. Duties include records search with the California Historical Resources Information System, analysis of proposed alternatives for potential impacts to cultural resources, and technical writing as report author.

Bonita Direct Transfer Facility Pump Station Project, San Diego County – City of San Diego, sub to Michael Baker International (2019-20). Principal Investigator and Assistant Project Manager for archaeological monitoring of utility potholing for City of San Diego project. Duties include project management, monitoring of ground disturbance activities, coordination with Native American monitor, lead agency and client coordination, and technical writing as report author.

Hermosa Beach North School Reconstruction Project, Los Angeles County – Hermosa Beach City School District (2019-20). Principal Investigator and Assistant Project Manager for archaeological and paleontological monitoring of ground disturbing activities associated with rebuild of the North School in Hermosa Beach, California. Duties include project management, direction of cultural resources monitors, lead agency coordination, worker awareness training, coordination with paleontological and Native American monitors, and reporting.

John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

Cook’s Crack Sea Cave Stabilization Project, San Diego County – City of San Diego, sub to TerraCosta (2019). Principal Investigator and Assistant Project Manager for emergency stabilization project at Cook’s Crack Sea Cave located beneath Coast Boulevard in La Jolla, California. The project was initiated by the City of San Diego to prevent collapse of the sea cave and destruction of the coastal road located to the east of La Jolla Cove. Duties include direction and management of archaeological monitors, paleontological monitors, and Native American monitors; management of sub-contractors; monitoring of ground disturbance during drilling; coordination with lead agency and client; development of the Post Review Discovery and Monitoring Plan; and compliance reporting.

Gas Company Road Technical Studies, Kern County – ZGlobal (2019). Principal Investigator and Cultural Task Manager for 60-acre cultural resources survey of decommissioned gas field for redevelopment as solar field in Taft, California. Duties include project management of all cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, evaluation of eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources, completion of DPR 523 forms, California Environmental Quality Act compliance recommendations, and technical writing as report author.

Mar Vista High School Aquatics Center, San Diego County – Sweetwater Union High School DIstrict, sub to PlaceWorks (2019). Senior Archaeologist for historical evaluation and archaeological assessment for high school redevelopment project in Imperial Beach, California. Duties include archival research at the San Diego Historical Society, records search of the California Historical Resources Information System, field survey, and historical building recording and documentation.

Martincoit Road Sewer Upsize Project, San Diego County – City of Poway, sub to Psomas (2019).

Cultural Task Manager for cultural resources compliance monitoring for sewer upsize project in Poway, California. Duties include management of cultural resources tasks, lead agency and client coordination, direction of archaeologists, archaeological monitoring of ground disturbing activities, and compliance reporting.

Badger Fire Station Replacement Project, Fresno County – California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), under On-Call Contract with California Department of General Services Real Estate Services Division (2019). Report Author for cultural resources monitoring report for the Badger Fire Station Replacement Project, Miramonte, California. Duties include review of data, coordination with field archaeologist, compliance verification, and technical writing as report author.

Carpenter Ranch, Folsom South of U.S. Highway 50 Specific Plan Project, Sacramento County – Carpenter Ranch, LLC and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2019). Senior Archaeologist and Report Co-Author, archival researcher, and interpretive panel designer for multitask project in Sacramento County, California. Duties include archival research, review of data, writing of Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and creation of public outreach interpretive panels for a lateral of the Rhoades’ Branch Ditch of the Natomas Ditch System.

John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

Sewer Line Repair/Replace 16/17 Project, San Diego County – City of Poway, sub to Psomas (2019). Principal Investigator and Assistant Project Manager for cultural resources survey in anticipation of sewer repair and replacement project in Poway, California. Duties include management of cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, and technical writing as report author.

La Costa Hotel Project, San Diego County – City of Encinitas, sub to dasMOD Real Estate Development (2019). Assistant Project Manager for archaeological presence-absence testing and site delineation for a private development project in Encinitas, California. Duties include project management, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, direction of field archaeologists, auger testing to for site boundary delineation, client coordination, and technical writing as report author.

Placer County Conservation Plan, Placer County – Salix Consulting, Inc. (2019). Senior Archaeologist and Co-Author for Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) in support of the Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP), California. Duties include review and edits to the CRMP, development of scenario tables for guiding compliance, and review of guidance for development of Programmatic Agreement and Section 106 and CEQA compliance for the 209,000-acre conservation plan.

Antelope Valley Research Design, Los Angeles and Kern Counties – California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 7 (2019). Archival Researcher for Antelope Valley Research Design.

Duties include review of archival data and information related to Native American rock art located within the Antelope Valley study area.

Vista Village Drive Trunk Sewer Project Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 8212, San Diego County – City of Vista, sub to Harris & Associates (2018-20). Principal Investigator and Project Manager for archaeological monitoring of trench excavation related to City of Vista and Buena Sanitation District Sewer Master Plan Update projects in Vista, California. Duties include project management, direction of archaeologists and Native American monitors, California Environmental Quality Act document review and advisal, lead agency and client coordination, archaeological monitoring of excavation and pipe replacement activities, and technical writing as report co-author.

Cultural Resources Monitoring Services for Emergency Tree Removal Project Along State Routes 49 and 174, Placer, Nevada, El Dorado and Yuba Counties – California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 3 (2018-19). Senior Reviewer for monitoring report on cultural resources monitoring for tree removal in proximity to cultural resources along State Routes 49 and 174.

Duties include document editing, formatting, and review for detail and compliance with project-specific mitigation measures and monitoring protocol.

Potrero CAL FIRE Station Replacement Project, San Diego County – California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), under On-Call Contract with California Department of General Services Real Estate Services Division (2018-19). Cultural Task Manager for archaeological John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

inventory survey of 5.98-acre parcel in the community of Potrero, San Diego County, California. Duties include project management of all cultural resource tasks, lead agency and client coordination, consultation with Native American tribal representatives, records searches of California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, evaluation of eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources, completion of DPR 523 forms, California Environmental Quality Act compliance recommendations, and technical writing as report author.

Environmental Planning, Design, and Regulatory Permitting Services for Metropolitan Airpark at Brown Field Municipal Airport, San Diego County – Metropolitan Airpark LLC (2018-19). Senior Archaeologist for review and edits of environmental documents for Metropolitan Airpark Project at Brown Field Municipal Airport (SDM) in Otay Mesa, San Diego. Duties include analysis of cultural resource management procedures, editing of Environmental Assessment (EA) documents for National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 and National Environmental Policy Act compliance, and recommendations for treatment of cultural resources within the area of potential effects for the airport redevelopment project.

Feather River West Levee Project, Sutter County - Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency (2018-19).

Senior Archaeologist and Report Author for review and analysis of cultural monitoring activities for multiple project task orders and special projects in Sutter County, California. Duties include review of site records and monitoring reports, coordination with on-site archaeological monitors, results analysis, report editing, tribal consultation, graphic design, preparation of educational outreach materials, and technical writing as author of archaeological inventory reports and contributor to associated California Environmental Quality Act and National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 documents. Project elements include Reaches 14-16, Laurel Avenue, Sutter Basin, and the Oroville Wildlife Refuge.

Centennial Reservoir Project, Nevada County – Nevada Irrigation District (2018-19). Senior Archaeologist and Co-Author for project-related cultural resources documents in Nevada County, California. Duties include provision of AB 52 support for tribal consultation and editing of cultural resources inventory and evaluation addendum report that documented testing and evaluation of eligibility for archaeological resources on 68-acre property in an unincorporated portion of western Nevada County, California.

Thibodo to Watson Way Upsize and Realignment Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 8202, San Diego County – Buena Sanitation District, sub to Harris & Associates (2018). Assistant Project Manager for archaeological monitoring of trench excavation for City of Vista and Buena Sanitation District Sewer Master Plan Update projects in Vista, California. Duties include project management, direction of archaeologists and Native American monitors, California Environmental Quality Act document review, lead agency and client coordination, archaeological monitoring of excavation and pipe replacement activities, and technical writing as report co-author.

Walnut Road and Taylor Avenue, Stanislaus County – City of Turlock (2018). Tribal Liaison providing outreach support for consultation between the agency and California Native American Tribes John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

in Turlock, California. Duties include telephone calls to Native American representatives and creation of administrative record for documentation of tribal concerns and project interest.

San Dieguito Valley Groundwater Desalination Pilot Project, San Diego County – Olivenhain Municipal Water District, sub to Woodard & Curran (2018). Assistant Project Manager and Cultural Task Manager in charge of cultural resources assessment in support of California Environmental Quality Act compliance for test well discharge pilot project area in San Diego, California. Duties include project management of all cultural resource tasks, coordination with client and biological assessment group, records searches of the California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, evaluation of eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources, and technical writing as report author.

Common Diversion Facility Project, Madera County – County of Madera and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2018). Report Author for Finding of Effect and Historic Property Treatment Plan document for the Common Diversion Facility Project in Madera County, California. This analysis was completed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and in support of a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit from the Sacramento District of the USACE. Duties included analysis of federal and state regulations, review of cultural resources inventory documents, application of criteria of adverse effect, and the development of the Historic Properties Treatment Plan for historic properties within the project APE.

Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan, El Dorado County – County of El Dorado and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, sub to Serrano Associates, LLC (2018). Archaeologist and Report Author for analysis of findings and determination of effects to cultural resources during construction of residential development in El Dorado Hills, California. Duties include cultural resources records search, literature review, evaluation of impacts to Pedregal Archaeological District under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the California Environmental Quality Act, application of criteria of adverse effect, and technical writing as author of finding of effect report and historic property treatment plan. 153a Recycled Water Pipeline Extension Project, San Diego County – Olivenhain Municipal Water District, sub to Woodard & Curran (2018). Assistant Project Manager and Cultural Task Manager in charge of cultural resources assessment in support of California Environmental Quality Act compliance for recycled water service project area in San Diego, California. Duties include project management of all cultural resource tasks, coordination with client and biological assessment group, records searches of the California Historical Resources Information System and Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File, field inventory survey, evaluation of eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources, and technical writing as report author.

Granite Aerojet Mining Project, Sacramento County – Granite Construction (2018). Archaeologist performing edits to cultural resources records search and literature review report in support of lead agency determination regarding impacts to Historical Resources, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, at Alder Creek, California.

John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

Bridge Street Widening Project, Sutter County – City of Yuba City (2018). Archaeologist for edits to inventory and evaluation report related to cultural resources investigations for road construction and improvement project in Yuba City, California.

OC Loop Segment D Class 1 Bikeway Project, Orange County – California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 12, and Orange County Public Works (2018). Archaeologist for organization of cultural resources data and edits to archaeological survey report for a bikeway construction project in Placentia, California.

Pedley Road Intersection Improvements Project, Riverside County – California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 8, sub to KOA Corporation (2018). Archaeologist for completion of DPR 523 forms and organization of data for archaeological survey report related to road construction and improvement project in the City of Jurupa Valley, California.

Redlands Boulevard and California Street Intersection Improvement Project, San Bernardino County – City of Loma Linda (2018). Archaeologist and Report Author for cultural monitoring of road construction and intersection redevelopment in the City of Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California. Duties include coordination with onsite archaeologists, analysis of monitoring results and recorded artifacts, completion of DPR 523 forms, and technical writing as report author.

Rancho Del Prado Specific Plan, San Bernardino County – KWC Engineers (2018). Archaeologist and Co-Author for cultural resources inventory survey of 430-acre property in an unincorporated area of southwestern San Bernardino County. Duties included review of site records, site relocation and update documentation, and evaluation of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources, and technical writing as report co-author.

Common Diversion Facility Project, Madera County – TV Trees, LLC (2018). Archaeologist and CoAuthor for review and edits of project California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document. Duties include analysis of previous reports and cultural surveys, review and editing of tribal cultural resources section, and authorship of the cultural resources section for the CEQA document.

Richland Planned Communities, Inc., Riverside County TT37533 (formerly TT29262) Project, Riverside County - County of Riverside (2018). Archaeologist and Co-Author for review and analysis of cultural resource survey activities. Duties include coordination with field archaeologists and senior staff, communication with California Native American tribal entities, lead agency coordination, and technical writing as report co-author.

Otay Pipeline 2 Segment A6 Project, San Diego County - Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego, sub to Harris & Associates (2018). Cultural Task Manager and Report Author for archaeological inventory survey in support of the California Environmental Quality Act document and permitting and compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Duties include direction of field crew, identification and recording of pre-contact archaeological deposits, and technical writing as report author.

John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

Carlsbad Sensitivity Model Project, San Diego County - City of Carlsbad (2018). Archaeologist and Data Specialist for creation of spatial sensitivity model for cultural resource planning in Carlsbad, California. Duties include California Historical Resources Information System records requests, document and site record review, evaluation of spatial data, map creation, coordination with city officials, and technical writing as report co-author.

Prima Deshecha Landfill Phase D, Orange County – OC Waste & Recycling, sub to Tetra Tech BAS (2018). Field Director for archaeological monitoring at Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano.

Duties include direction of archaeologists, lead agency coordination, archaeological monitoring of grading and earth moving activities, and evaluation of resource eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources.

Bickford Ranch Specific Plan, Placer County - MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers, Inc. (2018).

Archaeologist and Data Analyst for Bickford Ranch cultural sites overview. Duties include archival research, document and site record review, map analysis, data consolidation, and assessment of preservation and mitigation measures for eligible historical resources in accordance with National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 and the California Environmental Quality Act.

High Desert Solar Project, San Bernardino County - Middle River Power (2018). Senior Archaeologist for Phase II archaeological inventory survey of 700-acre property in West Mojave Desert.

Duties include review of site records, site relocation and update documentation, identification and recording of pre-contact and post-contact archaeological deposits, evaluation of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the California Register of Historical Resources, and technical writing as report co-author.

Raʻiātea Historical Ecology Project, Raʻiātea - Tumaraʻa Commune, Raʻiātea; Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Bureau Archéologie, Tahiti; University of Oregon (2016-2019). Principal Investigator, Project Director, and Course Instructor for collaborative academic and government project to assess chronology and settlement patterns at Tevaitoa and throughout Tumaraʻa Commune, contribute to local archaeological and historical knowledge, and make recommendations for the mitigation of negative impacts to cultural resources. Duties include archaeological inventory survey, feature identification, controlled subsurface testing, artifact inventory, and land-use planning at Raʻiātea, Society Islands, French Polynesia, with instruction of university students and local secondary school students during archaeological field schools.

Pōhakuloa Training Area Inventory Survey, Hawaiʻi - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2016).

Assistant Crew Chief for 6,000-acre archaeological inventory survey. Duties included archaeological feature identification and mapping, evaluation of eligibility of archaeological resources in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, controlled subsurface testing, and data recovery at Pōhakuloa Training Area, Hawaiʻi Island.

Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam West Loch Inventory Survey, O‘ahu - Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Hawaiʻi (2014). Archaeologist participating in archaeological inventory survey, John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

feature identification, and mapping at West Loch of Pearl Harbor, O‘ahu, in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106.

Hauʻula Leach Field Construction Monitoring, O‘ahu - State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources (2014). Archaeologist for private development leach field construction monitoring.

Duties included the identification and recording of archaeological features and burials at Hauʻula, Oʻahu.

Kamehameha Schools Punaluʻu Archaeological Inventory Survey, O‘ahu - Kamehameha Schools Land Assets Division (2014). Archaeologist for archaeological inventory survey, feature identification and mapping, artifact documentation, shovel test pit excavation, and data recovery at Punaluʻu Ahupuaʻa, Oʻahu.

Kualoa Ranch Archaeological Field Project and Kualoa Field School, O‘ahu - Kualoa Ranch, University of Hawaiʻi, University of Oregon (2013-2014). Project Coordinator and Course Instructor for collaborative academic project focusing on archaeological inventory survey, testing, and data recovery within the Kualoa Ranch, Oʻahu. Duties included archaeological feature documentation and the clarification of local cultural and ecological history, while using the project as a venue for interdisciplinary undergraduate and post-graduate education.

Nuʻalolo Kai State Park Restoration Project, Kauaʻi - Nā Pali Coast ʻOhana, State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources (2013). Archaeological Resources Consultant and Monitor for cultural resources monitoring and documentation of cultural feature restoration at Nuʻalolo Kai, Nā Pali, Kauaʻi.

Marine Corps Base Hawaiʻi (MCBH) MV-22 Monitoring and Testing, O‘ahu - Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific (2013). Archaeologist and Laboratory Technician conducting archaeological inventory survey, testing, and laboratory analyses of domestic and agricultural surface features located within the Marine Corps Base Hawaiʻi (MCBH) as component of National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance. This is the largest intact complex of surface archaeology on the Mokapu Peninsula
Hauʻula Church Burial Recovery, O‘ahu - Hauʻula Church; State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources (2013). Archaeologist for emergency controlled subsurface testing and data recovery following inadvertent disruption of traditional cultural layers by private landowner at Hauʻula, Oʻahu.

Nuʻalolo ʻĀina Archaeological Inventory Survey, Kauaʻi - Nā Pali Coast ʻOhana, State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources (2012). Archaeologist conducting archaeological inventory survey and feature mapping of domestic, agricultural, and religious surface features at Nuʻalolo Valley, Nā Pali, Kauaʻi. Nuʻalolo Valley holds an extensive complex of pre-contact and early contact Hawaiian surface architecture.

Professional Development Courses/Training
 2021 – Online Faculty Certification Program, San Diego Community College District John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

 2020 – American Academy of Underwater Sciences (AAUS) 100-Hour Scientific Diver Training, San Diego State University
 2020 – National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI) Rescue Scuba Diver, San Diego State University
 2019 – National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI) Advanced Open Water Diver, San Diego Divers
 2019 – National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI) Open Water Scuba Diver, San Diego Divers
 2019 – Cultural Resources: AB 52 and Mitigation, Association of Environmental Professionals  2019 – Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Prevention Training, University of Oregon  2018 – Advanced Certificate of Completion, Graduate Teaching Initiative–Teaching Engagement Program, University of Oregon
 2018 – CEQA Essentials Workshop, Association of Environmental Professionals  2018 – NEPA Essentials Workshop, Association of Environmental Professionals  2018 – National Environmental Policy Act Update, Association of Environmental Professionals  2018 – The Basics of Mitigation Banking in San Diego County, Association of Environmental Professionals
 2018 – Advanced AB 52 and CEQA for Planners workshop, ECORP Consulting, Inc.  2016 – Graduate Online Teaching Practicum, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon  2015 – Graduate Teaching Fellowship Training and Practicum, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon
 2014 – Laboratory techniques at Center for Archaeology, Materials, and Applied Spectroscopy (CAMAS) under supervision of John Dudgeon, Ph.D., Idaho State University  2013 – Archaeological Field School at Kāpaeloa, Oʻahu, under supervision of James Bayman, Ph.D., and Ty Kāwika Tengan, Ph.D., University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and Windy McElroy, Ph.D., Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting, LLC
 2013 – Teaching Assistant Training Program, Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
 2012 – National Science Foundation-Research Experiences for Undergraduates (NSF-REU) Grant No. 1005258, Geospatial Research and Mapping (GRAM) Field Program under supervision of Christopher Lee, Ph.D., Carl Lipo, Ph.D., and Suzanne Wechsler, Ph.D., California State University-Long Beach  2011 – Archaeological Field School at Makauwahi Cave, Kauaʻi, under supervision of Terry Hunt, Ph.D., University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and David Burney, Ph.D., National Tropical Botanical Garden  2010 – Coastal Archaeology at Rancho Peñasquitos, San Diego County, under supervision of Stephen J. Bouscaren, Ph.D., San Diego City College
John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

Teaching Experience
 2020 – Introduction to Biological Anthropology 102, San Diego City College  2020 – California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA 40739) (Guest Lecturer), University of California San Diego
 2019 – Introduction to Physical Anthropology 102, San Diego City College  2019 – Environmental Assessment Practices 305 (Guest Lecturer), University of San Diego  2019 – World Archaeology 150, University of Oregon
 2019 – Food and Culture 365, University of Oregon
 2019 – AEP Student CEQA Practicum (Guest Lecturer), Association of Environmental Professionals San Diego Chapter
 2019 – Oregon Archaeology 344, University of Oregon
 2019 – Comparative Law of Indigenous Peoples 610 (Guest Lecturer), University of Oregon School of Law
 2019 – California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA 40739) (Guest Lecturer), University of California San Diego
 2018 – Introduction to Archaeological Field Work 115 (Guest Lecturer), San Diego City College  2018 – Nutritional Anthropology 220, University of Oregon  2018 – Anthropology and Aliens 119, University of Oregon  2018 – Oregon Archaeology 344, University of Oregon
 2017 – Principles of Archaeology 145, University of Oregon  2017 – Archaeological Field Study at Raʻiātea, Robert D. Clark Honors College, University of Oregon  2017 – World Archaeology 150, University of Oregon
 2017 – Comparative Law of Indigenous Peoples 610 (Guest Lecturer), University of Oregon School of Law
 2016 – Food and Culture 365, University of Oregon
 2016 – Principles of Archaeology 145 (Substitute Instructor), University of Oregon  2016 – Honors Colloquium 431H (Substitute Instructor), Robert D. Clark Honors College, University of Oregon
 2013 – Pacific Islands Archaeology 323 (Teaching Assistant), University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa  2013 – Archaeological Field Techniques 381/681 (Teaching Assistant), University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa  2013 – Physical Anthropology 215L (Teaching Assistant in Training), University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa  2012-13 – Program Facilitator, Lecturer, and Student Mentor, Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program, UH Mānoa Honors Program
Selected Professional Publications/Papers/Presentations John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

Peer-Reviewed Academic Journals
2019 Matthew F. Napolitano, Robert J. DiNapoli, Jessica H. Stone, Maureece J. Levin, Nicholas P. Jew, Brian G. Lane, John T. O’Connor, Scott M. Fitzpatrick. Reevaluating Human Colonization of the Caribbean using Chronometric Hygiene and Bayesian Modeling. Science Advances 5:12. 2017 John T. O’Connor, Frances J. White, Terry L. Hunt. Fishhook Variability and Cultural Transmission in East Polynesia. Archaeology in Oceania 52, 32-44.
2015 Alex E. Morrison, John T. O’Connor. Settlement Pattern Studies in Polynesia: Past Projects, Current Progress, and Future Prospects. In: Cochrane, E. E., Hunt, T. L. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 450-472.

Published Ph.D. Dissertation
2019 John T. O’Connor. Historical Ecology and Community Patterning at Raʻiātea, Society Islands, French Polynesia. University of Oregon, Eugene.

Published Abstracts (Paper Presentations)
2019 John T. O’Connor. Recent Investigations at Western Raʻiātea. In: Rethinking Hinterlands in Polynesia. Society for American Archaeology 84th Annual Meeting, Albuquerque. 2018 John T. O’Connor, M. Hinanui Cauchois. Polynesian Settlement at Western Raʻiātea. In: 22nd Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Conference, Hue.
2017 Scott M. Fitzpatrick, Matthew F. Napolitano, Jessica H. Stone, Robert J. DiNapoli, Brian G. Lane, John T. O’Connor, Damion Sailors, Nicholas P. Jew, Maureece Levin, Aaron Poteate. Using Chronometric Hygiene and Bayesian Modeling to Reexamine Pre-Columbian Colonization of the Caribbean. In: 27th Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology, St.

Croix.
2017 John T. O’Connor, Scott M. Fitzpatrick, Todd J. Braje, Matthew F. Napolitano, Thomas P. Leppard.

Measuring Human Impacts on Islands Relative to Size. In: The Island Anthropocene, Society for American Archaeology 82nd Annual Meeting, Vancouver.
2017 M. Hinanui Cauchois, John T. O’Connor. Preliminary Investigations at Raʻiātea, Society Islands, French Polynesia (Poster). In: Oceania, Society for American Archaeology 82nd Annual Meeting, Vancouver.
2017 Robert J. DiNapoli, Matthew F. Napolitano, Jessica H. Stone, Brian G. Lane, Damion Sailors, John T. O’Connor, Nicholas P. Jew, Maureece Levin, Aaron Poteate, Scott M. Fitzpatrick. Reevaluating the Pre-Columbian Colonization of the Caribbean using Chronometric Hygiene and Bayesian Modeling. In: Sailing at the Edge of Time: Global Perspectives on Island Colonization, Society for American Archaeology 82nd Annual Meeting, Vancouver.

John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

2015 John T. O’Connor. Artifact Networks, Cultural Transmission, and Polynesian Settlement. In:

Evolution and Ecology in Oceania, Society for American Archaeology 80th Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
2015 John T. O’Connor, Frances J. White. Artifact Networks and Cultural Transmission in East Polynesia.

In: Rising Tides: Global Perspectives on Island Archaeology, 68th Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, Eugene.
2014 John T. O’Connor. Archaeological Feature Extraction from Aerial Imagery: Ahupuaʻa o Kōloa, Kauaʻi (Poster). AAAS Pacific Division 95th Annual Meeting, Riverside. 2013 John T. O’Connor. Fishhook Variability in East Polynesia. In: Theoretical and Methodological Issues for Oceanic Colonization, Society for American Archaeology 78th Annual Meeting, Honolulu.

Technical Reports as Principal Investigator
2021 ECORP Consulting, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Clubhouse Plot Studies Project, Imperial County, California. Prepared for Imperial Irrigation District Water Department, Imperial, California.
2021 ECORP Consulting, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Holtville Pine Crossing Family Apartments Project, Imperial County, California. Prepared for AMG & Associates, LLC, Encino, California.
2021 ECORP Consulting, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Vega IID S-Line Project, Imperial County, California. Prepared for Apex Energy Solutions, LLC, Folsom, California. 2021 ECORP Consulting, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory and Architectural Evaluation Report for the Brawley Farmworker Housing Project, Imperial County, California. Prepared for AMG & Associates, LLC, Encino, California.
2021 ECORP Consulting, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory, Testing, and Evaluation Report for the Vega SES 4 Project, Imperial County, California. Prepared for Vega SES 4, LLC, Folsom, California. 2020 ECORP Consulting, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the El Centro Town Center Village Phase IV, Imperial County, California. Prepared for Michael Baker International, San Diego, California.
2020 John T. O’Connor, Jeremy Adams, Michael DeGiovine, Laurel Zickler-Martin, Lisa Westwood.

Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the 1967 North Vulcan Avenue Project, City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Vulcan Encinitas, LLC, San Diego, California.

John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

2020 John T. O’Connor, Jeremy Adams, Michael DeGiovine, Megan Webb. Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Sunshine Gardens Project, City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Sunshine Encinitas, LLC, San Diego, California. 2020 John T. O’Connor. Cultural Resources Inventory for the Beverly Drive Improvements Project, CIP 8313, City of Vista, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Harris & Associates, San Diego, California.
2020 John T. O’Connor, Theadora Fuerstenberg. Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Montiel Lift Station and Forcemain Replacement Project, City of San Marcos, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Michael Baker International, San Diego, California. 2020 John T. O’Connor. Cultural Resources Sensitivity Model for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for PlaceWorks, Inc., Folsom, California.
2020 John T. O’Connor, Jeremy Adams, Diana Malarchik, Megan Webb. Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Fox Point Farms Project, City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Michael Baker International, San Diego, California. 2020 John T. O’Connor. Cultural Resources Inventory for the Vintage (Lima) Property Offsite Improvements, San Benito County, California. Prepare for Richland Real Estate Fund, LLC, Roseville, California.
2020 John T. O’Connor. Results of Shovel Test Pit Excavations at Gen-Tie Pole Locations for the High Desert Solar Project, City of Victorville, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Middle River Power, LLC, Deerfield, Illinois.
2020 John T. O’Connor, Paige Liss. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Lemon Grove Sewer Replacement Project, City of Lemon Grove, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Michael Baker International, San Diego, California.
2020 John T. O’Connor. Cultural Resources Literature Review and Records Search for the Otay Lakes County Park Sewer-Septic Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Michael Baker International, San Diego, California.
2020 John T. O’Connor. Summary of 2020 Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring for Potholing Activities for the Bonita Direct Transfer Pump Station in Bonita, San Diego County, California.

Prepared for Michael Baker International, San Diego, California. 2020 John T. O’Connor. Summary of Cultural Resources Monitoring for the Vista Village Drive Trunk Sewer Project, CIP 8212, City of Vista, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Harris & Associates, San Diego, California.

John O’Connor, Ph.D., RPA (Continued)

2019 John T. O’Connor, Lisa Westwood. Post Review Discovery and Monitoring Plan for the Cook’s Crack La Jolla Emergency Repair Project, City of San Diego, San Diego County, California.

Prepared for the City of San Diego and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Diego, California. 2019 John T. O’Connor. Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Cook’s Crack Sea Cave Stabilization Project, City of San Diego, San Diego County, California. Prepared for City of San Diego and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Diego, California.
2019 Paige Liss, Wendy Blumel, John T. O’Connor. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Gas Company Road Solar Project, City of Taft, Kern County, California. Prepared for Z Global, El Centro, California.
2019 John T. O’Connor. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Sewer Line Repair/Replace 16/17 Project, City of Poway, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Psomas, San Diego, California.

Julian Acuña, M.A., RPA
Associate Archaeologist
Julian Acuña, M.A., RPA, is an Associate Archaeologist with four years of experience in cultural resources management. Mr. Acuña holds an M.A. in Applied Archaeology and a B.A. Cum Laude in Anthropology from California State University, San Bernardino. He meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology. He has participated in various aspects of archaeological fieldwork including survey, test excavations, construction monitoring, the recording of both pre-contact and historic-period archaeological sites, and laboratory work for the analysis and cataloging of artifacts from multi-component sites.

Education
M.A., Applied Archaeology, California State University, San Bernardino B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino Registrations, Certifications, Permits and Affiliations  Registered Professional Archaeologist (#18015)
 Society for American Archaeology
 Union Pacific Railroad Railsafe Safety Training
Selected Professional Experience
Rancho Cielito Project, City of Chino Hills, San Bernardino County – City of Chino Hills (2019 and 2020). Associate Archaeologist for a cultural resources study of an approximately 49-acre property in Chino Hills. The Proposed Project included developing 354 residential units on property. Assisted in the preparation of a cultural resources technical study report, paleontological records search, and Sacred Lands File request from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The project was completed in compliance with CEQA.

Cal Fire Prado Helitack Base Project, San Bernardino County – [Department of General ServicesRESD. (2020). Associate Archaeologist for a cultural resources inventory of a 17-acre property in the City of Chino. Assisted in the preparation of a cultural resources technical report.

Com-Power Project, City of Lake Forest, Orange County – Com-Power Corporation (2020). Associate Archaeologist for an approximately 1-acre property in Lake Forest. The Proposed Project included constructing an additional building on property. Duties consisted of a records search, Sacred Lands File search, and assisted in the preparation of a technical report. The project was completed in compliance with CEQA.

Atascadero State Hospital Solar Project, San Luis Obispo – California Department of General Services, Real Estate Service Division and Ecoplexus (9/2019). In 2019, ECORP prepared an Addendum Julian Acuña, M.A. (Continued)

to the approved 2013 MND. Duties included construction monitoring, recording cultural resources, and coordinating with the construction foreman and tribal monitor.

Valencia Solar Projects, Imperial County – Imperial County Planning and Development Services (2020). Associate Archaeologist for cultural resources monitoring of solar project near Brawley, California.

Duties include archaeological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities, documentation of subsurface disturbances, and excavation of three test units.

Avenue 66 Grade Separation Project, Riverside County – Caltrans as a Sub to Anser Advisory (3/2020-Ongoing). Associate Archaeologist/Lead Cultural Resource Monitor. The Avenue 66 Grade Separation Project is a proposed grade separation and roadway to cross the Union Pacific Railroad, State Route 111 (SR-111), and Hammond Road from a realigned Avenue 66 in the Community of Mecca, California. ECORP provided biological and cultural monitoring. Duties included serving as Lead Cultural Monitor during construction activities, recording cultural resources, coordinating up to three Cultural Monitors, and coordinating schedules with construction foreman and clients.

Mediterranean Village Apartments, San Bernardino County – Maco Construction Services (9/2019- 8/2020). Associate Archaeologist. Assisted in the preparation of a cultural resources technical study report, paleontological records search, and Sacred Lands File request from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

Construction Management Support Services for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) Sweeney Mitigation Improvement Project, Riverside County – Riverside County Transportation Commission as a Sub to Anser Advisory (9/2019-Ongoing). Cultural Resources Monitor/Associate Archaeologist. The Mid County Parkway (MCP) is a proposed 16-mile transportation corridor designed to relieve traffic congestion and help address local transportation needs through 2040. The Sweeney Mitigation Site was utilized as mitigation for the MCP Project effects to special-status species. ECORP provided construction management support as a biologist, paleontologist, cultural resources monitor, and restoration oversight services. Duties included construction monitoring, recording cultural resources, and cultural resources curation.

Cultural Resources Monitoring for a Circle-K in Corona, Riverside County – Circle K Stores, Inc. (9/2019-03/2020) Cultural Resources Monitor/Associate Archaeologist. ECORP provided biological and cultural monitoring services for the construction of a Circle K store in Corona California. Following the completion of the project reports were submitted. Duties included construction monitoring, recording cultural resources, and assisted in the preparation of a cultural resources technical study report.

North School Project, Los Angeles County – Hermosa Beach City School District (2019-177.003) – Associate Archaeologist/Cultural Resources Monitor. ECORP provided biological and cultural monitoring services for the demolition of all existing buildings at Hermosa North School and its subsequent construction in Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County, California. Following the completion of the project reports were submitted. Duties included construction monitoring, recording cultural resources, and coordination with Tribal Monitors.

Julian Acuña, M.A. (Continued)

Sanitation Master Plan Update, Riverside County – Coachella Valley Water District as a Sub to CDM Smith (2019). Associate Archaeologist. Assisted in the preparation of a background (constraints analysis) report for the Cultural Resources section of the PEIR. Duties included contributing sections to the technical report.

Los Angeles Valley Community College Gold Creek Restoration Project, Los Angeles County – Best Best & Kriegler, LLP (9/2019-12/2019). Associate Archaeologist. The Los Angeles Valley Community College owns the Gold Creek Ecological Field Station, which is located near Little Tujunga Canyon in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles County, California. In December of 2017, the Creek Fire damaged many of the structures, the water supply system, and other infrastructure. The forest canopy of coast live oak and riparian woodlands and much of the chaparral vegetation were moderately to severely damaged. ECORP provided a biological technical report that included the results of the general and focused biological surveys. ECORP also conducted a jurisdictional delineation and prepared the permit applications for a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a 1602 permit from the CDFW, and a 401 from the RWQCB.

Pedley Road Intersection Improvements Project Jurupa Valley, Riverside County – City of Jurupa Valley as a Sub to KOA Corporation (2019). Cultural Resources Specialist. The City of Jurupa Valley proposed to procure funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to improve roadway safety along Pedley Road by adding add left turn lanes to seven unsignalized intersections between Jurupa Road and 60th Street. This is a Caltrans Local Assistance Project. The cultural resources services for this project consisted Area of Potential Effects (APE) Map, Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), and an Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR). Duties included contributing sections to the technical report Initial Study for the Rancho Cielito Project, San Bernardino County – City of Chino Hills (9/2019- Ongoing). Archaeologist. The City of Chino Hills has received an application to develop a multi-building apartment complex called the Rancho Cielito Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project would include approximately 354 residential units and would be located on a 48.37-acre project site (29.5 acres of dry and 18.87 acres of water surface within Lake Los Serranos). On the basis of technical studies prepared by ECORP, including Air Quality/GHG, Biological, Aquatic Resources, Cultural Resources, and Noise, as well as applicant submitted studies, ECORP will prepare a preliminary draft Initial Study to determine the need for either a CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR. Duties included contributing sections to the technical report
Stoneridge Project, Riverside County – Richland Planned Communities, Inc. (9/2019-6/2020). Cultural Resources Specialist. The proposed Project provides for the development of a master-planned development that would amend the approved Stoneridge Specific Plan to provide light industrial, business park, commercial retail, and open space land uses in lieu of the approved residential, town center, and commercial Specific Plan land uses. The study consisted of a records search, Sacred Lands File search, field survey of the project area, and preparation of a Phase 1 technical report describing the methods and results of the study and management recommendations. A Notice to County to Prepare Archaeological Report was submitted to the County before work was initiated and the technical report was submitted to Julian Acuña, M.A. (Continued)

the County Archaeologist for review and approval. The project was completed in compliance with CEQA.

Duties included assisting in the field inventory survey.

Stormwater Sampling and Environmental Compliance Monitoring, Los Angeles and Orange Counties – KCM Group (9/2019-Ongoing). Monitor that provided water quality inspections and effluent sampling services for Risk Level 2 and 3 projects, in accordance with Construction General Permit, Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ (CGP). Turbidity and pH were analyzed and compared to numeric action levels to determine corrective action.

Hemet Tentative Tract Map (Project), Riverside County – Shizao Zheng (2019). Associate archaeologist. This project consists of a cultural resources inventory for a 13-acre area in the northeast area of the City of Hemet. The inventory included a records search, literature review, and field survey. As a result of the field survey, several cultural resources were recorded within the Project Area. These consist of a historic-period agricultural property consisting of thirteen features (Features 1-13), and one historic-period isolated find. These resources have been evaluated using the California Register of Historical Resources and National Register of Historic Places eligibility criteria. Potential impacts from potential future development were assessed and management recommendations provided in the technical report. The project was completed in compliance with CEQA. Duties included assisting in the preparation of a cultural resources technical study report, paleontological records search, Sacred Lands File request from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), field inventory survey, and recording cultural resources.

Calhan Speedway Racing Track Project (Project), San Bernardino County- Calhan Capital, Inc. (2019).

Assistant archaeologist. This project consisted of a cultural resources inventory of the south portion of the existing Sun Hill Ranch Airport. The inventory included a records search, literature review, and field survey of 250 acres. Five historic-period resources were recorded. Potential impacts from potential future development were assessed and management recommendations provided in the technical report. The project was completed in compliance with CEQA. Duties included assisting in a field inventory survey, recording of cultural resources, and contributing sections to the technical report.

Jacinto-Citrus Project, San Bernardino County – Larry Jacinto care of Urban Environs (2015). Archaeological field technician intern. This project consisted of a records search, Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File search, field survey of 20-acres, recordation and evaluation of historic-age orange groves and associated features, and preparation of a technical report describing the methods and results of the study. The orange groves were evaluated for eligibility to the CRHR and the City of Redlands Development Services Department List of Historic Resources. Potential impacts from potential future development were assessed and management recommendations provided in the technical report.

The project was completed in compliance with CEQA. Duties included recording cultural resources and field inventory survey.

Sprint Cell Tower Project, Riverside County – Eukon Group (2017). Archaeological field technician intern for a cultural resources survey of the location for a proposed replacement of Sprint cell tower in San Timoteo Canyon in an unincorporated portion of Riverside County near Moreno Valley. The study consisted of a records search, Sacred Lands File search, field survey of the 1-acre project area, and preparation of a Julian Acuña, M.A. (Continued)

Phase 1 technical report describing the methods and results of the study and management recommendations. A Notice to County to Prepare Archaeological Report was submitted to the County before work was initiated and the technical report was submitted to the County Archaeologist for review and approval. The project was completed in compliance with CEQA.

Environmental Services for the Lakeland Village MDP Line H Project, Riverside County – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Department (2014). Archaeological technician intern.

This project consisted of the preparation of a Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR), which identifies potential environmental (biological and cultural) constraints to help the District develop the best suitable alignment for the Project. The Project is the construction of Line H of the Lakeland Village Master Drainage Plan (MDP). Line H is a storm drain system designed to capture stormwater flows at several pickup points within the study area and route them to Lake Elsinore. Due to narrow and utility congested streets and access constraints, two alternative alignments are being explored. The study area encompasses all potential locations of the final alignment. ECORP also prepared technical reports for cultural and biological resources, including a jurisdictional delineation. Further, the cultural department surveyed and updated the records of historic-period lampposts in the area. In addition, the study area is located within the study area for the Western Riverside MSHCP and was required to comply with its requirements for survey and biology reporting. Duties included recording cultural resources and field survey inventory.

Professional Development Courses/Training
 2018 Proyecto Arqueológico Teuchitlán, archaeological lab assistant. Guadalajara, Mexico.  2017 Thesis researcher. Cuilapan, Oaxaca, Mexico.
 2016 ECORP Consulting, Inc. Intern. Redlands, California.  2015 Archaeological Field School. Sanisera Archaeological Institute Menorca, Spain.  2014 Research assistant. Laboratory for Ancient Material Analysis. California State University, San Bernardino.
 2014/12 Archaeological Field School. Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project, San Ignacio, Belize, Central America.

Selected Professional Publications/Papers/Presentations 2019 Julian E. Acuña and Guy D. Hepp. “Exchange, crafting, and subsistence at Early Formative period La Consentida.” Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting. 2018 Julian E. Acuña. “Early Formative period exchange, crafting, and subsistence: an analysis of La Consentida’s chipped stone assemblage”. Masters’ Thesis. California State University, San Bernardino. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/780
2018 Julian E. Acuña. “Chipped stone on the Oaxacan Coast: a view from La Consentida” Paper presented at the SoCal Mesoamerica Network Fall Meeting.

Julian Acuña, M.A. (Continued)

2018 Julian E. Acuña. “Early Formative period exchange, crafting, and subsistence: an analysis of La Consentida’s chipped stone assemblage” Paper presented at the:

Annual Meeting of the Minds Student Research Symposium, CSUSB Latin American Studies Conference: Studies of the Americas, CSUSB Southern CSU wide Association for Student Anthropologists Conference, CSULA Michael DeGiovine, M.A.

Staff Archaeologist
Mr. DeGiovine, M.A., is a Staff Archaeologist with over 15 years of experience in cultural resources management. Mr. DeGiovine meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology. He has experience in all facets of archaeological fieldwork, including cultural resource monitoring, archaeological survey, site recording, subsurface testing, coordination with field crews, and direction of field staff. He has prepared and/or contributed to environmental documents, such as an Environmental Impact Report/Study (EIR/EIS) and cultural resources studies that deal with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Historic Preservation Act Sections 106 and 110.

Mr. DeGiovine has coordinated and cooperated with primary contractors, clients, and other environmental stakeholders to ensure that projects meet environmental compliance and are completed expeditiously.

Regions of professional experience include interior Alaska, Washington State, Southern Nevada, and California (Great Basin/Mojave Desert, Colorado Desert, San Joaquin Valley, Sierra Nevada, and Coastal and Inland southern California).

Education
M.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton B.A., Anthropology, University of California, San Diego A.A., Behavioral Science (Anthropology emphasis with Honors), San Diego City College A.A., Liberal Arts (Honors), San Diego City College
Professional Affiliations and Certifications
 Society for California Archaeology
 Texas Archeological Society
 San Diego County Archaeological Society
 Approved Archaeological Monitor, City of San Diego
Selected Professional Experience
Moreno Master Drainage Plan Line H-2 Interim Drain Project, Riverside County – City of Moreno Valley (6/2020-Ongoing). Staff Archaeologist. The City of Moreno Valley proposed to construct Line H-2 of the Moreno Master Drainage Plan (MDP) to alleviate flooding sediment accumulation at the Discovery Church parking lot. ECORP prepared an IS/MND and supporting technical studies for the project. Technical studies included a cultural resources study and AB-52 consultation.

Construction Management Services for the Mid-County Parkway, Sweeney Mitigation Site, Riverside County – Riverside County Transportation Commission as a Sub to Anser Advisory (6/2020– Ongoing). Archaeological Monitor. Responsibilities included providing monitoring archeological services Michael DeGiovine (Continued)

during construction. ECORP was part of a construction management team for an offsite mitigation area required for future construction of the Mid-County Parkway Project (Project). The Project will result in improvements to the Ramona Expressway to relieve traffic congestion between Interstate 215 and State Route 79, in western Riverside County.

Tribal Cultural Testing/Monitoring for the High Desert Solar Project, San Bernardino County – Middle River Power, LLC. (6/2020-Ongoing). Staff Archaeologist. ECORP provided assistance with the entitlement process and AB 52 Consultation (including tribal cultural resources testing) through the City of Victorville and prepared a CEQA IS/MND to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project.

Cardiff School Modernization Project, San Diego County – Cardiff School District (6/2020-Ongoing).

Staff Archaeologist. This Project was driven by the District's educational priorities to provide increased safety and security of students and the current educational program at Cardiff School, but also to enhance the outdoor recreation area for the benefit of the community. The modernization and reconstruction involved the demolition of multiple buildings and portable classrooms, construction of new buildings, and modernization of two existing buildings. As Technical Consultants, ECORP was responsible for monitoring in areas of expertise for Cultural Resources.

Avenue 66 Grade Separation Project, Riverside County – Caltrans, District 8 as a Sub to Anser Advisory (6/2020-Ongoing). Staff Archaeologist for cultural resources monitoring and subsurface testing for development project at Mecca, California. Duties include archaeological monitoring of grounddisturbing activities, documentation of subsurface disturbances, reporting, client coordination, and controlled subsurface testing of cultural resources.

Hazardous Tree Removal Project/Hazardous Tree Management Project, Mono and Fresno Counties – Southern California Edison as a Sub to Environmental Intelligence (2019-2020). Archaeological monitor involved in maintaining compliance with hazardous tree removal activities in the Sierra Nevada Range along Southern California Edison transmission lines. Pre-construction survey, active monitoring, and post-construction impact surveys were conducted, and included cultural resource recording/updating, use of sub-meter GPS units, and coordinating with construction crews and biologists to ensure compliance and reduce/eliminate impacts to cultural resources in areas of concern.

Multiple Surveys, Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, Kern Counties – Southern California Edison as a Sub to SWCA (2019-2020). Crew lead and field crew in pre-construction survey of Southern California Edison transmission lines in the Owens Valley and Mojave Desert. Cultural resources survey and site recordation/updating of resources within project areas using sub-meter GPS equipment.

Conducting/participation in daily morning safety tailboards.

As-Needed Environmental Services, San Diego County – City of San Diego Public Utilities Department (2014-2017). Field director and crew lead to support the city of San Diego’s Public Utilities Department under the City’s As-needed Environmental Consulting Services contract. Services included cultural resource preconstruction site inspections, construction monitoring, reporting, and on-call Michael DeGiovine (Continued)

emergency environmental monitoring; multiple cultural resource projects from initial research and field survey to construction monitoring and reporting were completed.

Murrieta Hills Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, Riverside County – City of Murrieta (2015- 2016). Field director and crew lead in charge of Phase II Testing and Excavation in support of CEQA compliance for residential development. Excavation, surface collection, cultural resource site updating, laboratory analysis and contributions to the final report were all conducted. Additionally, coordinated daily logistics and crew safety measures to protect against trespassers. Daily safety meetings (tailboards) were conducted, and sub-meter GPS units were used throughout the project.

Professional Development Courses/Training
 2020 8-hour HAZWOPER refresher course for 40-hour HAZWOPER certification Selected Professional Publications/Papers/Presentations Selected Reports
2017 Pentney, S., M. DeGiovine, and J. Rains Las Vegas Wash Channelization Improvements Project, Clark County, Nevada, Archaeological Monitoring Report. CCWRD Project Number: 511D. Prepared for Clark County Water Reclamation District.
2015 Pentney, S. and M. DeGiovine A Negative Survey Report for 32nd Street Canyon Long Term Access Project, San Diego, California. Submitted to City of San Diego Public Utilities Department. 2015 Pentney, S. and M. DeGiovine Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the Gecko Road Improvements Project. Submitted to Bureau of Land Management.
2015 Pentney, S. and M. DeGiovine Archaeological Mitigation Monitoring Report for Peñasquitos Drive Sewer Replacement Project, San Diego, California. Submitted to City of San Diego Public Utilities Department.

Conference Presentations
2019 Lacy, K. and M. DeGiovine What it means to work as an archaeological site steward. Poster presented at 2019 Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting. 2018 Lacy, K. and M. DeGiovine What it means to work as an archaeological site steward. Poster presented at 2018 Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting. 2017 DeGiovine, M. A Groundstone Production Site in Riverside County? Presented at 2017 Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting.
2016 Knell, E. and M. DeGiovine Terminal Pleistocene-Early Holocene Lithic Raw material Conveyance at Pluvial Lake Mojave and the Southern Conveyance Zone, Mojave Desert. Presented at 2016 Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting.

Lisa Westwood
Director of Cultural Resources
Lisa Westwood is a Registered Professional Archaeologist with over 25 years of cultural resource management experience. She exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeologist and serves as principal investigator for cultural resources services required for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and CEQA. Her technical areas of expertise include advanced Section 106 compliance and consultation, cultural resources laws and regulations, preparation and negotiation of agency agreement documents (Programmatic Agreements and Memoranda of Agreement), space heritage, human bone (osteological) identification and analysis, historical archaeology, and lithic debitage identification. She is well versed in impact assessment and development of mitigation measures for CEQA and Section 106 projects, including on-call and taskorder based contracts. Her previous experience as a CEQA/NEPA project manager gives her a broader perspective of regulatory compliance issues, and she is recognized by the private and public sector for her ability to build consensus among stakeholders and solve complex problems quickly and effectively.

Education
M.A., Anthropology, Eastern New Mexico University
B.A., Anthropology, University of Iowa
Registrations, Certifications, Permits and Affiliations  Registered Professional Archaeologist, No. 11692 (Chair, Registrant Services and Outreach 2021- present)
 State of Nevada Antiquities Permit-Principal Investigator (Statewide, non-federal lands)  Bureau of Land Management, California Archaeological Investigations Permit-Principal Investigator (Statewide)
 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada Cultural Resource Use Permit-Principal Investigator (Statewide)  San Diego County Approved Archaeologist
 Riverside County Qualified Archaeologist
 County of Orange Qualified Archaeologist
 Society for California Archaeology
Representative Professional Experience
Birmingham Drive Improvements Project, City of Encinitas, San Diego County (2017-2018).

Responsible for the cultural resources inventory and evaluation of a segment of Birmingham Drive, which includes autograph panels in the sidewalks from local figures and celebrities. The City of Birmingham Lisa Westwood (Continued)

proposes to widen and improve the project, and ECORP was tasked with evaluating the significance of the autograph panels and historic roadways to support a CEQA document.

City of Vista, Buena Sanitation District As-Needed Environmental Consulting Services for Sewer Projects, San Diego County (2018). Responsible for the cultural resources compliance under a certified master EIR for sewer projects within the district’s jurisdiction, including construction monitoring and peer review services.

South Lake Community Park, City of San Marcos, San Diego County (2016). Principal Investigator for the cultural resources survey of a proposed community dock at South Lake Reservoir. Carried out the survey, coordinated with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, and prepared the technical report.

Metropolitan Airpark Project (Brown Field Municipal Airport), City of San Diego (2016). Conducted a peer review and compliance assessment for the applicability of previously-prepared cultural resources documentation under CEQA for use in the Section 106 NHPA consultation process as it relates to a Section 404 permit with the USACE for a roadway improvement element of the larger project. Designed the recommended strategy for compliance, which includes an updated records search, addendum field survey, and preparation of a technical report. Subsequently, carried out two cultural resources inventories of five intersections and roadway improvement areas and prepared technical reports.

Gregory Canyon Landfill, San Diego County (2016–2017). Tribal liaison between the applicants for a proposed landfill, the Los Angeles District of the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Pala Tribe regarding impacts (and alternatives) to a Traditional Cultural Property. Also responsible for authoring the updated determination of effect, Historic Property Treatment Plan, and Memorandum of Agreement under Section 106 of the NHPA. Recently assisted in the negotiation of the sale of the mountain to the Pala Tribe, which ended decades of controversy.

Feather River West Reaches 14-16 Emergency Levee Repairs Project, Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, Sutter County (2016-2018). Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the emergency permitting and cultural resources compliance under Section 106 NHPA. Responsible for the cultural resources survey, evaluations of eligibility of historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, and preparation of technical reports.

Sutter Basin Flood Management Risk Project, Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers, Sutter County (2017-present). Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the permitting and cultural resources compliance under Section 106 NHPA. Responsible for the cultural resources survey, evaluations of eligibility of historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, and preparation of technical reports.

Oroville Wildlife Area Flood Stage Reduction Project, Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, Butte County (2018-present). Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the cultural resources compliance under Section 106 NHPA and CEQA, after taking over for the previous consultant. Responsible for implementing the mitigation measures for cultural resources and coordinating with SBFCA and engineers on implementation through construction.

Lisa Westwood (Continued)

Laurel Avenue Critical Repair Project, Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, Sutter County (2017).

Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the cultural resources compliance under Section 106 NHPA and CEQA, after taking over for the previous consultant. Responsible for cultural and tribal monitoring, compliance with the mitigation measures for cultural resources, and coordinating with SBFCA and engineers on implementation through construction.

Feather River West Levee Project, Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, Sutter County (2015-present).

Tribal liaison between the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency and the United Auburn Indian Community, and federal and state agencies as it relates to a legal dispute over impacts to sacred lands associated with a critical levee repair project in Butte and Sutter counties. The dispute stemmed from a discovery of tribal cultural materials during project construction in 2014. For over 15 months, ECORP mediated a comprehensive Settlement Agreement to resolve the dispute and assisted in the preparation of a Supplemental EIR for the project. ECORP is currently serving as the Cultural Compliance Officer for the project in meeting the obligations under the Settlement Agreement as the Agency resumes construction.

Sugar Pine Reservoir Project, Foresthill Public Utilities District, Placer County (2015-present).

Principal Investigator for the cultural resources compliance under Section 106 NHPA and CEQA.

Responsible for the cultural resources survey, evaluations of eligibility of historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, and preparation of technical reports.

Capital Southeast Connector Project Segment D2, Sacramento County (2016-2017). Principal Investigator for the preparation of the IS/MND/EA for Segment D2 of the Capital SouthEast Connector Project. The Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority (JPA) led the effort to develop an expanded expressway serving as a 34-mile connector between Interstate 5, California State Route (SR) 99, and U.S. Highway 50 that will serve as a bypass of the City of Sacramento connecting the City of Elk Grove and El Dorado Hills. The JPA is the CEQA lead agency and Caltrans is the NEPA lead agency.

City of Folsom 2035 General Plan Update, Sacramento County (2018). Under the direction of the City, responsible for all tribal consultation under AB 52 and SB 18 for the General Plan Update. Carried out peer review and editing of the cultural and tribal cultural resources sections of the General Plan EIR, and peer reviewed the General Plan.

City of Yuba City Tribal Consultation and Policy Support, Sutter County (2017-present). Authored standard operating procedures for the City in complying with cultural and tribal cultural resources.

Providing technical support to the City’s planning division to track and manage all tribal consultation requirements under AB 52 and SB 18, including the specific Plans and several developments.

City of Roseville Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Placer County (2018 – present). Developed and authored new tribal consultation guidelines for the City of Roseville to address changing dynamics between the City and culturally-affiliated tribes in light of AB 52. Guidelines include the development of standard mitigation measures, procedures, and thresholds for tribal engagement in private and publicsector projects under the jurisdiction of the City.

Lisa Westwood (Continued)

City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Guidelines, San Diego County (2016 – 2017). Developed and primary author of the updated cultural resources guidelines and procedures for the City of Carlsbad to reflect recent changes in state law and local policy as it relates to cultural, tribal, and paleontological resources. Subsequently contracted to carry out a city-wide cultural resources records search and development of a GIS-based sensitivity model for archaeological and architectural history resources for use by the City in long-range planning efforts.

Placer County Conservation Plan, Placer County (2016-present). Responsible for negotiating and developing a highly complex programmatic approach to guide multi-agency compliance with Section 106 NHPA and CEQA for this 50-year, 209,000-acre habitat conservation plan. The resulting Programmatic Agreement and Cultural Resources Management Plan, currently in agency review, will support an EIR/EIS and guide compliance for the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife, County of Placer, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, City of Lincoln, and the Office of Historic Preservation, and will incorporate stakeholder involvement from tribes, developers, historical societies, and the public. When complete, it will be the first HCP in California to incorporate US Army Corps of Engineers’ compliance and will result in a phased delegation of authority to non-federal agencies.

Placer County Code Update, Placer County (2017). Revised the Placer County codes regarding cultural resources and historical architecture within the County and authored new code for the management of tribal cultural resources. Included considerations for the nexus with the Placer County Conservation Plan.

Centennial Reservoir Project, Nevada Irrigation District, Nevada County (2015-present). Principal Investigator for the cultural resources compliance under Section 106 NHPA and CEQA. Responsible for the cultural resources survey, tribal consultation under AB 52, evaluations of eligibility of historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, and preparation of technical reports.

Assembly Bill 52 Compliance, Statewide (2015-present). Contributed to the negotiation of the bill language by providing technical input to the attorneys representing the California Building Industry Association and California Chamber of Commerce in their negotiation with the governor’s office and Assemblyman Gatto’s office regarding the amendment to CEQA for tribal cultural resources. Subsequently, developed an agency and planner training workshop that has been delivered and presented nearly 90 times. Developed formal Standard Operating Procedures for the County of San Bernardino, County of Contra Costa, City of Folsom, City of Belvedere, County of Placer, City of Carlsbad, City of Yuba City, and City of Roseville to assist them in developing a standardized and more legally defensible program of compliance with the new tribal consultation requirement under CEQA. In addition, responsible for guiding agency clients through project-specific tribal consultation under AB 52 and SB 18, often for the City of Folsom and City of Yuba City.

Millerton New Town Specific Plan, Fresno County (2014-2016). Project manager and principal investigator responsible for developing and implementing a Section 106 compliance strategy in coordination with the US Bureau of Reclamation (long term water transfer and inclusion), and for serving as a liaison and third-party negotiator between the developers and the local tribes in working out a Lisa Westwood (Continued)

settlement agreement regarding impacts to tribal resources. Also carried out an Extended Phase 1 study and geoarchaeological assessment, prepared a cultural resources management plan that redesigned the project to avoid tribal cultural resources and resulted in no historic properties affected.

Tesoro Viejo Specific Plan, Madera County (2014-present). Principal Investigator responsible for coordinating the Section 106 consultation on behalf of the developer, in collaboration with the US Army Corps of Engineers and US Bureau of Reclamation. This includes ensuring no conflicts between the Section 106 process and the outcomes of the CEQA process, including its subsequent legal proceedings, which resulted in a Settlement Agreement when the EIR was challenged (ECORP was not involved in the CEQA process or the legal challenges to the project). Also responsible for a Cultural Resources Management Plan.

Marble Valley Specific Plan Project, El Dorado County (2012-present). Principal investigator and cultural resources task manager responsible for the cultural resources survey and evaluations of the specific plan area, and co-author of technical reports. Served as liaison between the US Army Corps of Engineers, County of El Dorado, project proponent, EIR preparer (ICF) and Native American tribes (Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, United Auburn Indian Community, and Wilton Rancheria) in the negotiation of avoidance/impact plans for cultural resources and coordinated and managed overall cultural resources compliance for the project area.

Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan Project and Pedregal Project, El Dorado County (2007-present).

Principal investigator and cultural resources task manager responsible for the cultural resources compliance work and completion of the cultural resources inventories and evaluations of significance for the Pedregal and Executive Golf Course projects, which later joined and became the Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan Project. Served as liaison between the US Army Corps of Engineers, County of El Dorado, project proponent, EIR preparer (ICF) and Native American tribes (Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, United Auburn Indian Community, and Wilton Rancheria) in the negotiation of avoidance/impact plans for cultural resources and coordinated and managed overall cultural resources compliance for the project area.

Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan, Sacramento County (2008-present). Principal Investigator, responsible for overseeing and directing the entire Section 106 NHPA compliance process for the 3,500-acre Specific Plan Area, which will affect several gold mining districts and prehistoric sites. She was responsible for negotiating and designing a complex compliance strategy that allowed for projects within the specific plan area to proceed independently of one another, through the preparation of a Programmatic Agreement with a Historic Properties Management Plan and Synthesis. Under her direction, ECORP has completed, or is in the process of completing, inventory, evaluation, and effect determinations for properties within the specific plan area, in compliance with the Programmatic Agreement. Also serving as a liaison between the US Army Corps of Engineers, State Historic Preservation Officer, and the applicants.

Department of Water Resources Sites Reservoir Project, Colusa County (2001). Senior Staff Archaeologist; provided field coordination, technical editing, and quality control services for site records and documentation compiled during field surveys as part of a proposed reservoir project.

Lisa Westwood (Continued)

Professional Development Courses/Training
2020 Resolving Disputes in Section 106, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2017 Conflict Management and Negotiation Skills for Cultural and Natural Resource Managers, National Preservation Institute
Selected Professional Publications/Papers/Presentations 2017 L. Westwood, B.L. O’Leary, and M. Wayne Donaldson The Final Mission: Preserving NASA’s Apollo Sites. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-813-06246-4. 2015 L. Westwood Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Consultation Workshops – 95+ workshops presented since 2015 to agency staff, attorneys, planners, environmental professionals, tribes, and cultural resources management professionals statewide.
2015 L. Westwood “Historic Preservation on the Fringe: A Human Lunar Exploration Heritage Cultural Landscape.” In Archaeology and Heritage of the Human Movement into Space. Edited by B.L. O’Leary and P.J. Capelotti. Springer Press. ISBN 978-3-319-07865-6. 2012 L. Westwood and B.L. O’Leary “The Archaeology of Tranquility Base.” Space Times Magazine. July / August 2012, Issue 4, Volume 51.
2012 B.L. O’Leary, L. Westwood, and R. Kelso “Stepping lightly on the moon: Anticipating tourists, researchers want to preserve Apollo 11 sites.” Washington Post, Opinion Section, July 17, 2012. 2011 L. Westwood Future Research Themes in Space Roundtable, 1961-1981 Key Moments in Human Spaceflight Conference, NASA Headquarters, Washington DC. NASA History Program Office and Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, April 27, 2011.
2011 L. Westwood and B.L. O’Leary: “Safeguarding Our Lunar Heritage” op-ed in Space News, December 7, 2011.

INITIALSTUDY APPENDIX D
Proposed Hospital Expansion
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Proposed Hospital Expansion
Kaiser Riverside Medical Center, OSHPD ID: 106334025
10800 Magnolia Avenue
Riverside, California
Prepared for:

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
182 Granite Street
Corona, California 92879
March 31, 2021 (Revised July 26, 2021)
Project No.: 190919.3
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
March 31, 2021 (Revised July 26, 2021)
Project No.: 190919.3
Mr. Edward Bacic
Regional Program Manager
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
Southern California Delivery Team
182 Granite Street
Corona, California 92879
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Report
Proposed Hospital Expansion
Kaiser Riverside Medical Center, OSHPD ID: 106334025
10800 Magnolia Avenue
Riverside, California
Dear Mr. Bacic,
In accordance with your request and authorization, we are presenting the results of our geotechnical investigation for the Proposed Hospital Expansion project located at 10800 Magnolia Avenue in Riverside, California. The purpose of our investigation has been to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site, to identify seismic and geologic hazards present on the site, and to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed improvements. This report was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the 2019 California Building Code (2019 CBC), California Geological Survey (CGS) Note 48 (CGS, 2019), ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2017), and the Standard Geotechnical Report Review Comments prepared and used by Facilities Development Division (FDD) of Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) for OSHPD 1 Projects.

Based on our findings, the proposed project is geotechnically feasible, provided that the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and are implemented during construction of the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,
TWINING, INC.

Liangcai He, PhD, RCE 73280, GE 3033 Paul Soltis, RCE 56140, GE 2606 Chief Geotechnical Engineer Vice President, Geotechnical Engineering Jonathan Browning, CEG 2615
Certified Engineering Geologist
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................1

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................... 1

3. SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................................................2

3.1. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................................2

3.2. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REVIEW.................................................2

3.3. PRE-FIELD ACTIVITIES AND FIELD EXPLORATION ..............................................................2

3.4. GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING...............................................................................3

3.5. GEOPHYSICAL EVALUATION ....................................................................................................3

3.6. ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND REPORT PREPARATION ....................................................4

4. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS....................................................... 4

4.1. GEOLOGIC SETTING...................................................................................................................5

4.2. SITE GEOLOGY, SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS ........5

4.2.1. Pavement Section.............................................................................................................5

4.2.2. Artificial Fill ..........................................................................................................................5

4.2.3. Old Alluvial Fan Deposits................................................................................................6

4.2.4. Bedrock ................................................................................................................................6

4.3. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS..................................................................................................6

5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS..................... 8

5.1. HISTORICAL SEISMICITY ...........................................................................................................8

5.2. ACTIVE FAULTING AND SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE...........................................................8

5.3. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT ....................................................9

5.4. LATERAL SPREAD ....................................................................................................................11

5.5. LANDSLIDES ..............................................................................................................................11

5.6. FLOODING AND DAM INUNDATION ........................................................................................11

5.7. TSUNAMIS AND SEICHES.........................................................................................................11

5.8. DEAGGREGATED SEISMIC SOURCE PARAMETERS...........................................................12

5.9. SITE CLASS FOR SEISMIC DESIGN .......................................................................................12

5.10. MAPPED CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................12

5.11. SITE-SPECIFIC GROUND MOTION HAZARD ANALYSIS AND SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ...........................................................................................................................14

5.11.1. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis......................................................................14

5.11.2. Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis....................................................................14

5.11.3. Site-Specific Design Response Spectrum...............................................................16

5.11.4. Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters ...............................................................17

6. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS.................................... 17

6.1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................................17

6.2. SOIL EXPANSION AND COLLAPSE POTENTIAL...................................................................17

6.3. CORROSIVE SOIL EVALUATION .............................................................................................18

6.3.1. Reinforced Concrete ......................................................................................................18

6.3.2. Buried Metal......................................................................................................................18

6.4. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTH WORK ..............................................................................19 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
iii

6.4.1. Site Preparation ...............................................................................................................19

6.4.2. Temporary Excavations.................................................................................................19

6.4.3. Over-Excavation and Subgrade Preparation..........................................................19

6.4.4. Materials for Fill................................................................................................................20

6.4.5. Compacted Fill .................................................................................................................21

6.4.6. Excavation Bottom Stability..........................................................................................21

6.4.7. Backfill for Utility Trench................................................................................................21

6.4.8. Rippability ..........................................................................................................................22

6.4.9. Construction Dewatering...............................................................................................22

6.5. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................22

6.5.1. Footing Foundation.........................................................................................................22

6.5.2. Mat Foundation................................................................................................................24

6.6. SURCHARGE FROM ADJACENT FOOTINGS .........................................................................24

6.7. MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION...................................................................................24

6.8. CONCRETE SLABS ...................................................................................................................24

6.9. POLE FOUNDATIONS................................................................................................................27

6.9.1. Non-Constrained Ground ......................................................................................................27

6.9.2. Constrained Ground ..............................................................................................................27

6.10. BELOW-GRADE WALL AND LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE RECOMMENDATIONS........28

6.10.1. Backfill and Drainage of Walls ....................................................................................28

6.10.2. Lateral Earth Pressure...................................................................................................28

6.10.3. Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure ..................................................................................29

6.11. TEMPORARY SHORING ............................................................................................................29

6.11.1. Lateral Earth Pressures.................................................................................................30

6.11.2. Soldier Pile Design..........................................................................................................30

6.11.3. Tieback Design ................................................................................................................31

6.11.4. Anchor Installation...........................................................................................................31

6.11.5. Lagging and Sheeting....................................................................................................32

6.11.6. Lateral Deflection and Settlement..............................................................................32

6.11.7. Monitoring..........................................................................................................................32

6.12. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................32

6.12.1. Flexible Pavement Design............................................................................................33

6.12.2. Rigid Pavement Design.................................................................................................33

6.13. STORMWATER INFILTRATION FACILITY................................................................................33

6.14. DRAINAGE CONTROL...............................................................................................................34

7. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ..................................... 36

7.1. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.................................................................................................36

7.2. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEYS ..............................................................................................36

7.3. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ...............................................................................................36

8. LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................................37

9. SELECTED REFERENCES .................................................................................... 38 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
iv
Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Site Plan and Boring Location Map
Figure 3 – Regional Geologic Map
Figures 4A through 4D – Geologic Cross Sections A-A’, B-B’, C-C’, and D-D’ Figure 5 – Water Levels in Wells Adjacent to the Site
Figure 6 – Historical Earthquake Epicenter Map
Figure 7 – Seismic Hazard Zones Map
Figure 8 – Regional Fault Map
Figure 9 – Liquefaction Zones Map
Figure 10 – Dam Inundation Areas Map
Figure 11 – FEMA Flood Map
Figure 12 – Shear-Wave Velocity Profile
Figure 13 – Site-Specific Design Response Spectrum
Appendices
Appendix A – Field Exploration
Appendix B – Laboratory Testing
Appendix C – Geophysical Study
Appendix D – Liquefaction Analysis
Appendix E – Select Project Plans
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation performed by Twining, Inc. (Twining) for the Proposed Hospital Expansion project at Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center (Kaiser RMC) located at 10800 Magnolia Avenue in Riverside, California. A description of the site and the proposed improvements is provided in the following section. The objectives of this investigation have been to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site, to identify seismic and geologic hazards present on the site, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development, including recommendations for foundations and earthwork.

This report was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the 2019 California Building Code (2019 CBC), California Geological Survey (CGS) Note 48 (CGS, 2019), ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2017), and the Standard Geotechnical Report Review Comments prepared and used by Facilities Development Division (FDD) of Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) for OSHPD 1 Projects.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on our communications with Kaiser and the project architect, CO Architects, proposed improvements on the Kaiser RMC campus will be developed in seven phases. Details of each phase are provided on Sheets A1.20 through A1.24 included in Plans Appendix E – Select Project Plans. This report is primarily focused on the hospital new tower in Phase 6 located at the northwest corner of the hospital campus adjacent to the existing diagnostic and treatment center. This report also covers the installation of a new generator pad and a 20,000-gallon underground propane tank at the northeast corner of the hospital campus.

Based on information from Kaiser, CO Architects and the project structural engineer, John A. Martin & Associates, Inc., the tower will be an acute care facility (OSHPD-1) with a Risk Category of IV and will be connected to the existing hospital building on the east side of the existing hospital. The total square footage of the new hospital tower will be 291,494. The tower will have a gross building footprint of 61,373 square feet and will consist of five stories above grade and a single-level basement. The proposed building height is 74.5 feet to the roof and 89.5 feet to the top of roof screen. The superstructure will be steel framed utilizing special steel moment frame as the primary seismic force resisting system. The basement will utilize perimeter basement concrete walls acting as special concrete shear walls for lateral force resistance. The foundations will consist of square spread footings at isolated columns and continuous footings at basement walls. Grade beams will tie frame bays together at grade. It is anticipated the maximum dead and live load on a single column will be approximately 750 kips.

Other appurtenant improvements for the new tower are anticipated including parking spaces, hardscape, light poles, utility pipelines, a stormwater infiltration system, and a new driveway approach off Magnolia Avenue for emergency vehicles. The size and depth of the infiltration basin are to be determined, and details of the system are not yet available for our review. Details of the new emergency driveway approach is provided on Sheet C2.01 included in Appendix E.

Anticipated earthwork for the new tower will include 25,000 cubic yards (CY) of cut, 14,500 CY of fill, and 10,500 CY of export.

The project site is located at 10800 Magnolia Avenue in Riverside, California, as shown on Figure 1 – Site Location Map. The overall site plan showing the final finished entire Kaiser RMC site is depicted on Figure 2, along with the field investigation locations performed for this report. The sites are currently 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

occupied by paved surface parking, landscaping, and associated miscellaneous equipment. The site for the new tower is bounded by surface parking and existing hospital structures on the north, existing hospital buildings on the east, surface parking on the south, and the west. The site for the generator pad and the propane tank is approximately 700 feet to the east of the proposed tower at the southeast corner of the campus surrounded by surface parking and roadways on the campus.

The approximate coordinates are latitude 33.905595°N and longitude 117.470066°W for the tower site and latitude 33.904393°N and longitude 117.467919°W for the generator pad and propane tank site.

The sites are located on the Riverside West, California 7½-Minute Quadrangle, based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map (USGS 2018). The tower site is relatively level with a surface elevation of approximately 723 feet above mean sea level (msl). The site for the generator pad and the propane tank has a surface elevation of approximately 724 to 730 feet above msl.

3. SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work included review of background information, pre-field activities and field exploration, geophysical evaluation, laboratory testing, engineering analyses and report preparation. These tasks are described in the following subsections.

3.1. Literature Review
We reviewed readily available background data including proposed site improvement plans, published geologic maps, topographic maps, aerial photographs, seismic hazard maps and literature, and flood hazard maps relevant to the subject site. Relevant information has been incorporated into this report.

3.2. Aerial Photograph and Topographic Map Review
Vintage stereoscopic aerial photographs of the site and vicinity from the years between 1931 and 1980, and USGS topographic maps from the years between 1901 and 2018 as well as threedimensional computer-aided photography flown between the years of 1994 and 2018 and presented by Google Earth (Google, 2019) were reviewed for this report. The earliest images of the vicinity indicate agricultural use up to 1980. The current structure and surrounding hardscape and landscape improvements were built sometime between 1980 and 1994 and have generally stayed in the same configuration. We observed no lineaments indicative of faulting within or adjacent to the site during our aerial photograph and topographic map review.

3.3. Pre-Field Activities and Field Exploration
Before starting our exploration program, we had several site meetings and performed a geotechnical site reconnaissance to observe the general surficial conditions at the site, to select field exploration locations, and to plan field logistics including traffic control, health and safety, and badging. After exploration locations were delineated, Underground Service Alert was notified of the planned locations a minimum of 72 hours prior to excavation. We also retained GEOVision Inc. of Corona, California, a private utility locating service provider, to clear proposed boring locations of underground utility lines.

The field exploration was conducted between November 2, 2019 and March 13, 2021 and consisted of drilling, testing, sampling, and logging of 13 exploratory hollow-stem-auger (HSA) borings (B-1 through B-13) for the tower, 2 HSA borings for the generator pad (GP-1 and GP-2), and 2 HSA borings for the propane tank (PT-1 and PT-2). The field exploration also included percolation testing 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

in 3 hand-auger borings (P-3 through P-5) for the tower site. The HSA borings were advanced to approximate depths of 31.5 to 91.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) for the tower, approximately

51.5 feet bgs for the generator pad, and approximately 21.5 feet bgs for the propane tank. The borings were drilled using a RAM 5500 and a CME-75 truck-mounted drill rigs equipped with 8-inchdiameter HSAs. The hand-auger borings (P-3 through P-5) were each drilled to approximately 6 feet bgs for percolation testing. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2.

Drive samples of the soils were obtained from the HSA borings using a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler without liners and a modified California split spoon sampler. The samplers were driven using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling approximately 30 inches. The blow-counts to drive the samplers were recorded, and subsurface conditions encountered in the borings were logged by a Twining field engineer. Soil samples obtained from the borings were transported to Twining’s geotechnical engineering laboratory for examination and testing.

Percolation tests were performed in the hand-auger borings (P-3 through P-5) according to the boring percolation test guidance provided in the Riverside County Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices. Testing was performed to provide estimates of infiltration rate of the site soils for use in preliminary design of the stormwater infiltration system.

Upon completion of drilling or percolation testing, the borings were backfilled by the drilling subcontractor using drilled soil cuttings, and the surface was repaired to match existing conditions.

Detailed descriptions of the borings, soils encountered during drilling, and the percolation tests are presented in Appendix A – Field Exploration.

3.4. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the soil classification and to evaluate the engineering properties of site soils. The following tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM standards:
• In-situ moisture and density;
• #200 Wash;
• Grain size analysis;
• Atterberg Limits;
• Expansion Index;
• Consolidation;
• Direct shear;
• Unconfined compression;
• R-Value; and
• Corrosivity.

Detailed laboratory test procedures and results are presented in Appendix B – Laboratory Testing.

3.5. Geophysical Evaluation
As part of the field exploration program, we retained the services of Southwest Geophysics, LLC of San Diego, California (SGL) to perform a geophysical study to measure the shear-wave velocity (VS) 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

profile and the average shear-wave velocity (VS,30) in the top 30 meters (or approximately 100 feet) of the soil profile. The study was performed employing the refraction microtremor (ReMi) method, which uses recorded surface waves (specifically Rayleigh waves) that are contained in background noise to develop a Vs profile of the study area (Louie, 2001). The ReMi method does not require an increase of material velocity with depth; therefore, low velocity zones (velocity inversions) are detectable with ReMi. The results of the ReMi method are a one-dimensional VS model, which represents the average condition across the length of the measurement line placed at the ground surface. Results of the study are presented in Appendix C, which indicate that VS,30 of the site is approximately 1,143 feet per second (ft/s) or 348 meters per second (m/s).

3.6. Engineering Analyses and Report Preparation
We compiled and analyzed the data collected from our field exploration and laboratory testing. We performed engineering analyses based on our literature review and data from field exploration and laboratory testing programs. Our analyses included the following:
• Site geology and subsurface conditions;
• Groundwater conditions;
• Geologic hazards and seismic design parameters;
• Liquefaction potential and seismic settlement;
• Soil corrosion potential;
• Soil collapse and expansion potential;
• Site preparation and earthwork;
• Temporary excavations;
• Project feasibility and suitability of on-site soils for foundation support; • Foundation design parameters including bearing capacity, settlement, and lateral resistance; • Modulus of subgrade reaction for mat foundation and concrete slab-on-grade design; • Lateral earth pressures for retaining wall and shoring design; • Concrete slab-on-grade support; and
• Pavement section recommendations.

We prepared this report to present our conclusions and recommendations from this investigation.

4. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
According to the geologic mapping compiled by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2012), the project site is underlain by Late to Middle Pleistocene Old Alluvium Fan deposits (Geologic Symbol Qof) consisting of slightly to moderately consolidated, moderately dissected boulder, cobble, gravel, sand, and silt deposits issued from a confined valley or canyon. A portion of the geologic map is reproduced as Figure 3 – Regional Geologic Map.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

4.1. Geologic Setting
The site is located in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic province, within the Perris structural block. The Peninsular Ranges province extends southeastward from the foot of the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains to beyond the Mexican border and is subdivided into several structural units, such as the Los Angeles Basin, the Palos Verdes Hills, the Santa Ana Mountains, the San Gabriel Valley, the Perris and San Jacinto Mountain blocks, and the California Continental Borderland. The Peninsular Ranges province is generally characterized by northwest oriented valleys and mountain ranges bounded by major right lateral strike-slip fault zones. The San Andreas Fault zone constitutes the eastern provincial boundary; the Patton Escarpment constitutes the western provincial boundary, while the San Jacinto, Elsinore and Newport-Inglewood Fault zones are located within the center of the province. Rocks of the Peninsular Ranges are typically Cretaceous igneous and marine sedimentary and Paleozoic to Mesozoic metasedimentary rocks.

Tertiary marine and non-marine sedimentary and volcanic rock along with Quaternary sediment lies unconformably on either the Cretaceous sedimentary or the older basement rock. Perris Block consists of an uplifted Cretaceous and older crystalline bedrock structural unit bounded by the Elsinore fault on the west, the San Jacinto fault on the east, and the Santa Ana basin to the north.

The southern boundary is vague and consists of a complex network of east-west trending faults in the Temecula-Murrieta area. The Perris block has multiple erosion surfaces consisting of both crystalline bedrock and very old Mid-Miocene (approximately 12 MYA) alluvium mantling portions of the bedrock. Pleistocene-aged old alluvial fan deposit underlies the subject site and nearbysurrounding area (Morton & Cox, 2001). The earth materials encountered on the subject site are discussed in the following section.

4.2. Site Geology, Subsurface Conditions and Geologic Cross Sections According to the geologic mapping compiled by the California Geological Survey (Morton & Cox, 2001) and our investigation, the project site is underlain by Pleistocene-aged old alluvial fan deposit consisting of sand, silt and clay. A generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered is provided below. Detailed descriptions of the earth materials encountered in the exploratory borings are presented in Appendix A – Field Exploration. Cross sections illustrating the geologic conditions at the site are presented on Figures 4A through 4D – Geologic Cross Sections A-A’, BB’, C-C’, and D-D’.

4.2.1. Pavement Section
All borings except for B-8, B-9, B-10, and PT-2 encountered a pavement section. The pavement section encountered in borings B-1, B-2, B-11 through B-13 consisted of approximately 6 to 7 inches of reinforced concrete over 6 to 7 inches of aggregate base, and in borings B-3 through B-7, GP-1, GP-2, and PT-1 consisted of 4 to 8 inches of asphalt over up to 12 inches of aggregate base.

4.2.2. Artificial Fill
No artificial fill was identified in our borings drilled for the tower. The surficial material consisted of reddish brown sandy lean clay. No evidence of previous agricultural activity was identified in the surficial material. Therefore, it is probable that surficial improvement of existing soil was performed prior to placement of Portland cement concrete, asphalt concrete and base. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Approximately 2 to 4 feet of artificial fill was encountered in borings drilled for the generator pad and the propane tank. The artificial fill consisted of reddish-brown clayey sand and sandy lean clay.

No documentation for the placement and compaction of artificial fill was found during our reference review.

4.2.3. Old Alluvial Fan Deposits
Pleistocene-aged old alluvial fan deposit underlies the site to the maximum depth of the exploratory borings (approximately 91.5 feet bgs).

In the tower area, the upper 20 feet of the old alluvium consisted primarily of reddish brown to light brown lean clay with varying amounts of sand and occasionally of grayish brown to light brown silt with sand and sandy silt. From 20 to 50 feet bgs, the old alluvium consisted of lean clay and silt with varying amounts of sand interbedded with well-grade sand, poorly graded sand, silty sand with varying amounts of gravel. Below 50 feet bgs to the maximum depth of the exploratory borings, the old alluvium consisted of light brown poorly graded sand to silty sand with varying amounts gravel. The clay and silt layers have a stiff to hard consistency, and the sand layers are mostly dense to very dense and occasionally medium dense.

In the proposed generate pad area, the upper 30 feet of the old alluvium consisted primarily of reddish brown to light brown sandy lean clay with a silty sand between the depths of 15 and 20 feet and a sandy silt or silt with sand layer between the depths of 20 and 25 feet. Below the depth of 30 feet, the old alluvium consisted primarily of light brown poorly graded sand with silt and silty sand. The clay and silt layers have a stiff to hard consistency, and the sand layers are mostly dense to very dense and occasionally medium dense.

In the proposed propane tank area, the old alluvium encountered in boring PT-1 consisted primarily of medium dense to dense silty sand. The old alluvium encountered in boring PT-2 consisted of medium dense silty sand in the upper 6 feet underlain by hard sandy lean clay or sandy silt to the exploration bottom at 21.5 feet bgs.

The old alluvium is estimated to extend to a depth of approximately 300 feet bgs and is underlain by bedrock.

4.2.4. Bedrock
Our geotechnical borings excavated at the site did not encounter bedrock. Based on the California Geological Survey (Morton & Cox, 2001), Cretaceous Gabbro (crystalline bedrock) is anticipated to be at a depth of approximately 300 feet in the vicinity of the site.

4.3. Groundwater Conditions
During our field investigation, groundwater was encountered at 57.5 feet bgs in boring B-5.

Groundwater was not encountered in other borings that were terminated at 51.5 feet bgs or a smaller depth.

Historically high groundwater level in the vicinity of the project site is not available from CGS. We reviewed groundwater level data from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC), Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) and California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

According to MWDSC (2007) and WMWD (2012) maps, the project site is within the southern portion of the Arlington Basin, which is the portion of the Riverside-Arlington Groundwater Subbasin (Subbasin Number 8.2-03), as defined by the CDWR Bulletin 118-03 (CDWR, 2003). Groundwater occurrence in the Arlington Basin is generally unconfined. Groundwater flow is generally toward the southwest in the southern portion, which agrees well with groundwater levels measured in the three wells adjacent to the project site. The well locations with respect to the project site are shown in Figure 3. Historical water levels in the wells from 1960 to 2019 from WMWD (2012) and CDWR (2019) are shown in Figure 5 and summarized in Table 1. Historic high groundwater data described in WMWD (2012) indicate pre-development groundwater elevation of approximately 705 feet msl in the vicinity of the site.

As shown on Figure 5, the highest water levels in wells Buchanan 1 and Hole 1, located northeast and southwest of the site, respectively, occurred between 1984 and 1996. Figure 5 further indicates that the groundwater level in the area dropped continuously in the past 25 to 35 years since the highest water level year. The drops in wells Buchanan 1 and Hole 1 are approximately 50 and 40 feet, respectively. Well Daly 2 is the closest known well to the site, but no data was available before November 2011. However, it may be estimated that the highest water level in Daly 2 is between 701.5 and 711.5 feet msl assuming a similar water level drop of 40 to 50 feet. Considering water was encountered at 57.5 feet bgs in boring B-5 during our field investigation and assuming the same water level drop, we can estimate that the highest water level at the project site is likely between 7.5 and 17.5 feet bgs (or elevation 715.5 and 705.5 feet msl considering the ground surface elevation is approximately 723 feet msl), and the average is 12.5 feet bgs or 710.5 feet msl.

Table 1 – Water Levels in Wells Adjacent to the Site
Local Well ID Buchanan 1 Daly 2 Hole 1
California State Well Number 03S06W22K004S 03S06W13N002S 03S06W13B001S Latitude (degrees) 33.893033 33.902396 33.91527
Longitude (degrees) -117.495077 -117.469653 -117.457580 Approximate Location relative
to Project Site
8,860 ft southwest
of site 1,150 ft south of site 4,830 ft northeast of
site
Approximate Highest Water
Level Since 1960 (feet, msl) 678 in 1996 Estimated between 701.5 and 711.5 736.5 in 1984
Approximate Water Level at
end of 2019 (feet, msl) 628 661.5 696.5
Water Level Drop from the
Highest to the end of 2019
(feet)
50 Estimated between
40 and 50 40
Additionally, GEOBASE, Inc., (2012) reported the highest groundwater elevation since 1978 is 712.2 feet msl in a well approximately 400 to 500 feet upstream of the current project site. It occurred in May 1979, but there is no data in other years available for our review. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

It should be noted that groundwater conditions may vary across the site due to stratigraphic and hydrologic conditions and may change over time as a consequence of seasonal and meteorological fluctuations, or of activities by humans at this and nearby sites. For the purpose of this investigation, the historically highest groundwater for this project site can be assumed at approximately 710.5 feet msl or 12.5 feet bgs.

5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The site is located in a seismically active area, as is the majority of southern California, and the potential for strong ground motion in the project area is considered high during the design life of the proposed development. The hazards associated with seismic activity in the vicinity of the site area discussed in the following sections.

5.1. Historical Seismicity
The recorded history of earthquakes prior to the seismograph is sparse and inconsistent. The oldest seismographs (or recordable earthquake devices) originated in Italy in the mid 1800s. The modern seismograph was developed in Japan in 1880. Electromagnetic seismometers (calibrated seismographs) were developed between 1928 and 1930. Townley and Allen (1939) documented earthquakes along the Pacific Coast of the U.S. between 1769 and 1928. The systematic recording of large earthquakes in California began in 1932-1933 by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (Richter, 1958). As part of our investigation, we reviewed earthquake data recorded between A.D. 1700 and 2019 by searching historical accounts and publications cataloging North American earthquake activity, and the current USGS database (USGS, 2019). The nearest significant earthquake epicenter to the site was the 1923 moment magnitude (MW) 6.3 North San Jacinto Fault earthquake, which occurred approximately 14.1 miles or 22.8 kilometers (km) northeast of the site.

The epicentral locations of the most significant earthquakes are shown on Figure 6 – Historical Earthquake Epicenter Map.

5.2. Active Faulting and Surface Fault Rupture
The site is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) (CGS 2016). The boundary of the closest Alquist-Priolo EFZ is located approximately 6.9 miles (11.1 kilometers) southwest of the site associated with the Elsinore fault (Figure 7). Figure 8 shows the locations of the recognized nearby faults with respect to the site. The City of Riverside (2018) and the County of Riverside (2019) do not identify any additional hazardous faults in the immediate site vicinity.

A fault table of the active or potentially active faults within 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the site was generated by EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a) and was reviewed for this investigation. However, due to the limitations of the data base utilized by Blake, all of the fault distances were determined by individual measurements from more precise geologic maps, including the State’s Alquist-Priolo EFZ maps (Bryant and Hart, 2007), and other CGS and USGS sources. The faults in Table 2 are considered to represent the closest and most significant potential hazard to the site with respect to potential ground surface rupture and/or generate strong ground motion in the event of a moderately sized or larger earthquake. Based on our review of geologic and seismologic literature and our site evaluation, it is our opinion that the likelihood of surface fault rupture and earthquake-induced landslides at the site during the life of the proposed improvements is low. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Table 2 – Nearest Known Active Faults
Fault Name Faulting Mechanism Distance to Site
(miles)
unnamed fault in east Corona Strike Slip 5.4
Elsinore - Glen Ivy segment Strike Slip 7.9
Fontana Seismic Trend Strike Slip 8.8
Chino Central Avenue Strike Slip 12.8
San Jacinto - San Bernardino Valley segment Strike Slip 13.8 Red Hill - Etiwanda Reverse 16.1
Cucamonga Sierra Madre Reverse 17.8
San Jose Reverse 19.5
San Andreas - San Bernardino segment Strike Slip 21.5
Puente Hills Blind Thrust Reverse 22.7
Lower Elysian Park Thrust Reverse 27.9

5.3. Liquefaction Potential and Seismic Settlement
Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited granular soils with silt and clay contents of less than approximately 35 percent, and non-plastic silts located below the water table undergo rapid loss of shear strength when subjected to strong earthquake-induced ground shaking. Ground shaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact due to a rapid rise in pore water pressure and causes the soil to behave as a fluid for a short period of time.

Seismic settlement can occur when loose to medium dense granular materials densify during seismic shaking and liquefaction. Seismically-induced settlement may occur in dry, unsaturated, as well as saturated soils. Liquefaction is generally known to occur in loose, saturated, relatively clean, fine-grained cohesionless soils at depths shallower than approximately 50 feet. Factors to consider in the evaluation of soil liquefaction potential include groundwater conditions, soil type, grain size distribution, relative density, degree of saturation, and both the intensity and duration of ground motion. Other phenomena associated with soil liquefaction include sand boils, ground oscillation, and loss of foundation bearing capacity.

Seismic settlement can occur when medium dense granular materials densify during seismic shaking and/or liquefaction. Seismically-induced settlement may occur in dry, unsaturated, as well as saturated soils.

The area of the project site has not been evaluated for liquefaction by CGS. According to the liquefaction zones map in the General Plan 2025 of the City of Riverside, the site has moderate to high liquefaction potential (Figure 9).

We performed site-specific liquefaction analysis for low-density, non-plastic and low plasticity alluvium layers that are susceptible to liquefaction at the site. Based on Seed et al. (2003), the silt 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

and sandy silt layers with water content less than 85% of liquid limit are considered not susceptible to liquefaction in our analysis.

The analysis was performed based on SPT blowcounts from the HSA borings using the computer program LiqSVs version 2.0 (Geologismiki, 2019) and the procedure of Boulanger and Idriss (2014).

The analysis considered an Mw 7.7 associated with a full rupture of the Elsinore Fault Zone, a PGAM of 0.59 g discussed in Section 5.11.4, and a groundwater level at 12.5 feet bgs during earthquake discussed in Section 4.3. Seismic settlement above the groundwater table was considered negligible as the layers are cohesive soils. Below the water table, seismic settlements were calculated for each layer where the factor of safety against liquefaction is less than 1.3 (i.e., FS < 1.3). Detailed input parameters and results of the liquefaction analyses are presented in Appendix D of this report. The analysis results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 – Summary of Liquefaction Analysis Results
Boring
No
Total depth of
boring
(feet)
Depths of
Liquefiable Layers
(feet bgs)
Seismic
Settlement
(inch)
B-1 51.5 20 - 25; 35 - 40 2.28
B-2 31.5 None Negligible
B-3 51.5 None Negligible
B-4 31.5 None Negligible
B-5 91.5 None Negligible
B-6 51.5 None Negligible
B-7 31.5 25-30 1.14
B-8 51.5 None Negligible
B-9 31.5 None Negligible
B-10 31.5 None Negligible
B-11 31.5 None Negligible
B-12 31.5 None Negligible
B-13 31.5 20 - 25 0.66
GP-1 51.5 35 - 40 1.14
GP-2 51.5 None Negligible
PT-1 21.5 None Negligible
The results indicate that during strong earthquake events if liquefaction were to occur at the site, it would be within localized zones at depths 20 feet or greater. The results indicate that the maximum seismic settlements are approximately 2.28 inches at the proposed tower site and 1.14 inches at the proposed generator site. Based on the calculated total settlements and measured distances between borings, the maximum calculated differential settlements are approximately 2.28 inches over a horizontal distance of 50 feet at the proposed tower site and 1.14 inches over a horizontal distance of 40 feet at the proposed generator site. The settlement would occur within localized zones 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

at 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) or deeper during strong earthquake events if liquefaction were to occur.

We note that, at the tower site, only one out of the 13 borings has a calculated seismic settlement of 2.28 inches, two borings have 1.14 inches, and most borings have negligible settlements. At the generator site, only one out of the three borings has a calculated seismic settlement of 1.14 inches and the other two borings have negligible settlements. In addition, the calculated settlement is considered conservative as it is based on boring data collected at 5-foot intervals. Considering the lack of horizontally continuous liquefiable layers, the presence of 20 feet or more of overlying cohesive soils and the conservative settlement estimate, it is our opinion that, for design of the new tower, total seismic settlement at the foundation level may be taken as 2.28 inches, and the differential settlement can be taken as 1.14 inches over a horizontal distance of 50 feet. For design of the generator and tank, total seismic settlement at the foundation level may be taken as 1.14 inches, and the differential settlement can be taken as 0.6 inches over a horizontal distance of 40 feet.

5.4. Lateral Spread
The potential of liquefaction-induced lateral spread at the site is considered remote because the site has low liquefaction potential, does not have a sloping ground, and is not adjacent to a slope.

5.5. Landslides
The area of the project site is not within an area with the potential for earthquake-induced landslides.

Considering the site is relatively flat and not close to significant slopes, the potential for earthquakeinduced landslides to occur at the site is considered very low.

5.6. Flooding and Dam Inundation
According to the Flood Hazard Areas map (Figure 10) in the General Plan 2025 of the City of Riverside, the site is not located within a 100- or 500-year floodplain. However, the site is located within the inundation area associated with incidents and failures of the Harrison dam and the Mockingbird Canyon dam. It is further noted that the site is not located within the inundation area of Lake Mathews (Figure 10).

According to the flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program, the site is located within Zone X, which is described as “Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood hazard; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or drainage areas less than 1 square mile.” A portion of the FEMA flood map is reproduced in Figure 11.

5.7. Tsunamis and Seiches
Tsunamis are waves generated by massive landslides near or under sea water. The potential for the site to be adversely impacted by earthquake-induced tsunamis is considered to be remote because the site is not within the official tsunami inundation area mapped by California and the site is located tens of miles inland from the Pacific Ocean coast and has an approximate ground surface elevation of 723 feet msl that exceeds the maximum height of potential tsunami inundation in California (USGS 2013).

Seiches are standing wave oscillations of an enclosed water body (e.g., a lake, reservoir, or bay) after the original driving force has dissipated. Resulting oscillation could cause waves up to tens of 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

feet high, which in turn could cause extensive damage along the shoreline. The most serious consequences of a seiche would be the overtopping and failure of a dam. The potential for the site to be adversely impacted by earthquake-induced seiches would be associated with the potential of seiche-induced failure of the Harrison dam or the Mockingbird Canyon dam, because the site is within the inundation area of the two dams.

5.8. Deaggregated Seismic Source Parameters
We performed a seismic hazard de-aggregation analysis for the peak ground acceleration with a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years. The analysis used the USGS Unified Hazard Tool based on the 2014 USGS seismic source model. The results of the analysis indicate the controlling modal moment magnitude Mw and fault distance R are 6.47 and 7.53 miles (12.12 km), respectively.

5.9. Site Class for Seismic Design
The Vs profile from the geophysical study (Section 3.5 and Appendix C) performed by Southwest Geophysics for the site is shown in Figure 12, which indicates that the site VS,30 is approximately 348 m/s or 1,143 ft/s. We recommend that a VS,30 value of 348 m/s be used for this project.

Based on the site subsurface conditions (Section 4.2 and Appendix A) and the site VS,30 values, we have determined Site Class D for the project seismic design according to Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16.

5.10. Mapped CBC Seismic Design Parameters
Our recommendations for seismic design parameters have been developed in accordance with the 2019 CBC and ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2017) standards. As the site is classified as seismic Site Class D and the mapped spectral acceleration parameter at period 1-second, S1, is greater than 0.2 g, a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis is required according to Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7-16.

As an alternative, Exception 2 in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 may be used for the project. For structural design based on this exception, Table 4 presents the seismic design parameters for the project.

The site-specific ground motion hazard analysis and seismic design parameters are presented in Section 5.11.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Table 4 – 2019 California Building Code Seismic Design Parameters for Design Based on Exception 2 in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 Design Parameters Value
Site Class D
Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameter at Period of 0.2-Second, Ss (g) 1.5 Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameter at Period 1-Second, S1 (g) 0.582 Site Coefficient, Fa 1
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.718
Adjusted MCER1 Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SMS (g) 1.5 Adjusted MCER1 Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SM1 (g) 1.0 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDS (g) 1.0 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SD1 (g) 0.667 Risk Coefficient CRS 0.943
Risk Coefficient CR1 0.921
Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM2 (g) 0.601
Seismic Design Category3 D
Long-Period Transition Period, TL (seconds) 8
Ts = SD1 / SDS 0.667
When using the above parameters for seismic design, the seismic design coefficient Cs should be calculated as follows:

For T ≤ 1.5Ts, Cs = SDS
� R
Ie
�
For TL ≥ T > 1.5Ts, Cs = 1.5 SD1
T� R
Ie
�
For T > TL, Cs = 1.5 SD1TL
T2� R
Ie
�
where
T = the fundamental period of the structure(s) determined in Section 12.8.2 of ASCE 7-16; R = the response modification factor determined in Table 12.2-1 of ASCE 7-16; and Ie = the importance factor determined in accordance with Section 11.5.1 of ASCE 7-16.

Notes: 1 Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake.
2 Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for site effects.
3 For S1 greater than or equal to 0.75 g, the Seismic Design Category is E for risk category I, II, and III structures and F for risk category IV structures. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

5.11. Site-Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis and Seismic Design Parameters The site-specific ground motion hazard analysis was performed in accordance with Section 21.2 of ASCE 7-16 based on a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. To develop the site-specific design response spectrum, we performed probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) and deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) to compute the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) response accelerations. Our PSHA and DSHA used four NGA-West2 ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) developed by Abrahamson et al. (2014), Boore et al. (2014), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014), and Chiou and Youngs (2014), respectively. The analyses were based on the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast Version 3 (UCERF3) developed by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP). UCERF3 is the California portion of the 2014 USGS national seismic source model (Petersen et al. 2014). Our analyses included treatment of maximum direction spectra and adjustment for risk targeting.

The analyses were performed using a VS,30 value of 348 m/sec and site coordinates of latitude

33.905595°N and longitude 117.470066°W. The site-specific design response spectrum is presented in Figure 13 – Site-Specific Design Response Spectrum, along with the MCER ground motions from our PSHA and DSHA. The detailed analysis description and results are presented below.

5.11.1. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
A site-specific PSHA was performed to evaluate probabilistic MCER ground motions. The probabilistic spectral response accelerations are taken as the spectral response accelerations in the direction of maximum horizontal response represented by a 5% damped acceleration response spectrum that is expected to achieve a 1% probability of collapse within a 50-year period. In this report, ordinates of the probabilistic ground motion response spectrum were determined by Method 1 of Section 21.2.1.1 of ASCE 7-16.

The PSHA was first performed using the Hazard Spectrum Calculator by OpenSHA.org (http://www.opensha.org/apps-HazardSpectrumLocal) to obtain an average spectrum of the geometric-mean acceleration response spectra from the four NGA-West2 GMPEs. The spectra were calculated for 5-percent damped and a 2 percent probability of exceedance within a 50- year period. The average spectrum was converted to the maximum response ground motion using scale factors described in Section 21.2 of ASCE 7-16. The scale factors are 1.1 for spectral response periods less than or equal to 0.2 s, 1.3 for a period of 1.0 s, 1.5 for periods greater than or equal to 5.0 s, and between these periods are obtained by linear interpolation.

The maximum response ground motion was then multiplied by a risk coefficient CR to obtain the probabilistic MCER ground motion response spectrum. The values of CR are CRS for periods less than or equal to 0.2 s and CR1 for periods greater than or equal to 1.0 s. For periods between periods 0.2 s and 1.0 s, CR is based on linear interpolation of CRS and CR1. The values of CRS and CR1 for this project are presented in Table 4.

5.11.2. Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis
A site-specific DSHA was performed to evaluate the deterministic MCER ground motions. The deterministic MCER response acceleration at specified periods was calculated as the 84th percentile of the maximum rotated component of ground motion computed at each period for characteristic earthquakes on known active faults within the region. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

The active faults and their parameters used in our DSHA are provided in Table 5, obtained from the Caltrans ARS Online Tool version 2.3.09 (http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS_Online/index.php).

The DSHA was performed for each fault to obtain the 5-percent-damped deterministic pseudoabsolute acceleration response spectrum using the four NGA-West2 GMPEs implemented in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet available from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (https://peer.berkeley.edu/research/data-sciences/databases).

Table 5 - Seismic Source Parameters
Fault
Name
Elsinore
(Glen Ivy)
rev
San Jacinto
(San
Bernardino)
San Jacinto
(San
Bernardino
Valley section)
Elsinore
fault zone
(Chino
section)
Elsinore
(Temecula)
San Andreas (San
Bernardino S)
Fault ID 365 336 310 355 378 325
Slip Sense Strike‐Slip Strike‐Slip Strike‐Slip Strike‐Slip Strike‐Slip Strike‐Slip Mw 7.7 7.7 7.7 6.6 7.7 7.9
Dip, (deg) 90 90 90 50 90 90
ZTOR (km) 0 0 0 0 0 0
ZBOT, (km) 13 16 15 9.2 14 12.8
W (km) 13 16 15 12 14 12.8
RRUP (km) 12.86 22.06 23.83 13.2 27.43 34.69
RJB (km) 12.86 22.06 23.83 13.2 27.43 34.69
RX (km) 12.86 22.06 23.83 13.2 18.89 34.69
FNM 0 0 0 0 0 0
FRV 0 0 0 0 0 0
Notes:

Mw = Moment magnitude.

ZTOR = The depth to the top of the rupture plane.

ZBOT = The depth to the bottom of the rupture plane.

W = Fault rupture width.

RRUP = Closest distance to coseismic rupture.

RJB = Closest distance to surface projection of coseismic rupture.

RX = Horizontal distance from top of rupture measured perpendicular to fault strike.

FRV = Reverse-faulting factor: 0 for strike-slip, normal, normal-oblique; 1 for reverse, reverseoblique and thrust.

FNM = Normal-faulting factor: 0 for strike slip, reverse, reverse-oblique, thrust and normaloblique; 1 for normal.

The resulting 84th percentile geometric-mean acceleration response spectra for the earthquakes were used to develop a deterministic response spectrum based on the greatest spectral acceleration at each period, and then converted into maximum rotated components of ground motion using the scale factors described in Section 21.2 of ASCE 7-16 as discussed in Section

5.11.1 of this report. The final deterministic MCER is taken as the maximum rotated deterministic response spectrum scaled by a single factor equal to the greater of 1.5Fa/Sa,max,max and 1, where Sa,max,max is the maximum spectral acceleration of the maximum rotated deterministic response spectrum, and Fa is determined to be 1 using Table 11.4.1 of ASCE 7-16. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

5.11.3. Site-Specific Design Response Spectrum
The site-specific MCER spectral response acceleration was calculated at each period to be the lesser of the spectral response accelerations from the probabilistic and deterministic MCER, but not less than 1.5 times 80 percent of the spectral acceleration evaluated in accordance with Sections 11.4.6 and 21.3 of ASCE 7-16. In order to calculate the 80 percent of the spectral acceleration, values of SDS, SD1 and the design spectrum were calculated using the mapped values presented in Table 4, except that SM1 and SD1 at this step were based on an Fv value of

2.5, in accordance with Section 21.3 of ASCE 7-16.

Finally, the site-specific design spectral response acceleration at each period was calculated as two-thirds of the site-specific MCER spectral acceleration. The site-specific design response spectrum and relevant response spectral data are presented in Table 6 and Figure 13 – SiteSpecific Design Response Spectrum.

Table 6 - Site-Specific Design Response Spectrum Data
Period
T
(sec)
General
Procedure
Design
Response
Spectrum for
Exception 2
of ASCE 7-16
(g)
Risk
Coefficient
CR
Site-Specific Ground Motion Analysis Spectral Accelerations (g) Maximum
direction 2%-
in-50-years
Probabilistic
Spectrum
Probabilistic
MCER
Maximum
direction
84thpercentile
Deterministic
Spectrum
Deterministic
MCER
80% General
Procedure
Design
Response
Spectrum
with Fv=2.5
Site
Specific
MCER
SiteSpecific
Design
Response
Spectrum

0.01 0.445 0.943 0.850 0.801 0.647 0.647 0.345 0.647 0.431

0.02 0.490 0.943 0.855 0.807 0.649 0.649 0.369 0.649 0.433

0.03 0.535 0.943 0.903 0.851 0.674 0.674 0.394 0.674 0.449

0.05 0.625 0.943 1.083 1.021 0.770 0.770 0.444 0.770 0.513

0.075 0.738 0.943 1.382 1.303 0.934 0.934 0.506 0.934 0.623

0.1 0.850 0.943 1.630 1.537 1.085 1.085 0.567 1.085 0.723

0.133 1.000 0.943 1.817 1.713 1.238 1.238 0.650 1.238 0.825

0.15 1.000 0.943 1.911 1.802 1.315 1.315 0.691 1.315 0.876

0.194 1.000 0.943 2.020 1.904 1.440 1.440 0.800 1.440 0.960

0.2 1.000 0.943 2.034 1.919 1.457 1.457 0.800 1.457 0.971

0.25 1.000 0.942 2.093 1.971 1.554 1.554 0.800 1.554 1.036

0.3 1.000 0.940 2.112 1.986 1.667 1.667 0.800 1.667 1.111

0.4 1.000 0.938 2.014 1.889 1.747 1.747 0.800 1.747 1.165

0.5 1.000 0.935 1.884 1.761 1.789 1.789 0.800 1.761 1.174

0.667 1.000 0.930 1.639 1.524 1.681 1.681 0.800 1.524 1.016

0.75 0.889 0.928 1.516 1.406 1.628 1.628 0.800 1.406 0.938

0.9 0.741 0.924 1.354 1.250 1.572 1.572 0.800 1.250 0.834

0.97 0.687 0.922 1.268 1.169 1.540 1.540 0.800 1.200 0.800 1 0.667 0.921 1.234 1.137 1.528 1.528 0.776 1.164 0.776

1.5 0.444 0.921 0.821 0.756 1.208 1.208 0.517 0.776 0.517 2 0.333 0.921 0.604 0.556 0.996 0.996 0.388 0.582 0.388 3 0.222 0.921 0.402 0.370 0.766 0.766 0.259 0.388 0.259 4 0.167 0.921 0.300 0.277 0.607 0.607 0.194 0.291 0.194 5 0.133 0.921 0.248 0.229 0.484 0.484 0.155 0.233 0.155 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

5.11.4. Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters
The site-specific seismic design parameters are provided in Table 7. These parameters were determined from the site-specific design response spectrum presented in Table 6 following Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-16.

It should be noted that for use with the equivalent lateral force procedure in structural design, the site specific design spectral acceleration, Sa (the last column in Table 6 of this report), at T may replace SD1/T and SD1TL/T2 in ASCE 7-16 Eqs. (12.8-3) and (12.8-4), respectively. The sitespecific seismic design parameter SDS shown in Table 7 of this report may be used in ASCE 7- 16 Eqs. (12.8-2), (12.8-5), (15.4-1), and (15.4-3). The mapped value of S1 in Table 4 of this report should be used in ASCE 7-16 Eqs. (12.8-6), (15.4-2), and (15.4-4).

Table 7 - Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters
Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters Design Values (g) Spectral Response Acceleration 0.2-second period, SMS 1.585 Spectral Response Acceleration 1-second period, SM1 1.164 Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, SDS 1.056 Design Spectral Response Acceleration for 1-second period, SD1 0.776 MCE Geomatric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.588

6. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our literature review and the field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design plans and are implemented during construction.

6.1. General Considerations
Geotechnical engineering recommendations presented in this report for the proposed project are based on our understanding of the proposed development, subsurface conditions encountered during our field exploration, the results of laboratory testing on soil samples taken from the site, and our engineering analyses.

The following sections present our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the engineering design for this project. If the design substantially changes, then our geotechnical engineering recommendations would be subject to revision based on our evaluation of the changes.

6.2. Soil Expansion and Collapse Potential
Based on our field exploration and laboratory test results, the risk of soil expansion and collapse is low at the site and will not adversely affect the design and construction of the project. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

6.3. Corrosive Soil Evaluation
The potential for the near-surface on-site materials to corrode buried steel and concrete improvements was evaluated. Laboratory testing was performed on one selected near-surface soil to evaluate pH and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with California Test 643, and the sulfate and chloride tests were performed in accordance with California Tests 417 and 422, respectively. These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

Corrosive soil may be defined as the soil has minimum electrical resistivity less than 1,000 ohmcentimeters, or chloride concentration greater than 500 parts per million (ppm), or sulfate concentration in soils greater than 2,000 ppm, or a pH less than 5.5 (e.g., based on the County of Los Angeles criteria or the California Department of Transportation criteria).

Discussions of corrosion protection for reinforced concrete and buried metal is provided below.

Further interpretation of the corrosivity test results and associated corrosion design and construction recommendations are within the purview of a corrosion specialist. It is recommended that a qualified corrosion engineer be retained to review the corrosivity test results, to evaluate the general corrosion potential with respect to construction materials at this site, and to review the proposed design.

6.3.1. Reinforced Concrete
Laboratory tests indicate that the soil has 427 ppm (0.0427%) or less of water soluble sulfate (SO4) by weight. Based on ACI 318, concrete in contact with the site soils will have a sulfate exposure class S0. As a minimum, we recommend that Type II cement and a water-cement ratio of no greater than 0.50 be used on the project.

Test results indicate that the soil has 165 ppm or less of water soluble chlorides by weight and the potential for chloride attack of reinforcing steel in concrete structures and pipes in contact with soil is negligible. However, if needed, a corrosion specialist may be consulted for protection from chloride attack.

6.3.2. Buried Metal
A factor for evaluating corrosivity to buried metal is electrical resistivity. The electrical resistivity of a soil is a measure of resistance to electrical current. Corrosion of buried metal is directly proportional to the flow of electrical current from the metal into the soil. As resistivity of the soil decreases, the corrosivity generally increases. Test results indicate the site soils have a minimum electrical resistivity value greater than 1,000 ohm-centimeters, except for the boring PT-2 area where site soils have a minimum electrical resistivity value of 990 ohm-centimeters.

Based on the criteria of the County of Los Angeles and the California Department of Transportation, the soils with minimum electrical resistivity less than 1,000 ohm-centimeters are considered corrosive to buried metals.

Correlations between resistivity and corrosion potential published by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE, 1984) indicate that the soils with minimum electrical resistivity less than 1,000 ohm-centimeters are considered severely corrosive to buried metals. Based on that, corrosion protection for metal in contact with site soils should be considered. Corrosion protection may include the use of epoxy or asphalt coatings. A corrosion specialist should be consulted regarding appropriate protection for buried metals and suitable types of piping. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

6.4. Site Preparation and Earth Work
In general, earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Twining should be contacted for questions regarding the recommendations or guidelines presented herein.

6.4.1. Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of utility lines, asphalt, concrete, vegetation, topsoil, and other deleterious debris from areas to be graded. Tree stumps and roots should be removed to such a depth that organic material is not present. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside edges of the proposed excavation and fill areas. We recommend that unsuitable materials such as organic matter or oversized material be removed and disposed of offsite. The debris and unsuitable material generated during clearing and grubbing should be removed from areas to be graded and disposed of at a legal dump site away from the project area.

6.4.2. Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations less than 20 feet deep are expected for the project. We anticipate that unsurcharged excavations with vertical sides less than 4 feet high will generally be stable; however, if excavation extends to the sandy soil layers, some sloughing of cohesionless sandy materials encountered at the site should be expected.

Where space is available, temporary, un-surcharged excavation sides over 4 feet in height should be sloped no steeper than an inclination of 1.5H:1V (horizontal:vertical).

The tops of the excavation sides should be barricaded so that vehicles and storage loads are away from the top edge of the excavated slopes with a distance at least equal to the height of the slopes. A greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes. Twining should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be established. If the temporary construction slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are recommended to be graded along the tops of the slopes in order to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces.

Excavations should not undermine the existing adjacent improvements. Prior to excavation in the proximity of an existing improvement, Twining should be contacted to evaluate that there will be no loss of support for all excavations close to the existing improvement.

Personnel from Twining should observe the excavations so that any necessary modifications based on variations in the encountered soil conditions can be made. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including CalOSHA requirements, should be met. Stability of temporary excavations is the responsibility of the contractor.

6.4.3. Over-Excavation and Subgrade Preparation
The proposed structures may be supported by shallow foundations. It is recommended that the footings be founded on undisturbed competent native soils or engineered fill.

Undocumented fill, if encountered during construction within the proposed tower, generator pad and propane tank footprints, should be removed to its full depth. For the tower slab and footings, 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

no additional overexcavation is required once the fill is removed. Once the fill has been removed and the native material exposed, the upper 6 inches of the exposed native material should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to 90%, and observed by a representative of Twining prior to the placement of any fill or reinforcing bar.

If fill is encountered during excavation for minor structures that are structurally separated from the tower, the excavation should extend at least 2 feet below the finished grade or at least 1 foot below the bottom of the footing of the minor structures, whichever is greater. Excavation for pavements and hardscape should be over-excavated at least 1 foot as measured from the bottom of the pavement or hardscape section.

Laterally, foundation excavation should extend beyond the foundation limits a minimum distance equal to two feet or the depth of over-excavation, whichever is greater. Excavation for other improvements (e.g., concrete walkways, flatwork, pavement) should extend laterally at least two feet beyond the limits of the improvements.

The extent and depths of all removal should be evaluated by Twining’s representative in the field based on the materials exposed. Should excavations expose soft soils or soils considered as unsuitable for use as fill by a Twining representative, additional removals may be recommended. For example, deeper removal may be required in areas where soft, saturated, or organic materials are encountered.

The exposed bottom of over-excavation should be evaluated and approved by Twining. The excavation bottom to receive fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and moisture conditioned to achieve generally consistent moisture contents approximately 2 percent above the optimum moisture content. The scarified bottom should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with the latest version of ASTM Test Method D1557 and then evaluated and approved by Twining.

Prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete for foundations, the bottom of footing excavations should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to achieve generally consistent moisture contents approximately 2 percent above the optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined from ASTM D 1557.

Fill and backfill materials should be compacted fill in accordance with Sections 6.4.4 and 6.4.5 of this report. Prior to placement of any fill, the geotechnical engineer or their representative should review the bottom of the excavation for conformance with the recommendations of this report.

6.4.4. Materials for Fill
In general, on-site soils are considered as suitable for use as fill materials. All fill soils should be free of organics, debris, rocks or lumps over three inches in largest dimension, other deleterious material, and not more than 40 percent larger than ¾ inch. Larger chunks, if generated during excavation, may be broken into acceptably sized pieces or may be disposed of offsite.

Any imported fill material should consist of granular soil having a “very low” expansion potential (i.e., expansion index of 20 or less). Import material should also have low corrosion potential (that is, chloride content less than 500 ppm, soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent, and pH of 5.5 or higher).
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

All fill soils should be evaluated and approved by a Twining representative prior to importing or filling.

6.4.5. Compacted Fill
Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed excavation bottom to receive fill should be prepared in accordance with Section 6.4.3 of this report. Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor should request Twining to evaluate the exposed excavation bottoms.

Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 to 10 inches in loose thickness, depending on the equipment used. Prior to compaction, each lift should be moisture conditioned, mixed, and then compacted by mechanical methods. The moisture content should be approximately 2 percent above the optimum moisture content. Fill materials should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent within the upper one foot below new vehicle trafficked pavement sections, and 90 percent in all other areas, unless indicated otherwise. The relative compaction should be determined by ASTM D1557. Successive lifts should be treated in the same manner until the desired finished grades are achieved.

6.4.6. Excavation Bottom Stability
In general, we anticipate that bottoms of the excavations will be stable and should provide suitable support for the proposed improvements. Conditions of the excavation bottom should be evaluated by Twining during the scarification and re-compaction efforts. If unstable bottom conditions are encountered, remedial measures would be required to stabilize the bottom. Soft bottom conditions can be identified by surface yielding under rubber-tired equipment loading and the inability to achieve proper compaction. Recommendations for stabilizing excavation bottoms should be based on evaluation in the field by the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction.

6.4.7. Backfill for Utility Trench
Utility trench excavations to receive backfill shall be free of trash, debris or other unsatisfactory materials at the time of backfill placement.

At locations where the trench bottom is yielding or otherwise unstable, pipe support may be improved by placing 12 inches of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB) as defined in the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC).

The trench should be bedded with clean sand extending to at least 6 inches below the bottom of the pipe and one foot over the top of pipe. Pipe bedding as specified in SSPWC can be used.

Bedding material should consist of clean sand having a sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater.

Alternative materials meeting the intent of the bedding specifications are also acceptable.

Samples of materials proposed for use as bedding should be provided to the engineer for inspection and testing before the material is imported for use on the project. The onsite materials in the upper 20 feet consist of sandy lean clay and thus do not appear suitable for bedding, unless segregation of sandy materials is performed during excavation. The pipe bedding material should be placed over the full width of the trench. After placement of the pipe, the bedding should be brought up uniformly on both sides of the pipe and mechanically compacted to reduce the potential for unbalanced loads. No void or uncompacted areas should be left beneath the pipe haunches.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Above pipe bedding, trench backfill may be onsite soils and should not contain rocks or lumps over 3 inches in largest dimension. Larger chunks, if generated during excavation, may be broken into acceptably sized pieces or may be disposed of offsite. The moisture content should be approximately 2 percent above the optimum moisture content.

Backfill may be placed and compacted by mechanical means and should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as per ASTM Standard D1557. Where pavement is planned, the top 12 inches of subgrade soils and the overlying aggregate base should be compacted to 95 percent.

Jetting or flooding of pipe bedding and backfill material is not recommended.

6.4.8. Rippability
The earth materials underlying the site should be generally excavatable with heavy-duty earthwork equipment in good working condition. Some gravels, cobbles and artificial fill (although not identified in our borings) should be anticipated.

6.4.9. Construction Dewatering
As discussed earlier, groundwater was encountered at approximately 57.5 feet bgs during our field exploration. Construction of the project is anticipated to occur above the groundwater. The possibility to encounter groundwater is low during earthwork and foundation preparation for the proposed structures, and the need for dewatering is not anticipated for construction of foundations and utility trenches.

6.5. Foundation Recommendations
Based upon the excavation/over-excavation and backfill recommendations, the proposed project may be supported on shallow foundations designed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations presented below. Structural design of foundations should be performed by the structural engineer and should conform to the 2019 California Building Code.

6.5.1. Footing Foundation
Continuous strip footings or isolated footings for the proposed tower should be placed on the subgrade prepared in accordance the requirements described in Section 6.4. Geotechnical design parameters for these footings presented in Table 8 may be used. Twining should be contacted for footing dimensions, allowable bearing pressures, and settlements that are outside the indicated applicable ranges.

Footings beneath the design groundwater level should be designed for hydrostatic uplift. For this project site, the design groundwater level can be assumed to be approximately 710.5 feet above msl or 12.5 feet bgs as discussed in Section 4.3 – Groundwater Conditions.

Lateral loads may be resisted by footing base friction and by the passive resistance of the soils based on recommendations provided in Table 8.

The total lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the friction at the base of the footing and passive resistance. The upper one foot of soil should be neglected when calculating the passive resistance. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third for transient loads from wind or earthquake. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Table 8 - Geotechnical Design Parameters for Footing Foundations Minimum Footing
Dimensions
 Continuous footings: 18 inches in width.
 Square footings: 24 inches in width.
 Minimum embedment: 24 inches measured from the
lowest adjacent grade to the bottom of the footing.
 Minimum thickness: 6 inches
Allowable Bearing
Pressure
 For footings installed 10 feet or less below existing ground surface: allowable bearing pressures of 1,500 and 1,800 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for continuous and square footings, respectively.
 For footings installed more than 10 feet below existing ground surface: allowable bearing pressures of 4,500 and 5,500 psf may be used for continuous and square
footings, respectively.
 The allowable bearing values correspond to a factor of safety of 3.
 The allowable bearing values may be increased by onethird for transient loads from wind or earthquake.

Estimated Static
Settlement
 Approximately one inch of total settlement with differential settlement estimated to be on the order of ½ inches over 30 feet.
 The static settlement of the foundation system is expected to complete on initial application of loading.

Allowable Friction at the
Bottom of Footing
 0.3.
 No increase is allowed for transient loading conditions.  The allowable bottom friction values correspond to a
factor of safety of 1.5.

Allowable Lateral
Passive Resistance
 250 psf per foot of depth (i.e., 250 pcf equivalent fluid pressure.
 The allowable passive resistance corresponds to a factor of safety of 2.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

6.5.2. Mat Foundation
Mat foundations for the proposed generator pad and propane tank or other structures should be placed on the subgrade prepared in accordance the requirements described in Section 6.4. The depths, plan dimensions, and vertical load of the mat are not available for our review at the time of this report. For design of mat foundations with plan dimension of 20 feet by 70 feet or smaller, an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf may be used. A factor of safety of 3 is incorporated into the allowable bearing capacity. Estimated total settlement at the center of the mat is about

1.5 inches, and along the edges of the mat varies from 0.6 to 0.9 inches. Settlement of the mat is expected to complete on initial application of loading. For structural design of the mat according to the 2019 CBC, a subgrade modulus k calculated from Section 6.7 may be used.

Lateral loads may be resisted by footing base friction and by the passive resistance of the soils based on recommendations provided in Table 8.

The total lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the friction at the base of the footing and passive resistance. The upper one foot of soil should be neglected when calculating the passive resistance. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third for transient loads from wind or earthquake.

6.6. Surcharge from Adjacent Footings
Design of new footings or evaluation of existing footings should consider vertical surcharge from adjacent footings that are located above the 1:1 plane drawn up from the closest bottom edge of the footing being designed or evaluated. Surcharge located below the 1:1 plane may be ignored.

6.7. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
The modulus of subgrade reaction k for design of mat foundations, combined footing, and slabs-ongrade may be obtained from the following equation. k = k1
B �
2L + B
3L �
where: k1 = modulus for a 1-foot by 1-foot plate = 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci); B = width of combined footing or slab in feet;
L = length of combined footing or slab in feet, and L ≥ B.

6.8. Concrete Slabs
Slabs should be supported on non-expansive engineered fill in accordance with Section 6.4 of this report. For design of concrete slabs, the subgrade modulus k calculated from Section 6.7 may be used.

The design of slabs beneath the design groundwater level should consider hydrostatic uplift. For this project site, the design groundwater level can be assumed to be approximately 710.5 feet above msl or 12.5 feet bgs as discussed in Section 4.3 – Groundwater Conditions. Additionally, the slabs should be waterproofed and have proper under drainage. The under drainage for slabs beneath the 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

design water level should consist of at least 6 inches of free draining materials that consist of clean sand, gravel, or crushed rock with less than 5% fines.

Floor slabs should be designed and reinforced in accordance with the structural engineer’s recommendations. For slabs not supporting heavy loads, we recommend that the concrete should have a thickness of at least 4 inches, a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 pounds per square inch (psi), a water-cement ratio of 0.50 or less, and a slump of 4 inches or less. Slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed longitudinally at 18 inches on center. The reinforcement should extend through the control joints to reduce the potential for differential movement. Control joints should be constructed in accordance with recommendations from the structural engineer or architect. For slabs supporting equipment, a minimum thickness of 5 inches is recommended. Additional thickness and reinforcement recommendations may be provided by the structural engineer.

The topmost 8 inches below the slab subgrade should be maintained in a moisture condition of approximately 0 to 2 percent above optimum moisture content. The slab subgrade should be tested for moisture and compaction immediately prior to placement of the gravel or sand base, if any. All underslab materials should be adequately compacted prior to the placement of concrete. Care should be taken during placement of the concrete to prevent displacement of the underslab materials. The underslab material should be dry or damp and should not be saturated prior to the placement of concrete. The concrete slab should be allowed to cure properly and should be tested for moisture transmission prior to placing vinyl or other moisture-sensitive floor covering. In moisture sensitive areas, the floor slabs should be dampproofed in accordance with Section 1805A.2 of 2019 CBC. Specific recommendations can be provided by a waterproofing consultant.

Table 9 provides general recommendations for various levels of protection against vapor transmission through concrete floor slabs placed over a properly prepared subgrade. Care should be taken not to puncture the plastic membrane during placement of the membrane itself and the overlying silty sand.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Table 9 - Options for Subgrade Preparation below Concrete Floor Slabs Primary Objective Recommendation
Enhanced protection against
vapor transmission
 Concrete floor slab-on-grade placed directly on a 15-milthick moisture vapor retarder that meets the requirements of ASTM E1745 Class C (Stego Wrap or
similar)
 The moisture vapor retarder membrane should be
placed directly on the subgrade (ACI302.1R-67); if
required for either leveling of the subgrade or for
protection of the membrane from protruding gravel, then place about 2 inches of silty sand1 under the membrane
Above-standard protection
against vapor transmission
This option is available if the slab perimeter is bordered by continuous footings at least 24 inches deep, OR if the area adjacent and extending at least 10 feet from the slab is covered by hardscape without planters:
 2 inches of dry silty sand1; over
 Waterproofing plastic membrane 10 mils in thickness;
over
 At least 4 inches of ¾-inch crushed rock2 or clean
gravel3 to act as a capillary break
Standard protection against
vapor transmission
 2 inches of dry silty sand1; over
 Waterproofing plastic membrane 10 mils in thickness
 If required for either leveling of the subgrade or for protection of the membrane from protruding gravel,
place at least 2 inches of silty sand1 under the
membrane.

Notes:
1 The silty sand should have a gradation between approximately 15 and 40 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and a plasticity index of less than 4. 2 The ¾-inch crushed rock should conform to Section 200-1.2 of the latest edition of the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Public Works Standards, Inc., 2012).
3 The gravel should contain less than 10 percent of material passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve.

The above recommendations are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs; however, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, slabs may still exhibit some cracking. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

6.9. Pole Foundations
Pole foundations for flagpoles, fences, and signposts may be designed using an allowable unit skin friction of 375 psf and an allowable end bearing resistance of 2,000 psf. A factor of safety of 2 is incorporated into the allowable skin friction, and a factor of 3 is incorporated into the allowable end bearing.

Lateral resistance for conditions with and without lateral constraint provided at the ground surface conditions are provided below based on 2019 CBC.

6.9.1. Non-Constrained Ground
The embedment of pole foundations where no lateral constraint is provided at or above the ground surface should be calculated using Equation 18A-1 of 2019 CBC (shown below) or a minimum 3 feet below the ground surface, whichever is deeper. d = A
2 (1 + �1 + 4.36hA ) (Equation 18A-1 of 2019 CBC)
where:

A = 2.34P/(S1 * b)
b = Diameter of round post or footing or diagonal dimension of square post or footing, feet. d = Depth of embedment in earth in feet but not over 12 feet for purpose of computing lateral pressure.
h = Distance in feet from ground surface to point of application of “P”.

P = Applied lateral force in pounds.

S1 = Allowable lateral soil-bearing pressure based on a depth of one-third the depth of embedment in pounds per square foot.

An allowable passive earth pressure of 250 pcf up to a maximum of 3,750 psf may be used for design provided the upper one foot of passive resistance is neglected in the structural design.

Isolated pole foundations spaced at least 3 diameters of the maximum pole foundation may be designed using an allowable lateral resistance equal to 2 times of the allowable passive pressure.

6.9.2. Constrained Ground
The embedment of pole foundations where lateral constraint is provided at the ground surface, such as by a rigid floor or pavement, should be calculated using Equation 18A-2 of 2019 CBC (shown below) or a minimum 3 feet below the ground surface, whichever is deeper. d = �4.25Ph
S3b (Equation 18A-2 of 2019 CBC)
where:
b = Diameter of round post or footing or diagonal dimension of square post or footing, feet. d = Depth of embedment in earth in feet but not over 12 feet for purpose of computing lateral pressure.
h = Distance in feet from ground surface to point of application of “P”.

P = Applied lateral force in pounds.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

S3 = Allowable lateral soil-bearing pressure based on a depth of one-third the depth of embedment in pounds per square foot.

An allowable passive earth pressure of 250 pcf up to a maximum of 3,750 psf may be used for design provided the upper one foot of passive resistance is neglected in the structural design.

Isolated pole foundations spaced at least 3 diameters of the maximum pole foundation may be designed using an allowable lateral resistance equal to 2 times of the allowable passive pressure.

6.10. Below-Grade Wall and Lateral Earth Pressure Recommendations For walls below grade, recommendations for wall lateral loads, backfill, and drainage are provided below. Lateral resistance may be based on Section 6.5.1 of this report. Retaining walls should be designed to have a factor of safety of 1.5 for static stability and 1.1 for stability due to transient loads from wind or seismic.

6.10.1. Backfill and Drainage of Walls
The backfill material behind walls should consist of granular non-expansive material and be approved by the project geotechnical engineer. Based on the soil materials encountered during our exploration, most on-site soils will meet this requirement, provided that wall backfill is adequately drained.

Wall backfill should be adequately drained. Adequate backfill drainage is essential to provide a free-drained backfill condition and to limit hydrostatic buildup behind walls. Drainage behind walls may be provided by a geosynthetic drainage composite such as TerraDrain, MiraDrain, or equivalent, attached to the outside perimeter of the wall and installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The drainage system should meet the minimum requirements of Sections 1805A.4.2 and 1805A.4.3 of 2019 CBC.

Walls beneath the design groundwater level should be waterproofed. For this project site, the design groundwater level can be assumed to be approximately 710.5 feet above msl or 12.5 feet bgs as discussed in Section 4.3 – Groundwater Conditions. Walls above this level should be damp-proofed.

6.10.2. Lateral Earth Pressure
The values presented below assume that the supported grade is level and that surcharge loads are not applied. The recommended design lateral earth pressure is calculated assuming that a drainage system will be installed behind retaining walls in accordance with Sections 1805A.4.2 and 1805A.4.3 of 2019 CBC and that external hydrostatic pressure will not develop behind the walls.

Walls that are free to move and rotate at the top (such as cantilevered walls) and have adequate drainage may be designed for the active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighting 51 pcf.

Walls that are restricted to move horizontally at the top (such as by a floor deck) and have adequate drainage may be designed for the “at-rest” earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 72 pcf.

Where wall backfill does not have adequate drainage or is beneath the design groundwater level, walls under active conditions should be designed for 88.1 pcf equivalent fluid pressure (including 25.7 pcf effective earth pressure and 62.4 pcf hydrostatic pressure), and walls under 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

at-rest conditions should be designed for 98.7 pcf equivalent fluid pressure (including 36.3 pcf effective earth pressure and 62.4 pcf hydrostatic pressure). For this project site, the design groundwater level can be assumed to be approximately 710.5 feet above msl or 12.5 feet bgs as discussed in Section 4.3 – Groundwater Conditions.

Vertical surcharge loads within a 1:1 plane projected from the bottom of the wall distributed over retained soils should be considered as additional uniform horizontal pressures acting on the wall. These additional pressures can be estimated as approximately 41% and 58% of the magnitude of the vertical surcharge pressures for the “active” and “at-rest” conditions, respectively.

6.10.3. Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure
Walls retaining more than 6 feet high earth should be designed for seismic lateral earth pressure.

The seismic pressure distribution may be considered a triangle with the maximum pressure at the bottom. The combination of static and incremental seismic pressures shown in the following diagram may be used for seismic design for both cantilever and restrained walls. where H is in feet
Seismic Earth Pressure Distribution on Walls

6.11. Temporary Shoring
If the project involves excavations that lack sufficient space for sloped excavations, cantilevered shoring or braced- or tieback shoring should be considered and designed.

Static Pressure Component Seismic Pressure Component
H
51 H (psf)
∆PAE
1/3H
18 H (psf)
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

For vertical excavations less than approximately 15 feet in height, cantilevered shoring may be used.

Where cantilevered shoring is used for deeper excavations, the total deflection at the top of the wall tends to exceed acceptable magnitudes. Shoring of excavations deeper than approximately 15 feet should be accomplished with the aid of internal bracing or tieback earth anchors.

The shoring design should be provided by a California Registered Civil Engineer experienced in the design and construction of shoring under similar conditions. Once the final excavation and shoring plans are complete, the plans and the design should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer for conformance with the design intent and recommendations. Further, the shoring system should satisfy applicable requirements of CalOSHA.

6.11.1. Lateral Earth Pressures
For design of cantilevered shoring for excavations less than 15 feet in height, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used. It may be assumed that the drained soils, with a level surface behind the cantilevered shoring, will exert an equivalent fluid pressure of 51 pcf.

For the design of braced- or tieback-shoring, a rectangular pressure distribution where the pressure may be used. The design pressure should be 36H psf, where H is the retained soil height in feet.

Any surcharge (live, including traffic, or dead load) located within a 1:1 plane projected upward from the base of the shored excavation, including adjacent structures, should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The lateral contribution of a uniform surcharge load located immediately behind the temporary shoring may be calculated by multiplying the vertical surcharge pressure by 41% for cantilevered shoring and 58% for braced- or tieback-shoring, corresponding to the “active” and “at-rest” conditions, respectively. Lateral load contributions of surcharges located at a distance behind the shored wall may be provided once the load configurations and layouts are known. As a minimum, a 250 psf vertical uniform surcharge is recommended to account for nominal construction and/or traffic loads. More detailed lateral pressure and loading information can be provided, if needed, for specific loading scenarios as recognized through the design process.

6.11.2. Soldier Pile Design
The soldier piles for support of shoring should be designed in accordance with the geotechnical parameters presented in Table 10. Soldier piles should be spaced no closer than 3D on center, where D is the diameter of the drilled shaft for the soldier piles. Soldier piles may consist of either cast-in-place concrete caissons or pre-drilled steel beams encased in concrete (below the bottom of the excavation) and slurry (above the bottom of the excavation).

Table 10 - Geotechnical Design Parameters for Soldier Piles The allowable lateral resistance of an isolated soldier pile drilled into the on-site soils can be calculated using equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) 250 pcf Increase (multiplier) of the ultimate lateral passive resistance due to arching (this value is applicable for soldier piles that are spaced no closer than 3 diameters)
2 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Continuous timber lagging should be used between the soldier piles. If treated timber is used, the lagging may remain in place. To develop the full lateral resistance, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the soils; for this, we recommend that 1-½-sack sand-cement slurry infill behind the lagging be used. For drilled piles, we recommend that piles adjacent to one another be drilled alternately on different days to minimize disturbance to the open excavations.

Drilling of the soldier pile shafts can be accomplished using conventional drilling equipment.

Caving should be anticipated where layers of clean sand or silty sand occurs. In the event of soil caving, it may be necessary to use casing and/or drilling mud to permit the installation of the soldier piles. Drilled holes for soldier piles should not be left open overnight. Concrete for piles should be placed immediately after the drilling of the hole and placement of the steel pile (or rebar cage) is complete. The concrete should be pumped to the bottom of the drilled shaft using a tremie. Once concrete pumping is initiated, the bottom of the tremie should remain below the surface of the concrete to prevent contamination of the concrete by soil inclusions. If steel casing is used, the casing should be removed as the concrete is placed. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavations may be a lean mix concrete above the elevation of the bottom of the excavation. However, the concrete that is placed in the portion of the soldier pile that is below the deepest planned excavated level should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of at least 2,500 pounds per square inch (psi). The contractor may also consider the use of driven piles or piles that are vibrated into place in lieu of drilled piles to address potential issues related to caving of drilled shafts.

6.11.3. Tieback Design
Excavations deeper than 15 feet may require tieback anchors to be used to resist lateral loads.

For design purposes, it may be assumed that the failure wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plane up at approximately 30 degrees from the vertical from the toe of the wall. The anchors should extend at least 15 feet beyond the potential failure wedge; however, the shoring engineer should evaluate the bonded length required beyond the failure wedge based on the loading on the shoring and the allowable skin friction provided. The bonded length should commence no less than 3 feet beyond the failure wedge.

We recommend using an allowable soil/anchor bond friction of 500 psf along the anchors in the bonded zone with a factor of safety of 1.5. Only friction developed beyond the active wedge should be considered when determining the tieback resistance. If the anchors are spaced at least 6 feet on center, no reduction in the capacity of the anchors need be considered due to group action.

As the tieback shoring system is intended for temporary use, provisions should be made in the design to de-tension and abandon the tiebacks when the subgrade walls are able to support the lateral loads.

6.11.4. Anchor Installation
The anchors may be installed at angles of 15 to 30 degrees below the horizontal. Caving may occur during the drilling of tiebacks if loose cohesionless materials are encountered. The contractor should implement appropriate measures to stabilize the drilled hole such as the installation of steel casing for loose cohesionless materials or the use of drilling mud. The anchors should be filled with concrete placed by pumping from the tip out. The portion of the anchor tendons within the failure wedge should be sleeved in plastic. If the anchor tendons are sleeved, it is acceptable to grout the entire length of the anchor. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

6.11.5. Lagging and Sheeting
Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles. The soldier piles and anchors should be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure. However, where lagging is relatively flexible to wales or soldier beams, the pressure on the lagging will be less due to arching in the soils. We recommend that the lagging be designed for a semi-circular distribution of earth pressure where the maximum pressure is 500 pounds per square foot at the mid-line between soldier piles, and 0 pounds per square foot at the soldier piles.

6.11.6. Lateral Deflection and Settlement
Excessive deflection could result in settlement or undermining of surrounding structures. Shoring should be adequately designed, installed, and monitored to limit the amount of lateral deflection of the shoring system and settlement behind the shoring to the allowable values of adjacent structures and improvements. The amount of deflection of the shoring system and the allowable deflections and settlements should be determined by the shoring designer. The allowable deflections and settlements should be based on the proximity of adjacent structures and improvements and the potential negative effects on those structures. If it is desired to reduce the deflection, a greater lateral pressure could be used in shoring design. If greater than anticipated deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing or tiebacks may be necessary to minimize deflection of existing adjacent improvements.

Settlement of structures or facilities founded adjacent to the shoring will occur in proportion to both the distance between the shoring and the facilities, and the amount of horizontal deflection of the shoring system. The vertical settlement will be a maximum at the shoring face and decrease as the horizontal distance from the shoring increases. Beyond a distance from the shoring equal to the height of the shoring, the settlement is expected to be negligible. The maximum vertical settlement is expected to be about 75 percent of the maximum horizontal deflection on top of the shoring system. The geotechnical engineer should review the shoring design to ensure that the recommendations provided herein are properly incorporated into the design.

6.11.7. Monitoring
For excavations in close proximity to existing improvements, some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. Monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of lateral and vertical locations at the tops of all soldier piles. The geotechnical engineer should review the results of the monitoring during construction.

6.12. Pavement Recommendations
Pavement section should be constructed on top of properly prepared subgrade in accordance with Section 6.4 of this report and aggregate base (AB) section compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557.

We performed laboratory R-value testing for preliminary pavement section design. The test indicates an R value of 9, and it was used in our pavement structural calculations. Sections 6.12.1 and 6.12.2 present our recommendations for preliminary design of flexible and rigid pavement sections, respectively. Final pavement design should be based on field observations, additional R-value tests during construction should the materials exposed differ than what is expected based on our field exploration, and the anticipated traffic index as determined by the project civil engineer. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

6.12.1. Flexible Pavement Design
Our flexible pavement structural design is in accordance with Chapter 630 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, which is based on a relationship between the gravel equivalent (GE) of the pavement structural materials, the traffic index (TI), and the R-value of the underlying subgrade soil. For preliminary design of flexible pavement section, Table 11 provides recommended minimum thicknesses for hot mix asphalt (HMA) and aggregate base sections for different traffic indices.

Table 11 – Recommended Minimum HMA and Base Section Thicknesses Traffic Index 5.0 6.0 7.0
HMA Thickness (in) 4 5 6
Aggregate Base Thickness (in) 7 9 12

6.12.2. Rigid Pavement Design
For preliminary design of rigid pavement section, Table 12 provides recommended minimum thicknesses for Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section and Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB) section for different traffic indices. The recommended values are based on a minimum 28- day concrete compressive strength of 3,500 psi. Positive drainage should be provided away from all pavement areas to prevent seepage of surface and/or subsurface water into the pavement base and/or subgrade.

Table 12 – Recommended Minimum Rigid Pavement Thicknesses Traffic Index 5.0 6.0 7.0
PCC Thickness (in) 6 6.5 7.0
Aggregate Base Thickness (in) 6 6 6

6.13. Stormwater Infiltration Facility
Percolation testing will be required based on the actual location and depth of the planned system.

The design of stormwater infiltration facility should be based on percolation test results with an appropriate factor of safety.

Our percolation test results may be used in preliminary design. Details of the percolation tests are presented in Appendix A. Infiltration rates with a factor of safety of 3 from our percolation tests are summarized in Table 13.

Any proposed infiltration facility should have a minimum setback from property lines and foundations recommended in Table 14. In addition, the bottom of the infiltration facility should be at least 10 feet above the seasonal high groundwater. We recommend that we review the proposed groundwater infiltration system prior to implementation or finalizing design. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Table 13 – Infiltration Rate with a Factor of Safety of 3 Test Location Depth of Test Borehole
(feet)
Infiltration Rate
(inch/hour)
P-3 6 0.7
P-4 6 0.8
P-5 6 0.5
Table 14 – Recommended Minimum Infiltration Facility Setback Setback from Distance
Property lines & public right of way 5 feet
Foundations the greater of 15 feet or a 1:1 plane drawn up from the bottom of foundation
Seasonal high groundwater 10 feet minimum depth from invert of infiltration device Face of slope the greater of 5 feet or one half of the slope height Water wells 100 feet

6.14. Drainage Control
The control of surface water is essential to the satisfactory performance of proposed structures and site improvements. Surface water should be controlled so that conditions of uniform moisture are maintained beneath the improvements, even during periods of heavy rainfall. The following recommendations are considered minimal:
• Ponding and areas of low flow gradients should be avoided. • If bare soil within 5 feet of the structure is not avoidable, then a gradient of 5 percent or more should be provided sloping away from the improvement. Corresponding paved surfaces should be provided with a gradient of at least 1 percent. • The remainder of the unpaved areas should be provided with a drainage gradient of at least 2 percent.
• Positive drainage devices, such as graded swales, paved ditches, and/or catch basins should be employed to accumulate and to convey water to appropriate discharge points. • Concrete walks and flatwork should not obstruct the free flow of surface water. • Brick flatwork should be sealed by mortar or be placed over an impermeable membrane. • Area drains should be recessed below grade to allow free flow of water into the basin. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

• Enclosed raised planters should be sealed at the bottom and provided with an ample flow gradient to a drainage device. Recessed planters and landscaped areas should be provided with area inlet and subsurface drain pipes.
• Planters should not be located adjacent to the structures wherever possible. If planters are to be located adjacent to the structures, the planters should be positively sealed, should incorporate a subdrain, and should be provided with free discharge capacity to a drainage device.
• Planting areas at grade should be provided with positive drainage. Wherever possible, the grade of exposed soil areas should be established above adjacent paved grades. Drainage devices and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into planted areas.
• Gutter and downspout systems should be provided to capture discharge from roof areas.

The accumulated roof water should be conveyed to off-site disposal areas by a pipe or concrete swale system.

Landscape watering should be performed judiciously to preclude either soaking or desiccation of soils. The watering should be such that it just sustains plant growth without excessive watering.

Sprinkler systems should be checked periodically to detect leakage and they should be turned off during the rainy season.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

7. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Geotechnical review of plans and specifications is of paramount importance in engineering practice.

The poor performance of many structures has been attributed to inadequate geotechnical review of construction documents. Additionally, observation and testing of the subgrade will be important to the performance of the proposed development. The following sections present our recommendations relative to the review of construction documents and the monitoring of construction activities.

7.1. Plans and Specifications
The design plans and specifications should be reviewed by Twining, Inc. prior to bidding and construction, as the geotechnical recommendations may need to be reevaluated in the light of the actual design configuration and loads. This review is necessary to evaluate whether the recommendations contained in this report and future reports have been properly incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Based on the work already performed, this office is best qualified to provide such review.

7.2. Preconstruction Surveys
We recommend that preconstruction surveys be performed on the adjacent improvements prior to commencement of excavation activities for the subject project. The surveys should include written and photographic (or videographic) documentation of the existing conditions, as well as performance of floor level surveys or establishment of elevation monuments. Documentation of other structures and sensitive instruments within approximately 50 feet of the excavation(s) should also be performed.

7.3. Construction Monitoring
Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, assessment of imported fill materials, fill placement, foundation installation, and other site grading operations should be observed and tested, as appropriate. The substrata exposed during the construction may differ from that encountered in the test excavations. Continuous observation by a representative of Twining, Inc. during construction allows for evaluation of the soil conditions as they are encountered and allows the opportunity to recommend appropriate revisions where necessary.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

8. LIMITATIONS
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are based on Twining, Inc.’s review of available background documents, on information obtained from field explorations, and on laboratory testing. It should be noted that this study did not evaluate the possible presence of hazardous materials on any portion of the site. In the event that any of our recommendations conflict with recommendations provided by other design professionals, we should be contacted to aid in resolving the discrepancy.

Due to the limited nature of our field explorations, conditions not observed and described in this report may be present on the site. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation and laboratory testing can be performed upon request. It should be understood that conditions different from those anticipated in this report may be encountered during grading operations, for example, the extent of removal of unsuitable soil, and that additional effort may be required to mitigate them.

Site conditions, including groundwater elevation, can change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or at nearby sites. Changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur as a result of government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Twining, Inc. has no control.

Twining’s recommendations for this site are, to a high degree, dependent upon appropriate quality control of subgrade preparation, fill placement, and foundation construction. Accordingly, the recommendations are made contingent upon the opportunity for Twining to observe grading operations and foundation excavations for the proposed construction. If parties other than Twining are engaged to provide such services, such parties must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility as the geotechnical engineer of record for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report and/or by providing alternative recommendations.

This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Twining should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by the client and its agents for specific application to the proposed project. Land use, site conditions, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the intended use of this report and the nature of the new project, Twining may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the Client or anyone else will release Twining from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party.

Twining performed its evaluation using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical professionals with experience in this area in similar soil conditions. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

9. SELECTED REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J., and Kamai, R., 2014, Summary of the ASK14 Ground Motion Relation for Active Crustal Regions. Earthquake Spectra: August 2014, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1025-1055.

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures: ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16, 800 pp, ISBN 9780784414248.

ASTM, current latest version, “Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials,” vol. 4.08 for ASTM test methods D-420 to D-4914; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test methods D-4943 to highest number.

Boore, D.M., Stewart, J.P., Seyhan, Emel, and Atkinson, G.A., 2014, NGA-West2 equations for predicting response spectral accelerations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra:

August 2014, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1057-1085.

Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2014. CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures.

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at Davis.

California Buildings Standards Commission, 2019, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Volume 2 of Part 2, Effective January 1, 2020, ISBN 978-1-60983-891-1.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2012, Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California, Santa Ana 30x60 Quadrangle (REVISED), CGS Special Report 217, Plate 16 1:100,000 Scale.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2019, Note 48, Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings, October.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2016, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Corona South Quadrangle, Seismic Hazards Zones Official Map, scale 1:24,000, released May 1, 2003.

Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Yousef, 2014, Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped linear response spectra.

Earthquake Spectra: August 2014, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1087-1115.

Chiou, B.S.-J., and Youngs, R.R., 2014, Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA ground motion model for average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra: August 2014, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1117-1153.

GEOBASE, Inc., 2012, Geotechnical Report, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Permanente – RMC Generator Upgrade, 10800 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California, January 2012, GeoBase Project Number: C.314.49.00.

Geologismiki, 2019, LiqSVs 2.0 – SPT & Vs Liquefaction Analysis Software, First Release May 16, 2016, Updated May 25, 2019.

Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M., 1992. Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 1, March 1992.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Jennings, C. W. and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1 : 750,000.

Kayen, R. E. S. Moss, E. M. Thompson, R. B. Seed, K. O. Cetin, A. Der Kiureghian, Y. Tanaka, K.

Tokimatsu, 2013. Shear-Wave Velocity–Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 3, March 1.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC), 2007, Final Groundwater Assessment Study, A Status Report on the Use of Groundwater in the Service Area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Report Number 1308, September 2007.

Miller, R. V., Tan, S. S., 1976, Geology and Engineering Aspects of the South Half Riverside West Quadrangle, Orange County, California, CDMG Special Report 126.

Morton, D.M., and Cox, B. F., 2001, Geologic map of the Riverside West 7.5’ quadrangle, Riverside County, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-01-451, scale 1:24,000.

National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), 1984, Corrosion Basics, an Introduction.

Petersen, M.D., Moschetti, M.P., Powers, P.M., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Frankel, A.D., Zeng, Yuehua, Rezaeian, Sanaz, Harmsen, S.C., Boyd, O.S., Field, Ned, Chen, Rui, Rukstales, K.S., Luco, Nico, Wheeler, R.L., Williams, R.A., and Olsen, A.H., 2014, Documentation for the 2014 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1091, 243 p., https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141091. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1091/pdf/ofr2014- 1091.pdf
Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, 364-368 Romanoff, Melvin, 1989, Underground Corrosion, NBS Circular 579. Reprinted by NACE. Houston, TX, pp. 166–167.

Seed, R. B., Cetin, K. O., Moss, R. E. S., Kammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J. M., Riemer, M. F., Sancio, R. B., Bray, J. D., Kayen, R. E., and Faris, A. (2003). "Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework." EERC Report No. 2003-06.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2013, Modeling for the SAFRR Tsunami Scenario—Generation, Propagation, Inundation, and Currents in Ports and Harbors by the SAFRR Tsunami Modeling Working Group. USGS Open-File Report 2013–1170–D, California Geological Survey Special Report 229
U.S. Geological Survey, 2018, USGS 1:24000-scale Riverside West Quadrangle, California – Orange County 7.5-Minute Series.

Western Municipal Water District (WMWD), 2012, Arlington Basin Groundwater Management Plan, September 2012.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

FIGURES
FIGURE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP
REFERENCE: USGS (2018)

SCALE IN FEET

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3
PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
0 2000 4000
SITE
FIGURE 2 REPORT DATE July 2021 PROJECT No. 190919.3 PROPOSED HOSPITAL TOWER KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER 10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA SITE PLAN AND BORING LOCATION MAP NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE REFERENCE: CO ARCHITECTS (2021) 0 150' 300' PROPOSED 5 LEVEL TOWER LEGEND B-1 TD=51.5' P-1 TD=6' B-6 TD=51.5' B-5 TD=91.5' B-7 TD=31.5' B-8 TD=51.5' B-9 TD=31.5'B-11 TD=31.5' B-1 TD=51.5' B-13 TD=31.5' B-2 TD=31.5' B-4 TD=31.5' B-12 TD=31.5' B-3 TD=51.5' A A' A' A B' B PS-1 TD=51.5'PS-4 TD=51.5' PS-3 TD=31.5' PS-2 TD=31.5' GP-1 TD=51.5' GP-2 TD=51.5' PT-1 TD=21.5' PT-2 TD=21.5' D' D C C' P-5 TD=6' P-4 TD=6' P-3 TD=6' P-2 TD=6' P-1 TD=6' Qof Qof Qof B-10 TD=31.5' Qof Qof Af/Qof FIGURE 3

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
REFERENCE: BEDROSSIAN AND ROFFERS (2012)

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3
SITE
LEGEND
0 4000 8000
Qof Old Alluvial Fan Deposits
gr Granitic and other intrusive rocks of all ages
Kv Cretaceous age formations of volcanic origin
Qyf VYoung Alluvial Fan Deposits
PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Qss Coarse-grained formations - sandstone and conglomerate Groundwater monitoring wells
Hole 1
Daly 2
Buchanan 1
ELEVATION (ft, MSL) A 710 720 700 690 680 670 660 650 724 A' ELEVATION (ft, MSL) 710 720 700 690 680 670 660 650 724 B-9 TD=31.5' B-8 TD=51.5' B-7 (PROJECTED) TD=31.5' B-5 TD=91.5' B-6 TD=51.5' 640 630 620 640 630 620 CL ML SMCL CL ML CLSWSW-SM CLSMSW-SM CL CLSP-SM CLSMCLSP-SM SMSP-SM SM CLSMSW-SM CL Qof Qof Qof PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL FIGURE 4A REPORT DATE March 2021 PROJECT NO. 190919.3 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A' NOTE: All dimensions, locations, and directions are approximate. 0 25 50 SCALE IN FEET SE PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025 KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER 10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA LEGEND B9 EXISTING GRADE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING OR CPT TD = TERMINATION DEPTH IN FEET GEOLOGIC CONTACT (DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATELY LOCATED) APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER TABLE TD= 31.5' Qof OLD ALLUVIUAL FAN DEPOSITS ELEVATION (ft, MSL) B 710 720 700 690 680 670 660 650 724 B' ELEVATION (ft, MSL) 710 720 700 690 680 670 660 650 724 B-3 (PROJECTED) TD=51.5' 640 630 620 640 630 620 CL SW-SM CL B-13 TD=31.5' CL ML SPCL B-2 TD=31.5' CL ML SMCL TD=31.5' CLSWCL ML TD=31.5' CL ML CL B-8 TD=31.5' CL ML CL B-4 (PROJECTED) B-10 (PROJECTED) B-5 (PROJECTED) A-A' SMML TD=91.5' CL SP-SMCLSMCL SP-SMSM SP-SMSM SWSW-SM Qof PROPOSED BASEMENT LEVEL Qof FIGURE 4B REPORT DATE March 2021 PROJECT NO. 190919.3 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B' NOTE: All dimensions, locations, and directions are approximate. 0 25 50 SCALE IN FEET NE PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025 KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER 10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA LEGEND B9 EXISTING GRADE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING OR CPT TD = TERMINATION DEPTH IN FEET GEOLOGIC CONTACT (DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATELY LOCATED) APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER TABLE TD= 31.5' Qof OLD ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS ELEVATION (ft, MSL) C 710 720 700 690 680 670 660 650 724 C' ELEVATION (ft, MSL) 710 720 700 690 680 670 660 650 724 GP-1 TD=51.5' 640 630 620 640 630 620 CL ML CL ML Qof GP-2 TD=51.5' CL ML CLSM Qof PT-1 TD=21.5' SM PROPOSED GENERATOR PAD Af SCML SC/ML SMSP-SM SMSP-SM SCSMSP-SM FIGURE 4C REPORT DATE March 2021 PROJECT NO. 190919.3 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C-C' NOTE: All dimensions, locations, and directions are approximate. 0 25 50 SCALE IN FEET SE PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025 KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER 10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA LEGEND GP-1 EXISTING GRADE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING OR CPT TD = TERMINATION DEPTH IN FEET GEOLOGIC CONTACT (DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATELY LOCATED) APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER TABLE TD= 51.5' Qof OLD ALLUVIUAL FAN DEPOSITS Af ARTIFICIAL FILL ELEVATION (ft, MSL) D710 720 700 690 680 670 724 D'
ELEVATION (ft, MSL) 710 720 700 690 680 670 724 C-C Projected SE 24 ft. TD=21.5' Qof ML SCSM 730 730 735 735 TD=21.5' CL CL CL ML Af EXISTING ROADWAY ? ? SM Af Qof PT-1 Projected SE 35 ft. PT-2 Projected NE 10 ft. FIGURE 4D REPORT DATE March 2021 PROJECT NO. 190919.3 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION D-D' NOTE: All dimensions, locations, and directions are approximate. 0 25 50 SCALE IN FEET Qof OLD ALLUVIUAL FAN DEPOSITS NE PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025 KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER 10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA LEGEND PT-1 EXISTING GRADE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING OR CPT TD = TERMINATION DEPTH IN FEET GEOLOGIC CONTACT (DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATELY LOCATED) APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER TABLE TD= 21.5' Af ARTIFICIAL FILL Notes: 1. See Figure 3 and Table 1 for well locations.

2. Data is from WMWD (2012) and CDWR (2019) before and after the end of 2011, respectively.

PROJECT NO. DATE
FIGURE 5
190191.3 March 2021

WATER LEVELS IN WELLS ADJACENT TO THE SITE
PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
1960196519701975198019851990199520002005201020152020
Groundwater Level (feet, msl)
Hole 1
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
1960196519701975198019851990199520002005201020152020
Groundwater Elevation (feet, msl)
Buchanan 1
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
1960196519701975198019851990199520002005201020152020
Groundwater Level (feet, msl)
Daly 2
FIGURE 6

HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP
0 8 16

SCALE IN MILES

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3
SITE
PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 7

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3
PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
0 4 8
SITE

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 8

REGIONAL FAULT MAP
REFERENCE: JENNINGS AND BRYANT (2010) 0 4 8

SCALE IN MILES

FAULT ALONG WHICH HISTORIC DISPLACEMENT HAS OCCURRED

HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT

LATE QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT

QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT

PRE-QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3
SITE
PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 9

LIQUEFACTION ZONES MAP

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3
PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
0 1 2
SITE
FIGURE 10

DAM INUNDATION AREAS MAP

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3
PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
0 1 2
SITE
FIGURE 11

FEMA FLOOD MAP

SCALE IN FEET

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3
PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
0 400 800

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY
0 652.4 198.9

10.23 652.4 198.9

10.23 1000.9 305.1

16.6 1000.9 305.1

16.6 953.8 290.7

24.08 953.8 290.7

24.08 939.9 286.5

33.86 939.9 286.5

33.86 1067.6 325.4

45.56 1067.6 325.4

45.56 1386.4 422.6

60.88 1386.4 422.6

60.88 1372.1 418.2

77.62 1372.1 418.2

77.62 1720.6 524.4
100 1720.6 524.4
PROJECT NO. DATE
FIGURE 12
190191.3 March 2021
(feet/second) (meters/second)
SHEAR-WAVE VELOCITY, Vs

MEASURED SHEAR-WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE
PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA

DEPTH BELOW

EXISTING GROUND

SURFACEE
(feet)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Shear-Wave Velocity, Vs (meters/second)
Shear-Wave Velocity, Vs (feet/second)
Depth below existing ground surface (feet)
Note: See Table 6 of the report for ordinates of the various curves.

March 2021
FIGURE 13

SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION, OSHPD: 106334025

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.
190191.3
DATE
PERIOD
(seconds)

SITE-SPECIFIC

DESIGN SPECTRAL

ACCELERATION
Sa, (g)
PERIOD
(seconds)

SITE-SPECIFIC

DESIGN SPECTRAL

ACCELERATION
Sa, (g)

0.01 0.194

0.2 0.25

0.02 0.03

0.05 0.075

0.1 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.667

0.75 0.9

0.97 1

1.5 2
3 4
5 0.431

0.133

0.15 0.971

1.036

0.433

0.449

0.513

0.623

0.723

1.111

1.165

1.174

1.016

0.938

0.834

0.800

0.776

0.517

0.388

0.259

0.194

0.155

0.825

0.876

0.960
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Spectral response acceleration (g)
Period (sec)
Probabilistic MCER
Deterministic MCER
80% General Procedure Design Response Spectrum with Fv=2.5 General Procedure Design Response Spectrum for Exception 2 of ASCE 7-16 Site Specific MCER
Site-Specific Design Response Spectrum
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
Appendix A
Field Exploration
General
The field exploration was conducted between November 2, 2019 and March 13, 2021 and consisted of drilling, testing, sampling, and logging 13 exploratory hollow-stem-auger (HSA) borings (B-1 through B-13) for the tower, 2 HSA borings for the generator pad (GP-1 and GP-2), and 2 HSA borings for the propane tank (PT-1 and PT-2). The field exploration also included 3 hand-auger borings (P-3 through P-5) for percolation testing for the tower site.

The HSA borings were advanced to approximate depths of 31.5 to 91.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) for the tower, approximately 51.5 feet bgs for the generator pad, and approximately 21.5 feet bgs for the propane tank. Drilling operation for the HSA borings was performed by 2R drilling of Chino, California using a RAM 5500 and a CME-75 truck-mounted drill rigs equipped with 8- inch diameter hollow-stem-augers. Borings P-3 through P-5 were advanced to a depth of approximately 6 feet bgs using a 5-inch diameter hand auger.

The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2.

Drilling and Sampling
An explanation of the boring logs is presented as Figure A-1. The boring logs are presented as Figures A-2 through A-21. The boring logs describe the earth materials encountered, samples obtained, and show the field and laboratory tests performed. The logs also show the boring number, drilling date, and the name of the logger and drilling subcontractor. The borings were logged by an engineer using the Unified Soil Classification System under the supervision of a registered California Geotechnical Engineer. The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. Drive and bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the borings.

Disturbed samples were obtained from select depths using a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. This sampler consists of a 2-inch O.D., 1.4-inch I.D. split barrel shaft with room for liner but liner was not used. Soil samples obtained by the SPT sampler were retained in plastic bags.

A California modified sampler was also used to obtain drive samples of the soils from select depths. This sampler consists of a 3-inch outside diameter (O.D.), 2.4-inch inside diameter (I.D.) split barrel shaft. The samples were retained in brass rings for laboratory testing.

When the boring was drilled to a select depth, the sampler was lowered to the bottom of the boring and then driven a total of 18-inches into the soil using an automatic hammer weighing 140 pounds dropped from a height of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the samplers the final 12 inches is presented on the boring logs.

Groundwater was encountered at approximately 57.5 feet bgs in boring B-5. Upon completion of the borings or percolation testing, the boreholes were backfilled with drilled soil cuttings, and the surface was repaired to match existing conditions.

Percolation Testing
Percolation testing was performed on February 12 and 13, 2020 in the hand auger borings (P-3 through P-5) in accordance with the procedures of the Riverside County Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices. After installing pipe and filter rock, the 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
boreholes were filled with water to approximately one foot bgs and presoaked for two consecutive 25-minute sessions prior to testing. At the end of each presoak session, more than 6 inches of water level drop was observed in the borings.

After presoaking, the boreholes were filled with water again, and measurements were recorded.

The last reading was used to determine the percolation rate at each test location.

Our calculated infiltration rates with a factor safety of 3 are presented in Table A-1 below. Detailed test data is attached at the end of this appendix.

Table A-1 – Infiltration Rate with a Factor of Safety of 3 Test Location Depth of Test Borehole
(feet)
Infiltration Rate
(inch/hour)
P-3 6 0.7
P-4 6 0.8
P-5 6 0.5
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

EXPLANATION FOR LOG OF BORINGS
Sample
Symbol
Very Dense
<4 0 - 15 Very Soft <2
4 - 10
10 - 30 35 - 65
>50
Dense
SPT
(blows/ft)
Very Loose

FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Relative
Density
Loose
Medium Dense
Sample Type Description
15 - 35 Soft 2 - 4
Medium Stiff 4 - 8
30 - 50 65 - 85 Stiff 8 - 15
85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 - 30
Hard >30
Relative
Density (%)
Consistency SPT
(blows/ft)
ATT
C
CORR
DS
EI
GS
K
MAX
O
RV
SE
SG
TX
UC
Atterberg Limits
Consolidation
Corrosivity Series
Direct Shear
Expansion Index
Grain Size Distribution
Permeability
Moisture/Density
(Modified Proctor)
Organic Content
Resistance Value
Sand Equivalent
Specific Gravity
Triaxial Compression
Unconfined Compression
NOTE: SPT blow counts based on 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches SPT
California Modified
Bulk
Thin-Walled Tube

1.4 in I.D., 2.0 in. O.D. driven sampler

2.4 in. I.D., 3.0 in. O.D. driven sampler
Retrieved from soil cuttings
Pitcher or Shelby Tube

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS LABORATORY TESTING

ABBREVIATIONS
FIGURE A-1
MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES)
LETTER

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE

OR NO FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK

FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY
GRAPH

SYMBOLS MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE

OR NO FINES

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,

GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
CLAYS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION
PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF
FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS SMALLER
THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE
COARSE

GRAINED
SOILS

GRAVEL AND

GRAVELLY
SOILS

CLEAN GRAVELS

CLEAN SANDS SAND AND
SANDY
SOILS

SANDS WITH
FINES
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS THAN
50 LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER THAN
50 FINE

GRAINED
SOILS

GRAVELS WITH
FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH

ORGANIC CONTENTS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH

PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
STANDARD LOG EXPLANATION 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 2/20/20 121.8
124.6
114.0
6 inches of Portland cement concrete over 5 inches of base Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist
-- same; stiff
-- same; stiff
-- same; hard
Sandy SILT; stiff; grey; slightly moist
-- same; very stiff
Sandy lean CLAY; stiff; brown; slightly moist
CL
CL
CL
CL
ML
ML
CL
#200, ATT
23 16
50 13
31 9

11.9 11.7

17.3 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 2
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/9/19 BORING NO. B-1

98.2 107.1
Sandy lean CLAY; stiff; brown; slightly moist (continued) -- same; very stiff
-- same; stiff; light brown with orange oxidation staining Silty SAND; dense; light brown with some orange grains; slightly moist
-- same; medium dense
Total Depth = 51.5 feet
Backfilled on 11/9/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

Surface patched with PCC.

CL
CL
CL
SM
SM
25 13
70 25

22.5 2.8
683
678
673
668
663
658
653
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 2
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/9/19 BORING NO. B-1
126.8
100.4
103.1
5 inches of Portland cement concrete over 6 inches of base Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist
-- same; medium stiff
-- same; hard; brown
Sandy SILT; hard; greyish brown; slightly moist
-- same; hard
Silty SAND; dense; light brown; slightly moist
Sandy lean CLAY; very stiff; brown; slightly moist
Total Depth = 31.5 feet
Backfilled on 11/9/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

CL
CL
CL
ML
ML
SM
CL
#200
DS
5 81
34 54
32 28

9.7 20.2

23.1 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 3
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/9/19 BORING NO. B-2
100.3
117.9
104.3
8 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of base
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist; mostly fine sand -- same; stiff
Lean CLAY with sand; very stiff; light brown
-- same; hard
Well graded SAND with silt; dense; light brown; slightly moist Sandy lean CLAY; hard; light brown; slightly moist
-- same; very stiff
CL
CL
CL
CL
SW-SM
CL
CL
#200, ATT
C, DS
GS
#200, ATT
16 26
48 40
48 26

9.7 3.1

2.5 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 4
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/2/19 BORING NO. B-3
104.8
104.0
Silty SAND; very dense; light brown; slightly moist
-- same; dense; light brown with some red; fine sand
-- same; dense; with some oxidation staining
SILT with sand; stiff; greyish brown; slightly moist
Total Depth = 51.5 feet
Backfilled on 11/2/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

Surface patched with cold-patch asphalt.

SM
SM
SM
ML #200, ATT
32/50
for 6"
38 65
21 15.5

9.1 683
678
673
668
663
658
653
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 4
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/2/19 BORING NO. B-3
121.8
101.3
108.6
4 inches of asphalt concrete over 12 inches of base
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist to dry
-- same; stiff
Lean CLAY with sand; hard; reddish brown; slightly moist to dry Sandy lean CLAY; very stiff; light brown; dry to slightly moist Well graded SAND; very dense; light brown; dry to slightly moist Sandy lean CLAY; very stiff; brown; slightly moist
SILT with sand; very stiff; brown; slightly moist
Total Depth = 31.5 feet
Backfilled on 11/3/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

Surface patched with cold-patch asphalt.

CL
CL
CL
CL
SW
CL
ML
#200
#200, ATT
DS
C
9 50 for
6"
24 52
25 41

6.6 1.2

13.8 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 5
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/3/19 BORING NO. B-4
118.5
113.4
122.7

4.5 inches of asphalt concrete over 2 inches of base
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist
-- same; medium stiff
-- same; hard; brown; with tan mottling; dry to slightly moist --same; very stiff; light brown with khakhi mottling; slightly moist; some caliche nodules
Poorly graded SAND with silt; dense; light brown; dry to slightly moist; with some fine gravel
Lean CLAY with sand; stiff; brown; slightly moist
Silty SAND; dense; light brown; slightly moist
CL
CL
CL
CL
SP-SM
CL
SM
UC
DS
6 20/50
for 6"
17 51
14 55

14.9 1.2

4.2 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) 57.5
FIGURE A - 6
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 12/8/19 BORING NO. B-5

97.1 101.8
128.2
Silty SAND; dense; light brown; slightly moist (continued) -- same; dense
Lean CLAY with sand; very stiff; tan with orange oxidation staining; slightly moist
Poorly graded SAND with silt; dense; light brown; some fine gravel
Silty SAND; dense; tan with orange oxidation staining; slightly moist
Poorly graded SAND with silt; light brown; some fine gravel; wet Poorly graded SAND; dense; light brown with brown, black, and red; wet
SM
SM
CL
SP-SM
SM
SP-SM
SP
#200
33 24
38 50 for
2"
22 28/50
for 6"

23.7 4.4

9.4 683
678
673
668
663
658
653
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) 57.5
FIGURE A - 6
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 12/8/19 BORING NO. B-5
Silty SAND; medium dense; light brown; wet
No recovery; dense
-- same; dense
Total Depth = 91.5 feet
Backfilled on 12/8/2019
Groundwater encountered at approximately 57.5 feet bgs.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

SM
SM
15 50 for
4"
43 648
643
638
633
628
623
618
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
75 80
85 90
95 100
105

LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) 57.5
FIGURE A - 6
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 12/8/19 BORING NO. B-5
117.2
118.9
102.9
5 inches of asphalt concrete over 7 inches of base
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist; fine sand -- same; stiff
-- same; hard
-- same; very stiff; greyish brown; slightly moist; fine sand -- same; hard
Lean CLAY with sand; very stiff; brown; slightly moist
Silty SAND; dense; light brown; slightly moist
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
SM
#200
#200
#200, ATT
11 50
30 47
19 69

7.9 7.0

2.8 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 7
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/2/19 BORING NO. B-6
100.2
Well graded SAND with silt; light brown to red to black; slightly moist
Lean CLAY with sand; very stiff; brown; slightly moist
-- same; hard
No recovery
Total Depth = 51.5 feet
Backfilled on 11/2/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

Surface patched with cold-patch asphalt.

SW-SM
CL
CL
CL
#200,
ATT, C
41 25
50 50 for
6"

18.0 683
678
673
668
663
658
653
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 7
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/2/19 BORING NO. B-6
119.8
113.5
118.1
7 inches of asphalt concrete with no base
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist
-- same; very stiff
Lean CLAY with sand; hard; light brown with white streaks; dry to slightly moist
-- same; hard
Silty SAND; medium dense; light brown; dry to slightly moist Well graded SAND with silt; medium dense; brown; slightly moist Sandy lean CLAY; stiff; brown; slightly moist
Total Depth = 31.5 feet
Backfilled on 11/3/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

Surface patched with cold-patch asphalt.

CL
CL
CL
CL
SM
SW-SM
CL
#200, ATT
27 39
48 19
26 11

9.7 9.9

9.7 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 8
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/3/19 BORING NO. B-7
117.9

94.9 103.1
Sandy lean CLAY; brown; wet
-- same; medium stiff
Lean CLAY with sand; very stiff; reddish brown; moist
Sandy lean CLAY; very stiff; light brown; slightly moist Sandy SILT; very stiff; greyish brown; slightly moist
Sandy lean CLAY; stiff; brown; slightly moist
-- same; very stiff
CL
CL
CL
CL
ML
CL
CL
#200,
ATT, C
C
5 37
21 26
15 32

14.8 26.3

21.5 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 9
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/3/19 BORING NO. B-8
108.1
102.1
Well graded SAND; dense; light brown; slightly moist
Well graded SAND with silt; dense; light brown; dry to slightly moist
-- same; dense
-- same; very dense
Total Depth = 51.5 feet
Backfilled on 11/3/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

SW
SW-SM
SW-SM
SW-SM
#200
#200
42 53
41 50 for
6"

13.6 3.2
683
678
673
668
663
658
653
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 9
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/3/19 BORING NO. B-8
116.7
108.0
108.1
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; moist
--same; loose
--same; stiff
-- same; stiff; with approximately 10% gravel
SILT with sand; very stiff; light brown; slightly moist Silty SAND; medium dense; light brown; slightly moist
Sandy lean CLAY; very stiff; brown; slightly moist
Total Depth = 31.5 feet
Backfilled on 11/3/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

CL
CL
CL
CL
ML
SM
CL
13 10
14 20
34 18

12.5 14.5

20.6 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 10
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/3/19 BORING NO. B-9
114.9
110.1
106.1
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist
-- same; stiff
-- same; medium stiff; brown
-- same; very stiff
Sandy SILT; very stiff; brown; slightly moist
Sandy lean CLAY; very stiff; brown; slightly moist
-- same; very stiff
Total Depth = 31.5 feet
Backfilled on 11/2/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

CL
CL
CL
CL
ML
CL
CL
#200, ATT
#200, ATT
#200, ATT
10 10
18 25
16 29

14.6 13.8

19.3 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 11
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/2/19 BORING NO. B-10
119.1
100.1
110.8

6.5 inches of Portland cement concrete over 6 inches of base Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; moist
-- same; soft
-- same; very stiff
SILT; very stiff; light brown; slightly moist
-- same; very stiff; caliche nodules
Sandy lean CLAY; very stiff; brown; slightly moist
-- thin layer of reddish brown silty sand
Sandy SILT; very stiff; brown; slightly moist
Total Depth = 31.5 feet
Backfilled on 12/7/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

CL
CL
CL
ML
ML
CL
ML
C
3 35
26 38
19 37

12.8 25.0

18.3 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 12
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 12/7/19 BORING NO. B-11
121.8
117.4
114.8
6 inches of Portland cement concrete over 6 inches of base Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist
-- same; stiff
-- same; hard
Silty SAND; dense; light grey; dry to slightly moist
-- same; dense
--same; dense; light brown; slightly moist
-- same; medium dense
Total Depth = 31.5 feet
Backfilled on 11/9/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

Surface patched with PCC.

CL
CL
CL
SM
SM
SM
SM
C
#200, ATT
10 48
49 49
36 29

11.3 5.9

10.8 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 13
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 11/9/19 BORING NO. B-12
113.9
122.5
115.8

6.5 inches of Portland cement concrete over 6 inches of base Lean CLAY with sand; reddish brown; moist
-- same; stiff
-- same; stiff
Sandy SILT; hard; reddish brown with light brown mottling; slightly moist; some caliche nodules
-- same; stiff; light brown with tan mottling; some caliche nodules Poorly graded SAND; medium dense; reddish brown; slightly moist
Sandy lean CLAY; stiff; reddish brown; slightly moist
Total Depth = 31.5 feet
Backfilled on 12/7/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

CL
CL
CL
ML
ML
SP
CL
UC
C
#200, ATT
DS
13 10
56 15
35 16

16.4 10.5

4.6 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 14
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 12/7/19 BORING NO. B-13
129.3
106.7
106.1
7 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of base
FILL Clayey SAND; reddish brown; slightly moist; with
approximately 10% gravel
ALLUVIUM Sandy SILT; reddish brown; slightly moist
Sandy Lean CLAY; medium brown; very stiff; slightly moist -- same; reddish to medium brown; hard
Silty SAND; light brown; medium dense; slightly moist
SILT with sand; light brown; very stiff; slightly moist Lean CLAY with sand; medium to dark brown; stiff; slightly moist Sandy SILT; medium brown; hard; slightly moist; with
approximately 2% fine gravel
SC
ML
CL
CL
SM
ML
CL
ML
C
#200
C
22 63
16 33
10 56

8.6 16.5

12.6 ELEVATION (feet)
719
714
709
704
699
694
689

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY CDD
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 724 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

DESCRIPTION
Driven
Bulk
DEPTH (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
U.S.C.S.

CLASSIFICATION

ADDITIONAL
TESTS

BLOWS / FOOT
FIGURE A - 15
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
BORING NO. GP-1
MOISTURE (%)
DATE DRILLED 3/13/2021
BORING LOG 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 3/30/21 111.4
112.8
Poorly Graded SAND with silt; light brown; medium dense; slightly moist; with approximately 2% fine gravel
Silty SAND; light brown to gray; dense; slightly moist
Poorly Graded SAND with silt; light brown; dense; slightly moist -- same; dense
Total Depth = 51.5 feet
Backfilled on 3/13/2021
Groundwater not encountered.

Backfilled with neat cement grout at completion.

Surface patched with PCC.

SP-SM
SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
#200, ATT
#200
18 55
41 71

5.5 13.6
ELEVATION (feet)
684
679
674
669
664
659
654

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY CDD
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 724 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

DESCRIPTION
Driven
Bulk
DEPTH (feet)
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
U.S.C.S.

CLASSIFICATION

ADDITIONAL
TESTS

BLOWS / FOOT
FIGURE A - 15
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
BORING NO. GP-1
MOISTURE (%)
DATE DRILLED 3/13/2021
BORING LOG 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 3/30/21 124.1
115.5
113.4
4 inches of asphalt over 7 inches of base
FILL Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist; with approximately 10% fine gravel
ALLUVIUM Sandy Lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist -- same; very stiff
-- same; light to medium brown; very stiff
Silty SAND; light brown; medium dense; slightly moist
Sandy SILT; light brown to gray; very stiff; slightly moist Sandy Lean CLAY; medium to light brown; very stiff; slightly moist
Silty SAND; light brown; medium dense; slightly moist
CL
CL
CL
CL
SM
ML
CL
SM
#200,

ATT, EI,

MAX, DS
#200, ATT
DS
C
#200, ATT
36 27
41 23
26 18

11.4 7.1

3.8 16.4
ELEVATION (feet)
719
714
709
704
699
694
689

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY CDD
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 724 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

DESCRIPTION
Driven
Bulk
DEPTH (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
U.S.C.S.

CLASSIFICATION

ADDITIONAL
TESTS

BLOWS / FOOT
FIGURE A - 16
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
BORING NO. GP-2
MOISTURE (%)
DATE DRILLED 3/13/2021
BORING LOG 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 3/30/21 109.7
112.3
Poorly Graded SAND with silt; light brown; very dense; slightly moist
-- same; dense
-- same; very dense
-- same; dense; moist; with approximately 5% fine gravel Total Depth = 51.5 feet
Backfilled on 3/13/2021
Groundwater not encountered.

Backfilled with neat cement grout at completion.

Surface patched with PCC.

SP-SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
#200
74 40
34/50
for 5.5"
42 1.6

2.1 ELEVATION (feet)
684
679
674
669
664
659
654

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY CDD
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 724 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

DESCRIPTION
Driven
Bulk
DEPTH (feet)
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
U.S.C.S.

CLASSIFICATION

ADDITIONAL
TESTS

BLOWS / FOOT
FIGURE A - 16
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
BORING NO. GP-2
MOISTURE (%)
DATE DRILLED 3/13/2021
BORING LOG 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 3/30/21 125.9
110.2
6 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of base
FILL Clayey SAND; reddish brown; slightly moist
ALLUVIUM Silty SAND; reddish brown; slightly moist
-- same; medium brown; medium dense
-- same; medium dense
-- same; dense
Sandy SILT; medium brown; very stiff; slightly moist
Total Depth = 21.5 feet
Backfilled on 3/13/2021
Groundwater not encountered.

Backfilled with neat cement grout at completion.

Surface patched with PCC.

SC
SM
SM
SM
SM
ML
#200
DS
#200, ATT
#200, ATT
39 19
47 19

8.4 5.6
ELEVATION (feet)
719
714
709
704
699
694
689

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY CDD
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 724 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

DESCRIPTION
Driven
Bulk
DEPTH (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
U.S.C.S.

CLASSIFICATION

ADDITIONAL
TESTS

BLOWS / FOOT
FIGURE A - 17
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
BORING NO. PT-1
MOISTURE (%)
DATE DRILLED 3/13/2021
BORING LOG 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 3/30/21 121.7
FILL Sandy Lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist
ALLUVIUM Silty SAND; medium brown; slightly moist
Sandy Lean CLAY, reddish brown, slightly moist
-- same; hard
Sandy SILT; medium brown to gray; hard; slightly moist
Sandy Lean CLAY; medium brown; hard; dry
Total Depth = 21.5 feet
Backfilled on 3/13/2021
Groundwater not encountered.

Backfilled with cuttings.

CL
SM
CL
CL
ML
CL
#200,

ATT, EI
#200, ATT
44 50 for
5"
37 2.6
ELEVATION (feet)
725
720
715
710
705
700
695

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY CDD
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 730 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

DESCRIPTION
Driven
Bulk
DEPTH (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
U.S.C.S.

CLASSIFICATION

ADDITIONAL
TESTS

BLOWS / FOOT
FIGURE A - 18
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
BORING NO. PT-2
MOISTURE (%)
DATE DRILLED 3/13/2021
BORING LOG 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 3/30/21 Sandy lean CLAY; yellowish brown; slightly moist
-- turns reddish brown
Total Depth = 6.0 feet
Backfilled on 2/12/2020
Groundwater not encountered.

Hole backfilled with cuttings.

CL
718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 19

DRIVE WEIGHT
DRILLING METHOD 5" Hand Auger DRILLER Twining, Inc.

DROP
DATE DRILLED 2/12/2020 BORING NO. P-3
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist
Total Depth = 6.0 feet
Backfilled on 2/12/2020
Groundwater not encountered.

Hole backfilled with cuttings.

CL
718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 20

DRIVE WEIGHT
DRILLING METHOD 5" Hand Auger DRILLER Twining, Inc.

DROP
DATE DRILLED 2/12/2020 BORING NO. P-4
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist
Total Depth = 6.0 feet
Backfilled on 2/12/2020
Groundwater not encountered.

Hole backfilled with cuttings.

CL
718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 LOG OF BORING

REPORT DATE
March 2021
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (ft.) N/E
FIGURE A - 21

DRIVE WEIGHT
DRILLING METHOD 5" Hand Auger DRILLER Twining, Inc.

DROP
DATE DRILLED 2/12/2020 BORING NO. P-5
Project : Project No. : Date : 3/31/2021
P-3 Tested by :
72 Length Width

6.5 Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Depth
to Water
(in.)
Final Depth to
Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or Equal to 6"
? (Y/N)
1 7:00 AM 7:25 AM 25 15.6 50.4 34.8 Y
2 7:25 AM 7:50 AM 25 14.4 48.0 33.6 Y
∆t Ho Hf ∆H
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Water
Height
(inches)
Final Water
Height
(inches)
Change in
Water Level
(inches)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
1 7:52 AM 8:02 AM 10 63.00 34.80 28.20 5.44
2 8:02 AM 8:12 AM 10 63.60 44.40 19.20 3.37
3 8:12 AM 8:22 AM 10 64.80 45.60 19.20 3.29
4 8:22 AM 8:32 AM 10 62.40 46.80 15.60 2.71
5 8:32 AM 8:42 AM 10 63.60 50.40 13.20 2.20
6 8:42 AM 8:52 AM 10 63.60 51.00 12.60 2.08
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.7 inch /hr Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".

Test Hole Dimension (inches)
Diameter (if round) (inches) = Sides (if rectangular) = Test Hole No.: DHC
Depth of Test Hole, DT (in): USCS Soil Classification : CL Infiltration Rate Calculation Sheet
Kaiser Riverside Medical Cntr 190919.3
Project : Project No. : Date : 3/31/2021
P-4 Tested by :
72 Length Width

6.5 Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Depth
to Water
(in.)
Final Depth to
Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or Equal to 6"
? (Y/N)
1 8:50 AM 9:15 AM 25 12.0 33.6 21.6 Y
2 9:15 AM 9:40 AM 25 13.2 35.4 22.2 Y
∆t Ho Hf ∆H
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Water
Height
(inches)
Final Water
Height
(inches)
Change in
Water Level
(inches)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
1 9:41 AM 9:51 AM 10 68.40 50.40 18.00 2.88
2 9:51 AM 10:01 AM 10 67.20 50.40 16.80 2.71
3 10:01 AM 10:11 AM 10 64.80 49.20 15.60 2.59
4 10:11 AM 10:21 AM 10 63.60 50.40 13.20 2.20
5 10:21 AM 10:31 AM 10 66.00 52.20 13.80 2.22
6 10:31 AM 10:41 AM 10 64.80 51.00 13.80 2.26
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.8 inch /hr Infiltration Rate Calculation Sheet
Kaiser Riverside Medical Cntr 190919.3
Test Hole No.: DHC
Depth of Test Hole, DT (in): USCS Soil Classification : CL Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".

Test Hole Dimension (inches)
Diameter (if round) (inches) = Sides (if rectangular) = Project : Project No. : Date : 3/31/2021
P-5 Tested by :
72 Length Width

6.5 Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Depth
to Water
(in.)
Final Depth to
Water
(in.)
Change in
Water Level
(in.)
Greater than
or Equal to 6"
? (Y/N)
1 11:38 AM 12:03 PM 25 14.4 45.0 30.6 Y
2 12:03 PM 12:28 PM 25 10.8 38.4 27.6 Y
∆t Ho Hf ∆H
Trial No. Start Time Stop Time Time Interval
(min.)
Initial Water
Height
(inches)
Final Water
Height
(inches)
Change in
Water Level
(inches)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
1 12:29 PM 12:39 PM 10 64.80 38.40 26.40 4.84
2 12:39 PM 12:49 PM 10 64.20 41.40 22.80 4.08
3 12:49 PM 12:59 PM 10 63.00 36.60 26.40 5.01
4 12:59 PM 1:09 PM 10 66.00 54.00 12.00 1.90
5 1:09 PM 1:19 PM 10 65.40 53.40 12.00 1.92
6 1:19 PM 1:29 PM 10 63.00 53.40 9.60 1.56
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.5 inch /hr Sandy Soil Criteria Test*
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".

Test Hole Dimension (inches)
Diameter (if round) (inches) = Sides (if rectangular) = Test Hole No.: DHC
Depth of Test Hole, DT (in): USCS Soil Classification : CL Infiltration Rate Calculation Sheet
Kaiser Riverside Medical Cntr 190919.3
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
Appendix B
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory Moisture Content and Density Tests
The moisture content and dry densities of selected driven samples obtained from the exploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D 2937. The results are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A, and also summarized in Table B-1.

No. 200 Wash Sieve
The amount of fines passing the No. 200 sieve was evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1140.

The results are presented in Table B-2.

Grain Size Analysis
The grain size analysis was evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 422. The results are presented in Figure B-1.

Atterberg Limits
Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The test results are summarized in on Figures B-2 and B-3 and Table B3.

Resistance Value (R-value)
R-value testing was performed on a select bulk sample of the near-surface soils encountered at the site. The test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2844. The result is summarized in Table B-4.

Expansion Index
The expansion index of a select soil sample was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. The specimen was molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimen was loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and was inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The result of expansion index test is presented in Table B-5.

Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture
Modified Proctor testing was performed on near-surface soils to determine the maximum dry density and optimum water content for compaction. The test was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557 Method A. Test results are attached to this appendix as Figure B-4.

Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were performed on representative soil samples in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions.

Test results are presented on Figures B-5 through B-13.

Consolidation
Consolidation tests were performed on select modified-California soil samples in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D2435. The samples were inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions. The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample. The testing was performed by the geotechnical laboratory of Twining and the laboratory of Hushmand Associates, Inc. (HAI) of Irvine, California. The results of the tests by Twining are presented in Figures B-14 through B-22 and those by HAI in HAI’s laboratory test sheets and graphs included in this appendix.

Unconfined Compression
Unconfined compression (UC) testing was conducted to assess unconfined compression strength of site soils. The testing was performed using strain-controlled application of the axial load on representative relatively undisturbed samples. The testing was performed by the laboratory of Hushmand Associates, Inc. (HAI) of Irvine, California in general accordance with ASTM D2166. At the time of testing, the moisture content and dry density of each sample were measured. Stress-strain measurements were also plotted for the UC tests. Test results are presented in HAI’s laboratory test sheets and graphs included in this appendix. The UC strengths of the samples are summarized on Table B-6.

Corrosivity
Soil pH and resistivity tests were performed by Anaheim Test Lab, Inc. (ATLI) of Anaheim, California on a representative soil sample. The resistivity of the soil assumes saturated soil conditions. The chloride and sulfate contents of the selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with the latest versions of Caltrans test methods CT417, CT422, and CT 643. The test results are presented on Table B-7 and the ATLI reports included in this appendix. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
Table B-1
Moisture Content and Dry Density
Boring No. Depth (feet) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) B-1 5 11.9 121.8
B-1 15 11.7 124.6
B-1 25 17.3 114.0
B-1 35 22.5 98.2
B-1 45 2.8 107.1
B-2 10 9.7 126.8
B-2 20 20.2 100.4
B-2 30 23.1 103.1
B-3 5 9.7 100.3
B-3 15 3.1 117.9
B-3 25 2.5 104.3
B-3 35 15.5 104.8
B-3 45 9.1 104.0
B-4 10 6.6 121.8
B-4 20 1.2 101.3
B-4 30 13.8 108.6
B-5 10 14.9 118.5
B-5 20 1.2 113.4
B-5 30 4.2 122.7
B-5 40 23.7 97.1
B-5 50 4.4 101.8
B-5 60 9.4 128.2
B-6 10 7.9 117.2
B-6 20 7.0 118.9
B-6 30 2.8 102.9
B-6 40 18.0 100.2
B-7 5 9.7 119.8
B-7 15 9.9 113.5
B-7 25 9.7 118.1
B-8 10 14.8 117.9
B-8 20 26.3 94.9
B-8 30 21.5 103.1
B-8 40 13.6 108.1
B-8 50 3.2 102.1
B-9 5 12.5 116.7
B-9 15 14.5 108.0
B-9 25 20.6 108.1
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
B-10 10 14.6 114.9
B-10 20 13.8 110.1
B-10 30 19.3 106.1
B-11 10 12.8 119.1
B-11 20 25.0 100.1
B-11 30 18.3 110.8
B-12 10 11.3 121.8
B-12 20 5.9 117.4
B-12 30 10.8 114.8
B-13 5 16.4 113.9
B-13 15 10.5 122.5
B-13 25 4.6 115.8
GP-1 10 8.6 129.3
GP-1 20 16.5 106.7
GP-1 30 12.6 106.1
GP-1 40 5.5 111.4
GP-1 50 13.6 112.8
GP-2 5 7.1 124.1
GP-2 15 3.8 115.5
GP-2 25 16.4 113.4
GP-2 35 1.6 109.7
GP-2 45 2.1 112.3
PT-1 5 8.4 125.9
PT-1 15 5.6 110.2
PT-2 15 2.6 121.7
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
Table B-2
Number 200 Wash Results
Boring No. Depth (feet) Percent Passing #200
B-1 20 68.5
B-2 5 53.4
B-3 10 75.9
B-3 20 5.1
B-3 30 63.6
B-3 50 81.7
B-4 10 83.8
B-4 15 65.1
B-5 45 7.5
B-6 5 64.8
B-6 15 70.0
B-6 25 82.2
B-6 40 71.7
B-7 10 78.1
B-8 20 68.3
B-8 35 4.8
B-8 45 6.5
B-10 5 58.9
B-10 15 68.9
B-10 25 55.1
B-12 25 19.4
B-13 20 67.4
GP-1 20 77.7
GP-1 35 9
GP-1 45 6.4
GP-2 Bulk 54.7
GP-2 10 58.7
GP-2 30 48.7
GP-2 40 11.0
PT-1 10 48.9
PT-1 20 62.1
PT-2 Bulk 49.5
PT-2 20 55.3
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
Table B-3
Atterberg Limits Results
Boring
No.

Depth
(feet)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
U.S.C.S. Classification
B-1 20 NP NP NP Sandy Silt (ML)
B-3 10 30 17 13 Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
B-3 30 30 21 9 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
B-3 50 NP NP NP Silt with Sand (ML)
B-4 15 29 21 8 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
B-6 25 30 16 14 Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
B-6 40 41 26 15 Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
B-7 10 28 17 11 Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
B-8 20 42 27 15 Sandy Silt (ML)
B-10 5 26 18 8 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
B-10 15 28 18 10 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
B-10 25 28 20 8 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
B-12 25 NP NP NP Silty Sand (SM)
B-13 20 NP NP NP Sandy Silt (ML)
GP-1 35 NP NP NP Poorly Grade Sand (SP)
GP-2 0 - 5 28 19 9 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
GP-2 10 28 20 8 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
GP-2 30 NP NP NP Silty Sand (SM)
PT-1 10 NP NP NP Silty Sand (SM)
PT-1 20 NP NP NP Sandy Silt (ML)
PT-2 0 - 5 NP NP NP Silty Sand (SM)
PT-2 20 26 21 5 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Table B-4
Resistance Value (R-value)
Boring No. Depth
(feet) R Value
B-3 0 – 5 9
Table B-5
Expansion Index
Boring No. Depth
(feet)
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential
B-3 0 – 5 31 low
GP-2 0 – 5 19 very low
PT-2 0 – 5 19 very low
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
Table B-6
Unconfined Compression Test Results
Boring
No.

Depth
(feet) Soil Classification Unconfined CompressionStrength, qu, (psf) B-3 25 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM) 540
B-5 10 Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 10,307
B-6 10 Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 11,909
B-6 20 Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 5,171
B-7 15 Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 10,161
B-13 5 Sandy Lean Clay (CL) 1,524
Table B-7
Corrosivity Test Results
Boring No. Depth
(feet) pH
Water
Soluble
Sulfate
(ppm)
Water
Soluble
Chloride
(ppm)
Minimum
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
B-1 0-5 7.1 313 104 1,400
GP-2 0-5 6.8 374 131 1,600
PT-2 0-5 6.9 427 165 990
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 95
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Cc Cu
Well graded SAND with silt 1.09 6.28
D100 D60
16 20

COBBLES GRAVEL SAND

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
30 1.5

1.003 0.765 0.417

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
medium
3 60
fine
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 4 fine coarse

SILT OR CLAY
4 100 3 140 2 1 6 6 810 14 50 3/4 1/23/8

0.16 4.0
%Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay

90.9 D50 D30 D10
200

12.5 5.1
Sample Location U.S.C.S. Classification
40 coarse

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
FIGURE B- 1
B-3 at 20 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
GRAIN SIZE 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 11/19/19 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 20406080 100
ML
CL
MH
CH
Sample Location

LIQUID LIMIT
LL

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL PI U.S.C.S. Classification
NP
8 10
8 NP
NP
13 9
NP
8 14
15 11
15 NP
9 8
NP
16 11
NP
26 28
28 NP
NP
30 30
NP
29 30
41 28
42 NP
28 28
NP
33 33
NP
18 18
20 NP
NP
17 21
NP
21 16
26 17
27 NP
19 20
NP
17 22
CL-ML
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y
I
N
D
E
X
B-1 at 20 ft
B-10 at 5 ft
B-10 at 15 ft
B-10 at 25 ft
B-12 at 25 ft
B-13 at 20 ft
B-3 at 10 ft
B-3 at 30 ft
B-3 at 50 ft
B-4 at 15 ft
B-6 at 25 ft
B-6 at 40 ft
B-7 at 10 ft
B-8 at 20 ft
GP-1 at 35 ft
GP-2 at 1-5 ft
GP-2 at 10 ft
GP-2 at 30 ft
PS-1 at 10 ft
PS-2 at 10 ft
FIGURE B-2
Sandy SILT
Sandy lean CLAY
Sandy lean CLAY
Sandy lean CLAY
Silty SAND
Sandy SILT
Lean CLAY with sand
Sandy lean CLAY
SILT
Sandy lean CLAY
Lean CLAY with sand
Lean CLAY with sand
Lean CLAY with sand
Sandy SILT
Sandy lean CLAY
Sandy lean CLAY
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
Poorly graded SAND with silt
Sandy lean CLAY
Sandy lean CLAY
Silty SAND
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 20406080 100
ML
CL
MH
CH
Sample Location

LIQUID LIMIT
LL

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL PI U.S.C.S. Classification
NP
19 NP
19 NP
NP
NP
5 NP
36 NP
35 NP
NP
NP
26 NP
17 NP
16 NP
NP
NP
21 CL-ML
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y
I
N
D
E
X
PS-2 at 20 ft
PS-3 at 10 ft
PS-3 at 20 ft
PS-4 at 5 ft
PT-1 at 10 ft
PT-1 at 20 ft
PT-2 at 1-5 ft
PT-2 at 20 ft
FIGURE B-3
Silty SAND
Lean CLAY with sand
Sandy SILT
Sandy lean CLAY
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
Silty SAND
Sandy SILT
Silty SAND
Sandy lean CLAY
85 90
95 100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
%

TEST RESULTS
132.5

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP

2.80 2.70

2.60 2.50
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:

Maximum Dry Density: pcf
Sandy Lean CLAY
BULK 0-5'
Optimum Water Content: 8.0
Boring No.:

FIGURE B-4
GP-2
ASTM D1557 Method A
3/18/21
Test Method:

Sampled By:

Sample Date:

Test Date:

Sample Depth:

Sample Description:

CDD
3/13/21
WATER CONTENT, %
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
Shear Strength Parameters
Peak B-13
25 Poorly graded SAND

0.005
115.8
120
34 4.6

13.8 204
29 FIGURE B-5
B-13
25 Poorly graded SAND

0.005
115.8
Ultimate
Cohesion, C (psf):

Friction Angle, Ø (deg):

Initial Moisture (%):

Final Moisture (%):

Boring No.:

Sample Depth (ft):

Sample Description:

Strain Rate (in./min):

Dry Density (pcf):

PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
DIRECT SHEAR 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 2/20/20 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
Shear Strength Parameters
Peak B-2
20 Sandy SILT

0.005
100.4
702
26 20.2

17.8 198
28 FIGURE B-6
B-2
20 Sandy SILT

0.005
100.4
Ultimate
Cohesion, C (psf):

Friction Angle, Ø (deg):

Initial Moisture (%):

Final Moisture (%):

Boring No.:

Sample Depth (ft):

Sample Description:

Strain Rate (in./min):

Dry Density (pcf):

PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
DIRECT SHEAR 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 2/20/20 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
Shear Strength Parameters
Peak B-3
15 Lean CLAY with sand

0.005
117.9
132
33 3.1

11.3 0
33 FIGURE B-7
B-3
15 Lean CLAY with sand

0.005
117.9
Ultimate
Cohesion, C (psf):

Friction Angle, Ø (deg):

Initial Moisture (%):

Final Moisture (%):

Boring No.:

Sample Depth (ft):

Sample Description:

Strain Rate (in./min):

Dry Density (pcf):

PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
DIRECT SHEAR 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 2/20/20 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
Shear Strength Parameters
Peak B-4
20 Well graded SAND

0.005
101.3
444
32 1.2

16.6 50
31 FIGURE B-8
B-4
20 Well graded SAND

0.005
101.3
Ultimate
Cohesion, C (psf):

Friction Angle, Ø (deg):

Initial Moisture (%):

Final Moisture (%):

Boring No.:

Sample Depth (ft):

Sample Description:

Strain Rate (in./min):

Dry Density (pcf):

PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
DIRECT SHEAR 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 2/20/20 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
Shear Strength Parameters
Peak B-5
20 Poorly graded SAND with silt

0.005
113.4
324
36 1.2

13.3 0
34 FIGURE B-9
B-5
20 Poorly graded SAND with silt

0.005
113.4
Ultimate
Cohesion, C (psf):

Friction Angle, Ø (deg):

Initial Moisture (%):

Final Moisture (%):

Boring No.:

Sample Depth (ft):

Sample Description:

Strain Rate (in./min):

Dry Density (pcf):

PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
DIRECT SHEAR 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 2/20/20 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
SHEAR STRENGTH, psf
Shear Strength Parameters
Peak B-8
10 Lean CLAY with sand

0.005
117.9
504
25 14.8

13.4 312
25 FIGURE B-10
B-8
10 Lean CLAY with sand

0.005
117.9
Ultimate
Cohesion, C (psf):

Friction Angle, Ø (deg):

Initial Moisture (%):

Final Moisture (%):

Boring No.:

Sample Depth (ft):

Sample Description:

Strain Rate (in./min):

Dry Density (pcf):

PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
DIRECT SHEAR 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 2/20/20 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
Shear Strength Parameters
Peak
624
21 408
23 FIGURE B-11
Ultimate
Cohesion, C (psf):

Friction Angle, Ø (deg):

Initial Moisture (%):

Final Moisture (%):

Boring No.:

Sample Depth (ft):

Sample Description:

Strain Rate (in./min):

Dry Density (pcf):

PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California

7.7 GP-2
0-5'
Sandy Lean CLAY

0.005
132.7 11.4
Sample Remolded to 90% Relative Compaction
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
Shear Strength Parameters
Peak
36 34

3.8 14.7
120
28 FIGURE B-12
Ultimate
Cohesion, C (psf):

Friction Angle, Ø (deg):

Initial Moisture (%):

Final Moisture (%):

Boring No.:

Sample Depth (ft):

Sample Description:

Strain Rate (in./min):

Dry Density (pcf):

PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
GP-2
15 Silty SAND

0.005
115.5
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
Shear Strength Parameters
Peak PT-1
5 0.005
125.9
318
32 8.4

13.1 288
26 FIGURE B-13
PT-1
5 0.005
125.9
Ultimate
Cohesion, C (psf):

Friction Angle, Ø (deg):

Initial Moisture (%):

Final Moisture (%):

Boring No.:

Sample Depth (ft):

Sample Description:

Strain Rate (in./min):

Dry Density (pcf):

PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
Sandy SILT
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10

CONSOLIDATION TEST
STRAIN, %
STRESS, ksf
121.8 11.9
FIGURE B-14
Soil Description
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Sandy lean CLAY
Sample Location
B-1 at 5 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
CONSOL STRAIN 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 1/15/20 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10

CONSOLIDATION TEST
STRAIN, %
STRESS, ksf
119.1 12.8
FIGURE B-15
Soil Description
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Sandy Lean CLAY
Sample Location
B-11 at 10 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
CONSOL STRAIN 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 1/15/20 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10

CONSOLIDATION TEST
STRAIN, %
STRESS, ksf
117.4 5.9
FIGURE B-16
Soil Description
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
SILT with sand
Sample Location
B-12 at 20 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
CONSOL STRAIN 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 1/15/20 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10

CONSOLIDATION TEST
STRAIN, %
STRESS, ksf
117.9 3.1
FIGURE B-17
Soil Description
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Lean CLAY with sand
Sample Location
B-3 at 15 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
CONSOL STRAIN 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 1/15/20 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10

CONSOLIDATION TEST
STRAIN, %
STRESS, ksf
100.2 18.0
FIGURE B-18
Soil Description
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Lean CLAY with sand
Sample Location
B-6 at 40 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
CONSOL STRAIN 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 1/15/20 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10

CONSOLIDATION TEST
STRAIN, %
STRESS, ksf

94.9 26.3
FIGURE B-19
Soil Description
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Sandy SILT
Sample Location
B-8 at 20 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
CONSOL STRAIN 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 1/15/20 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14

0.1 1 10

CONSOLIDATION TEST
STRESS, ksf
129.3 8.6
FIGURE B-20
Soil Description
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Sandy Lean CLAY
Sample Location
GP-1 at 10 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14

0.1 1 10

CONSOLIDATION TEST
STRESS, ksf
106.1 12.6
FIGURE B-21
Soil Description
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Sandy SILT
Sample Location
GP-1 at 30 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14

0.1 1 10

CONSOLIDATION TEST
STRESS, ksf
113.4 16.4
FIGURE B-22
Soil Description
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Sandy Lean CLAY
Sample Location
GP-2 at 25 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Hospital Expansion, OSHPD: 106334025
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
Hushmand Associates, Inc.
250 Goddard, Irvine,
CA 92618
p. (949) 777-1274
w. haieng.com
e. [email protected]
November 14, 2019
Twining Consulting
3310 Airport Way,
Long Beach, CA 90806
Attention: Mr. Steven Chang
SUBJECT: Laboratory Test Result
Project Name: Kaiser Riverside
Project No.: 190919.3
HAI Project No.: TWI-19-010
Dear Mr. Chang:

Enclosed is the result of the laboratory testing program conducted on samples from the above referenced project. The testing performed for this program was conducted in general accordance with the following test procedure:

Type of Test Test Procedure
Moisture Content & Dry Density ASTM D2216 & D2937
Consolidation ASTM D2435
Attached are: two (2) Moisture Content & Dry Density test results; and two (2) Consolidation test results.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our testing services to Twining Consulting. If you have any questions regarding the test results, please contact us.

Sincerely,
HUSHMAND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Kang C. Lin, BS, EIT Woongju (MJ) Mun, PhD
Laboratory Manager Senior Staff Engineer
Client: Twining Consulting HAI Proj No.: TWI-19-010
Project Name: Kaiser Riverside Performed by: KL
Project No.: 190919.3 Checked by: MJ
Date: 11/6/2019
Depth Wt of
Ring + Soil
Height of
Sample
Dia. of
Sample
Volume of
Sample
Wt of
Rings
Wt of
Soil
Wet
Density
Wt of Cont.
+ Wet Soil
Wt of Cont.
+ Dry Soil
Wt of
Container
Moisture
Content
Dry
Density
ft gr in in cu.ft gr gr pcf gr gr gr % pcf
1 B-4 R 30 203.47 1.07 2.416 0.0028 45.07 158.40 123.6 203.47 184.23 45.07 13.8 108.6 2 B-8 R 30 201.63 1.04 2.416 0.0028 44.86 156.77 125.3 201.63 173.91 44.86 21.5 103.1 No.

MOISTURE CONTENT AND DRY DENSITY OF RING SAMPLES
ASTM D2216 & ASTM D2937
Sample
No.

Boring
No.

Client : Twining Consulting HAI Project No.: TWI-19-010 Project Name: Kaiser Riverside Tested by: KL
Project Number: 190919.3 Checked by: MJ
Boring No.: B4 Date: 11/06/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 30
Soil Description: Light Olive, Lean Clay with Sand (CL) H (in)
Hs (in)
Hw (in)
Ha (in)
(pcf)
(%)
(%)
* Saturation is calcualted based on Gs= 2.68
Load δH H Voids av Mv
(ksf) (in) (in) (in) (ksf-1) (ksf-1)

0.01 ------- 1.0640 0.373 0.539

0.25 0.0025 1.0616 0.370 0.536 1.5E-02 9.6E-03

0.5 0.0039 1.0601 0.369 0.534 8.3E-03 5.4E-03
1 0.0077 1.0563 0.365 0.528 1.1E-02 7.2E-03
2 0.0127 1.0513 0.360 0.521 7.3E-03 4.8E-03
2 0.0166 1.0474 0.356 0.515
4 0.0223 1.0417 0.351 0.507 4.1E-03 2.7E-03
8 0.0351 1.0289 0.338 0.489 4.6E-03 3.1E-03
4 0.0339 1.0301 0.339 0.490
2 0.0319 1.0321 0.341 0.493
e Comment
(%)

1.2 2.1

1.6 Water Added
Unloaded

3.0 3.2

3.3 0.7

0.4 0.2
0 Consol.

0.256
Initial Conditions
(g) (g) (g)
162.99
Height

0.317

0.691

1.032
158.40
Height of Water
Height of Solids
Initial Total Weight
139.16

1.064
Final Total Weight Final Dry Weight

0.691
Final Conditions

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435

93.1 Height of Air

17.1 68.7

13.8 0.117
108.6 108.5

0.024
Saturation
Water Content
Dry Density
Client : Twining Consulting HAI Project No.: TWI-19-010 Project Name: Kaiser Riverside Tested by: KL
Project Number: 190919.3 Checked by: MJ
Boring No.: B4 Date: 11/06/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 30
Soil Description: Light Olive, Lean Clay with Sand (CL)

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added

0.46 0.48

0.50 0.52

0.54 0.56

0.1 1 10 100
Void Ratio, e
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
Client : Twining Consulting HAI Project No.: TWI-19-010 Project Name: Kaiser Riverside Tested by: KL
Project Number: 190919.3 Checked by: MJ
Boring No.: B8 Date: 11/06/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 30
Soil Description: Brown, Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
H (in)
Hs (in)
Hw (in)
Ha (in)
(pcf)
(%)
(%)
* Saturation is calcualted based on Gs= 2.67
Load δH H Voids av Mv
(ksf) (in) (in) (in) (ksf-1) (ksf-1)

0.01 ------- 1.0400 0.397 0.616

0.25 0.0069 1.0332 0.390 0.606 4.4E-02 2.8E-02

0.5 0.0106 1.0294 0.386 0.600 2.3E-02 1.5E-02
1 0.0171 1.0229 0.380 0.590 2.0E-02 1.3E-02
2 0.0258 1.0142 0.371 0.576 1.3E-02 8.6E-03
2 0.0231 1.0169 0.374 0.581
4 0.0273 1.0127 0.369 0.574 3.3E-03 2.1E-03
8 0.0352 1.0048 0.361 0.562 3.1E-03 2.0E-03
4 0.0331 1.0069 0.364 0.565
2 0.0288 1.0112 0.368 0.572
e Comment
(%)

2.5 2.6

2.2 Unloaded
Water Added

2.8 3.2

3.4 1.6

1.0 0.7
0 Consol.

0.369
Initial Conditions
(g) (g) (g)
156.58
Height

0.366

0.643

1.011
156.77
Height of Water
Height of Solids
Initial Total Weight
129.05

1.040
Final Total Weight Final Dry Weight

0.643
Final Conditions

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435

99.6 Height of Air

21.3 93.0

21.5 0.028
103.1 104.8

0.001
Saturation
Water Content
Dry Density
Client : Twining Consulting HAI Project No.: TWI-19-010 Project Name: Kaiser Riverside Tested by: KL
Project Number: 190919.3 Checked by: MJ
Boring No.: B8 Date: 11/06/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 30
Soil Description: Brown, Fat Clay with Sand (CH)

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added

0.54 0.56

0.58 0.60

0.62 0.64

0.1 1 10 100
Void Ratio, e
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
Hushmand Associates, Inc.
250 Goddard, Irvine,
CA 92618
p. (949) 777-1274
w. haieng.com
e. [email protected]
December 27, 2019
Twining Inc.
3310 East Airport Way,
Long Beach, CA 90806
Attention: Mr. Brian Vollnogle
SUBJECT: Laboratory Test Result
Project Name: RMC
Project No.: 190919.3
HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Dear Mr. Vollnogle:

Enclosed is the result of the laboratory testing program conducted on samples from the above referenced project. The testing performed for this program was conducted in general accordance with the following test procedure:

Type of Test Test Procedure
Moisture Content & Dry Density ASTM D2216 & D2937
Consolidation ASTM D2435
Unconfined Compression ASTM D2166
Attached are: eight (8) Moisture Content & Dry Density test results; four (4) Consolidation test results; and eight (8) Unconfined Compression test results.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our testing services to Twining Inc. If you have any questions regarding the test results, please contact us.

Sincerely,
HUSHMAND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Kang C. Lin, BS, EIT Ashkaan Hushmand, PhD, PE
Laboratory Manager Project Engineer
Client: Twining Inc. HAI Proj No.: TWI-19-013
Project Name: RMC Performed by: KL
Project No.: 190919.3 Checked by: AH
Date: 12/13/2019
Depth Wt of
Ring + Soil
Height of
Sample
Dia. of
Sample
Volume of
Sample
Wt of
Rings
Wt of
Soil
Wet
Density
Wt of Cont.
+ Wet Soil
Wt of Cont.
+ Dry Soil
Wt of
Container
Moisture
Content
Dry
Density
ft gr in in cu.ft gr gr pcf gr gr gr % pcf
1 B-5 R 10 823.08 5.05 2.411 0.0133 0.00 823.08 136.1 837.48 731.22 15.88 14.9 118.5 2 B-13 R 5 797.68 5.05 2.404 0.0133 0.00 797.68 132.7 811.9 699.56 15.73 16.4 113.9 3 B-13 R 15 1041.52 5.00 2.416 0.0133 226.80 814.72 135.4 156.63 142.84 11.77 10.5 122.5 No.

MOISTURE CONTENT AND DRY DENSITY OF RING SAMPLES
ASTM D2216 & ASTM D2937
Sample
No.

Boring
No.

Client : Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project Name: RMC Tested by: KL
Project Number: 190919.3 Checked by: MJ
Boring No.: B-13 Date: 12/13/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 15
Soil Description: Brown, Lean Clay (CL)
H (in)
Hs (in)
Hw (in)
Ha (in)
(pcf)
(%)
(%)
* Saturation is calcualted based on Gs= 2.67
Load δH H Voids av Mv
(ksf) (in) (in) (in) (ksf-1) (ksf-1)

0.01 ------- 1.0200 0.269 0.359

0.25 0.0021 1.0180 0.267 0.356 1.1E-02 8.4E-03

0.5 0.0051 1.0149 0.264 0.352 1.6E-02 1.2E-02
1 0.0086 1.0114 0.261 0.347 9.3E-03 6.9E-03
2 0.0118 1.0082 0.258 0.343 4.3E-03 3.2E-03
2 0.0142 1.0058 0.255 0.340
4 0.0169 1.0031 0.252 0.336 1.8E-03 1.3E-03
8 0.0250 0.9950 0.244 0.326 2.7E-03 2.0E-03
4 0.0240 0.9960 0.245 0.327
1 0.0208 0.9992 0.249 0.331
e Comment
(%)

1.2 1.7

1.4 Unloaded
Water Added

2.0 2.4

2.4 0.8

0.5 0.2
0 Consol.

0.216
Initial Conditions
(g) (g) (g)
169.17
Height

0.248

0.751

0.999
166.76
Height of Water
Height of Solids
Initial Total Weight
150.57

1.020
Final Total Weight Final Dry Weight

0.751
Final Conditions

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435

99.6 Height of Air

12.4 80.0

10.8 0.054
122.6 125.3

0.001
Saturation
Water Content
Dry Density
Client : Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project Name: RMC Tested by: KL
Project Number: 190919.3 Checked by: MJ
Boring No.: B-13 Date: 12/13/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 15
Soil Description: Brown, Lean Clay (CL)

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435

0.0 0.8

1.6 2.4

3.2 4.0

0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added

0.32 0.33

0.34 0.35

0.36 0.37

0.1 1 10 100
Void Ratio, e
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
Client: Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project: RMC Tested by: KL
Project No.: 190919.3 Checked by: AH
Boring No.: B-3 Date: 12/13/2019
Sample No.: 25
Soil Description: Light Brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM)

1. Initial Specimen Information
Height: (in) 5.00 Initial Wet Weight: (g) 629.76
Diameter: (in) 2.42 Wet Density: (pcf) 104.7
Area: (in2
) 4.58 Moisture Content: (%) 3.0
Volume: (in3
) 22.92 Dry Density: (pcf) 101.6

2. Compression Test Data Curing Days: -

0.0000 0.0 2.0 0.00

0.0009 0.5 16.1 0.02

0.0035 2.3 75.5 0.07

0.0074 3.7 119.5 0.15

0.0100 4.9 157.0 0.20

0.0134 6.7 212.7 0.27

0.0160 7.7 242.5 0.32

0.0186 9.1 285.6 0.37

0.0224 10.4 326.2 0.45

0.0250 12.0 376.2 0.50

0.0284 13.1 412.4 0.57

0.0310 14.1 442.7 0.62

0.0336 14.9 468.2 0.67

0.0375 15.9 496.1 0.75

0.0400 16.5 514.5 0.80

0.0435 17.3 540.2 0.87

0.0461 17.0 530.1 0.92

0.0486 16.9 527.1 0.97

0.0546 16.0 500.4 1.09

0.0620 13.1 408.5 1.24

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH TEST
Failure of the specimen
ASTM D2166
Vertical Displ.
(in)
Strain
(%)
qu
(psf)
Load
(lbs)
0 200
400
600
800
1000

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
qu (psf)
Strain (%)
Client: Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project: RMC Tested by: KL
Project No.: 190919.3 Checked by: AH
Boring No.: B-5 Date: 12/13/2019
Sample No.: 10
Soil Description: Brown, Fat Clay with Sand (CH)

1. Initial Specimen Information
Height: (in) 5.05 Initial Wet Weight: (g) 823.08
Diameter: (in) 2.41 Wet Density: (pcf) 136.1
Area: (in2
) 4.57 Moisture Content: (%) 14.9
Volume: (in3
) 23.04 Dry Density: (pcf) 118.5

2. Compression Test Data Curing Days: -

0.0000 0.0 5.3 0.00

0.0051 2.5 83.2 0.10

0.0112 10.7 342.7 0.22

0.0177 23.3 739.1 0.35

0.0238 35.2 1110.3 0.47

0.0316 49.1 1545.7 0.63

0.0377 62.8 1969.9 0.75

0.0442 75.6 2369.5 0.88

0.0507 88.0 2753.0 1.00

0.0758 131.5 4091.0 1.50

0.1062 174.6 5395.4 2.10

0.1313 204.1 6276.6 2.60

0.1565 230.5 7048.8 3.10

0.1816 253.6 7715.2 3.60

0.2068 274.3 8301.9 4.10

0.2371 295.7 8893.0 4.70

0.2775 320.2 9550.1 5.50

0.3911 354.2 10307.1 7.75

0.4037 352.8 10240.9 8.00

0.4540 317.8 9126.3 9.00

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH TEST
Failure of the specimen
ASTM D2166
Vertical Displ.
(in)
Strain
(%)
qu
(psf)
Load
(lbs)
0 2400
4800
7200
9600
12000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
qu (psf)
Strain (%)
Client: Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project: RMC Tested by: KL
Project No.: 190919.3 Checked by: AH
Boring No.: B-6 Date: 12/13/2019
Sample No.: 10
Soil Description: Brown, Sandy Fat Clay (CH)

1. Initial Specimen Information
Height: (in) 5.05 Initial Wet Weight: (g) 762.31
Diameter: (in) 2.40 Wet Density: (pcf) 127.0
Area: (in2
) 4.53 Moisture Content: (%) 9.3
Volume: (in3
) 22.86 Dry Density: (pcf) 116.2

2. Compression Test Data Curing Days: -

0.0000 0.0 -35.7 0.00

0.0020 0.2 -29.5 0.04

0.0069 0.1 -32.8 0.14

0.0119 5.7 145.9 0.24

0.0171 14.6 426.3 0.34

0.0221 25.3 766.3 0.44

0.0271 35.6 1090.1 0.54

0.0310 43.1 1327.8 0.61

0.0360 52.5 1621.5 0.71

0.0410 63.3 1960.9 0.81

0.0462 76.6 2377.0 0.92

0.0551 101.3 3149.8 1.09

0.0753 160.4 4989.5 1.49

0.0955 220.2 6836.4 1.89

0.1107 261.6 8104.2 2.19

0.1309 309.3 9547.8 2.59

0.1510 349.5 10749.0 2.99

0.1762 388.0 11909.9 3.49

0.1877 371.5 11340.8 3.72

0.2066 328.7 9991.1 4.09

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH TEST
Failure of the specimen
ASTM D2166
Vertical Displ.
(in)
Strain
(%)
qu
(psf)
Load
(lbs)
0 3000
6000
9000
12000
15000

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
qu (psf)
Strain (%)
Client: Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project: RMC Tested by: KL
Project No.: 190919.3 Checked by: AH
Boring No.: B-6 Date: 12/13/2019
Sample No.: 20
Soil Description: Borwn, Clayey Sand (SC)

1. Initial Specimen Information
Height: (in) 5.09 Initial Wet Weight: (g) 765.70
Diameter: (in) 2.41 Wet Density: (pcf) 125.4
Area: (in2
) 4.58 Moisture Content: (%) 6.1
Volume: (in3
) 23.27 Dry Density: (pcf) 118.2

2. Compression Test Data Curing Days: -

0.0000 0.0 6.9 0.00

0.0023 1.1 40.0 0.05

0.0063 5.4 176.3 0.12

0.0102 11.7 375.2 0.20

0.0139 18.5 588.4 0.27

0.0176 25.2 798.6 0.35

0.0216 32.4 1024.1 0.42

0.0253 39.0 1229.0 0.50

0.0292 45.1 1417.8 0.57

0.0329 51.4 1615.4 0.65

0.0369 58.3 1828.4 0.72

0.0408 66.3 2078.8 0.80

0.0445 74.2 2323.3 0.88

0.0484 82.2 2571.7 0.95

0.0559 97.9 3056.3 1.10

0.0712 127.4 3963.7 1.40

0.0865 152.9 4740.5 1.70

0.1018 167.4 5171.3 2.00

0.1131 158.8 4895.8 2.22

0.1271 98.1 3017.4 2.50

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH TEST
Failure of the specimen
ASTM D2166
Vertical Displ.
(in)
Strain
(%)
qu
(psf)
Load
(lbs)
0 1200
2400
3600
4800
6000

0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0
qu (psf)
Strain (%)
Client: Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project: RMC Tested by: KL
Project No.: 190919.3 Checked by: AH
Boring No.: B-7 Date: 12/13/2019
Sample No.: 15
Soil Description: Borwn, Clayey Sand (SC) * The sample height-to-diameter ratio is less than 2.

1. Initial Specimen Information
Height: (in) 4.03 Initial Wet Weight: (g) 599.75
Diameter: (in) 2.41 Wet Density: (pcf) 124.1
Area: (in2
) 4.57 Moisture Content: (%) 11.2
Volume: (in3
) 18.41 Dry Density: (pcf) 111.6

2. Compression Test Data Curing Days: -

0.0000 0.0 -0.2 0.00

0.0015 0.8 25.8 0.04

0.0057 2.6 82.9 0.14

0.0097 7.3 229.4 0.24

0.0137 13.9 435.2 0.34

0.0178 21.0 659.1 0.44

0.0218 29.0 907.6 0.54

0.0260 39.2 1226.1 0.64

0.0299 50.0 1561.3 0.74

0.0341 61.8 1928.1 0.85

0.0381 73.5 2292.6 0.95

0.0481 103.5 3219.9 1.19

0.0642 151.5 4694.3 1.59

0.0803 197.2 6086.9 1.99

0.0964 240.6 7396.0 2.39

0.1125 277.9 8504.7 2.79

0.1286 308.1 9391.0 3.19

0.1570 335.8 10161.7 3.90

0.1609 334.6 10115.7 4.00

0.1730 237.4 7153.7 4.30

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH TEST
Failure of the specimen
ASTM D2166
Vertical Displ.
(in)
Strain
(%)
qu
(psf)
Load
(lbs)
0 2400
4800
7200
9600
12000

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
qu (psf)
Strain (%)
Client: Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project: RMC Tested by: KL
Project No.: 190919.3 Checked by: AH
Boring No.: B-13 Date: 12/13/2019
Sample No.: 5
Soil Description: Borwn, Lean Clay (CL)

1. Initial Specimen Information
Height: (in) 5.05 Initial Wet Weight: (g) 797.68
Diameter: (in) 2.40 Wet Density: (pcf) 132.7
Area: (in2
) 4.54 Moisture Content: (%) 16.4
Volume: (in3
) 22.91 Dry Density: (pcf) 113.9

2. Compression Test Data Curing Days: -

0.0000 0.0 8.9 0.00

0.0033 2.5 88.7 0.07

0.0098 6.9 228.0 0.20

0.0163 9.7 317.1 0.32

0.0224 11.9 384.9 0.44

0.0289 13.9 446.5 0.57

0.0350 15.8 507.3 0.69

0.0415 17.6 563.6 0.82

0.0476 19.4 617.3 0.94

0.0654 23.6 747.2 1.30

0.0905 29.2 918.8 1.79

0.1161 33.8 1057.3 2.30

0.1412 38.1 1183.1 2.80

0.1664 41.7 1286.8 3.30

0.1915 44.7 1374.2 3.80

0.2171 47.7 1456.9 4.30

0.2423 49.2 1494.2 4.80

0.2774 50.8 1524.1 5.50

0.3408 47.8 1423.7 6.76

0.4037 41.1 1208.3 8.00

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH TEST
Failure of the specimen
ASTM D2166
Vertical Displ.
(in)
Strain
(%)
qu
(psf)
Load
(lbs)
0 400
800
1200
1600
2000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
qu (psf)
Strain (%)
B-1 Bulk Sample

ANAHEIM TEST LAB, INC
196 Technology Drive, Unit D
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone (949)336-6544
DATE: 3/22/2021

TWINING LABS
3310 AIRPORT WAY P.O. NO: Soils03172021
LONG BEACH, CA 90806
LAB NO: C-4646, 1-2
SPECIFICATION: CT-643/417/422
MATERIAL: Soil
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Project No.: 190919.3
Project: Kaiser Riverside
WO#: W01-21-06060
Sample Date: 3/13/2021

ANALYTICAL REPORT

CORROSION SERIES

SUMMARY OF DATA
pH MIN RESISTIVITY SOLUBLE SULFATES SOLUBLE CHLORIDES
per CT. 643 per CT. 417 per CT. 422
ohm-cm ppm ppm
1) GP-2 Bulk Sample 6.8 1,600 374 131
2) PT-2 Bulk Sample 6.9 990 427 165

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
________________________________

WES BRIDGER LAB MANAGER
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

APPENDIX C

GEOPHYSICAL STUDY

GEOPHYSICAL EVALUATION
December 19, 2019 Project No. 119634
Report No. 1
Mr. Doug Crayton
Twining, Inc.
2883 East Spring Street, Suite 300
Long Beach, California 90806
Subject: GEOPHYSICAL EVALUATION

RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Crayton:

In accordance with your authorization, we have performed geophysical study services pertaining to the Riverside Medical Center project (project number: 190919.3) located in Riverside, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our study was to develop a Shear-wave velocity profile to be used for design and construction parameters for a portion of the site. Our services were performed on December 7, 2019. This report presents the study methodology, equipment used, analysis, and findings from our study.

Our scope of services included the performance of a refraction microtremor (ReMi) profile (RL-1) at a preselected area of the project site (see Figure 2). The ReMi technique uses recorded surface waves (specifically Rayleigh waves) that are contained in background noise to develop a Shearwave velocity profile of the study area down to a depth, in this case, of approximately 100 feet.

The depth of exploration is dependent on the length of the line and the frequency content of the background noise. The results of the ReMi method are displayed as a one-dimensional sounding which represents the average condition across the length of the line. The ReMi method does not require an increase of material velocity with depth; therefore, low velocity zones (velocity inversions) are detectable with ReMi.

Our ReMi study included the use of a 24-channel Geometrics Geode seismograph and 24, 4.5-Hz vertical component geophones. The geophones were spaced 10 feet apart for a total line length of 230 feet. Fifteen records, each 32 seconds long, were recorded and then downloaded to a computer. The data were later processed using SeisOpt® ReMi™ software (© Optim LLC, 2005), which uses the refraction microtremor method (Louie, 2001). The program generates phasevelocity dispersion curves for each record and provides an interactive dispersion modeling tool where the users determine the best fitting model. The result is a one-dimensional shear-wave velocity model of the site with roughly 85 to 95 percent accuracy. Figure 3 depicts the general site conditions in the study area.
2 December 19, 2019
Riverside Medical Center
Project No. 119634
Figure 4 presents the results from our study. Based on our analysis of the collected data, the average characteristic site Shear-wave velocity down to a depth of 100 feet for RL-1 is 1,143 feet per second (CBC, 2016). This value corresponds to site classification of D. It should be noted the ReMi results represent the average condition across the length of the line.

The field evaluation and geophysical analyses presented in this report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, express or implied, is made regarding the conclusions and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be present. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface studying will be performed upon request.

This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Southwest Geophysics should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties’ sole risk.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions related to this report, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Respectfully submitted,

SOUTHWEST GEOPHYSICS, LLC
Stephan A. Callas Patrick F. Lehrmann, P.G., Pg.

Staff Geophysicist Principal Geologist/Geophysicist
SAC:PFL:ds
Attachments: Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Seismic Line Location Map (RL-1)
Figure 3 – Site Photographs
Figure 4 – ReMi Results (RL-1)
(1) Addressee via e-mail: Doug Crayton, [email protected]

SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure 1
Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
Project No.: 119634 Date: 12/19
Park Sier
a Drive
Magnolia Avenue
Approximate
Line Location
RL-1
(RL-1)

LINE LOCATION MAP
Project No.: 119634 Date: 12/19 Figure 2
Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
approximate scale in feet
0 100 200
ReMi Line
LEGEND
0 RL-1 230
Figure 3
Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
Project No.: 119634 Date: 12/19

SITE PHOTOGRAPH
RL-1
View to the northeast

2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

APPENDIX D

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::

Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Sampling method:

Borehole diameter:

Rod length:

Hammer energy ratio:

Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Sampler wo liners
200mm

5.00 ft

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

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Eq. external load:

Project title : New Tower at Kaiser Riverside Medical Center Location : 10800 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 2883 East Spring Street, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
SPT Name: B-1

57.50 ft

12.50 ft

7.70 0.59 g

0.00 tsf
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
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 CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 FS Plot
During earthq.

LPI
Liquefaction potential
0 5
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 LPI
During earthq.

CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Cyclic Stress Ratio*

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.0 CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
F.S. color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 1 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.

Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
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 CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 FS Plot
During earthq.

Vertical Liq. Settlements
Cuml. Settlement (in)
0 1 2
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 Vertical Liq. Settlements
During earthq.

Lateral Liq. Displacements
Cuml. Displacement (ft)
0 Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 Lateral Liq. Displacements
During earthq.
:: Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots ::

Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 2 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.

Test
Depth
(ft)
:: Field input data ::

SPT Field
Value
(blows)
Fines
Content
(%)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Infl.

Thickness
(ft)
Can
Liquefy

5.00 15 65.00 136.00 5.00 No

10.00 16 65.00 136.00 5.00 No

15.00 33 65.00 139.00 5.00 No

20.00 13 68.50 139.00 5.00 Yes

25.00 20 65.00 134.00 5.00 No

30.00 9 55.00 134.00 5.00 No

35.00 16 30.00 120.00 5.00 Yes

40.00 13 55.00 120.00 5.00 No

45.00 46 30.00 110.00 5.00 Yes

50.00 25 35.00 110.00 5.00 Yes
Abbreviations
Depth:

SPT Field Value:

Fines Content:

Unit Weight:

Infl. Thickness:

Can Liquefy:

Depth at which test was performed (ft)
Number of blows per foot
Fines content at test depth (%)
Unit weight at test depth (pcf)
Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis (ft) User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure :: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::

Depth CRR7.5
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 FC (N1)60cs
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
m Δ(Ν1)60

5.00 15 136.00 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.31 1.43 1.25 1.15 0.80 1.20 30 65.00 5.59 36 4.000

10.00 16 136.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 0.34 1.16 1.25 1.15 0.85 1.20 27 65.00 5.59 33 4.000

15.00 33 139.00 1.03 0.00 1.03 0.26 1.01 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 54 65.00 5.59 60 4.000

20.00 13 139.00 1.38 0.00 1.38 0.41 0.90 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 19 68.50 5.58 25 0.290

25.00 20 134.00 1.71 0.00 1.71 0.35 0.85 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 28 65.00 5.59 34 4.000

30.00 9 134.00 2.05 0.00 2.05 0.48 0.73 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 11 55.00 5.61 17 4.000

35.00 16 120.00 2.35 0.00 2.35 0.41 0.72 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 20 30.00 5.36 25 0.290

40.00 13 120.00 2.65 0.00 2.65 0.45 0.66 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 15 55.00 5.61 21 4.000

45.00 46 110.00 2.92 0.00 2.92 0.26 0.77 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 61 30.00 5.36 66 4.000

50.00 25 110.00 3.20 0.00 3.20 0.34 0.69 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 30 35.00 5.51 36 4.000 σv:
uo:
σ'vo:
m:

CN:

CE:

CB:

CR:

CS:

N1(60):

Δ(Ν1)60
N1(60 )cs:

CRR7.5:

Total stress during SPT test (tsf)
Water pore pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Stress exponent normalization factor
Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSPT to a 60% energy ratio
Equivalent clean sand adjustment
Corected N1(60) value for fines content
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
Abbreviations
σv, eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq, M=7.5 Ksigm a CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::

Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo, eq
(tsf)
σ' vo,eq
(tsf)
α MSFmax (N1)60cs FS

5.00 136.00 0.34 0.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 0.382 2.20 36 0.92 0.414 1.10 0.636 2.000 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 3 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.
σv, eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq, M=7.5 Ksigm a CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::

Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo, eq
(tsf)
σ' vo,eq
(tsf)
α MSFmax (N1)60cs FS

10.00 136.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 0.98 1.00 0.378 2.19 33 0.92 0.409 1.10 0.628 2.000

15.00 139.00 1.03 0.08 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.403 2.20 60 0.92 0.437 1.03 0.715 2.000

20.00 139.00 1.38 0.23 1.14 0.96 1.00 0.442 1.72 25 0.95 0.463 0.99 0.792 0.476

25.00 134.00 1.71 0.39 1.32 0.94 1.00 0.466 2.20 34 0.92 0.506 0.95 0.904 2.000

30.00 134.00 2.05 0.55 1.50 0.92 1.00 0.482 1.38 17 0.98 0.494 0.96 0.871 2.000

35.00 120.00 2.35 0.70 1.64 0.90 1.00 0.493 1.72 25 0.95 0.517 0.93 0.942 0.400

40.00 120.00 2.65 0.86 1.79 0.88 1.00 0.500 1.53 21 0.97 0.518 0.93 0.945 2.000

45.00 110.00 2.92 1.01 1.91 0.86 1.00 0.506 2.20 66 0.92 0.549 0.83 1.122 2.000

50.00 110.00 3.20 1.17 2.03 0.84 1.00 0.509 2.20 36 0.92 0.551 0.82 1.137 2.000 σv,eq:
uo,eq:
σ'vo,eq:
rd:
α:

CSR :

MSF :

CSReq,M=7.5:

Ksigma:

CSR*:

FS:

Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf) Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Improvement factor due to stone columns
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted (user FS applied) ***
Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction
Abbreviations

1.30 *** User FS:
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::

Depth
(ft)
FS F Thickness
(ft)
wz IL

5.00 2.000 0.00 9.24 5.00 0.00

10.00 2.000 0.00 8.48 5.00 0.00

15.00 2.000 0.00 7.71 5.00 0.00

20.00 0.476 0.52 6.95 5.00 5.55

25.00 2.000 0.00 6.19 5.00 0.00

30.00 2.000 0.00 5.43 5.00 0.00

35.00 0.400 0.60 4.67 5.00 4.26

40.00 2.000 0.00 3.90 5.00 0.00

45.00 2.000 0.00 3.14 5.00 0.00

50.00 2.000 0.00 2.38 5.00 0.00

9.82 IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
Overall potential IL :
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::

Depth
(ft)
(N1)60 τav p Gmax
(tsf)
α b γ ε15 Nc εNc
(%)
ΔS
(in)
Δh
(ft)

5.00 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000

10.00 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 4 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::

Depth
(ft)
(N1)60 τav p Gmax
(tsf)
α b γ ε15 Nc εNc
(%)
ΔS
(in)
Δh
(ft)
Abbreviations
τav:
p:

Gmax:
α, b:
γ:
ε15:

Nc:
εNc:

Δh:

ΔS:

Average cyclic shear stress
Average stress
Maximum shear modulus (tsf)
Shear strain formula variables
Average shear strain
Volumetric strain after 15 cycles
Number of cycles
Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nc (%)
Thickness of soil layer (in)
Settlement of soil layer (in)
Cumulative settlemetns: 0.000
:: Vertical & Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands ::

Depth
(ft)
γlim
(%)
ev
(%)
dz
(ft)
Sv-1D
(in)
(N1)60cs Fα γmax
(%)
FSliq LDI
(ft)

15.00 60 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

20.00 25 8.88 0.23 0.476 8.88 1.90 5.00 1.138 0.00

25.00 34 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

30.00 17 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

35.00 25 8.88 0.23 0.400 8.88 1.90 5.00 1.138 0.00

40.00 21 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

45.00 66 0.00 -2.94 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

50.00 36 1.86 -0.51 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
Abbreviations
Cumulative settlements: 2.276
γlim:

Fα/N:
γmax:
ev::

Sv-1D:

LDI:

Limiting shear strain (%)
Maximun shear strain factor
Maximum shear strain (%)
Post liquefaction volumetric strain (%)
Estimated vertical settlement (in)
Estimated lateral displacement (ft)

0.00 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 5

SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::

Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Sampling method:

Borehole diameter:

Rod length:

Hammer energy ratio:

Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Sampler wo liners
200mm

5.00 ft

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

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Eq. external load:

Project title : New Tower at Kaiser Riverside Medical Center Location : 10800 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 2883 East Spring Street, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
SPT Name: B-2

57.50 ft

12.50 ft

7.70 0.59 g

0.00 tsf
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
32 31
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 1 2
Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
FS Plot
During earthq.

LPI
Liquefaction potential
0 Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
LPI
During earthq.

CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Cyclic Stress Ratio*

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.0 CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
F.S. color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 6 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.

Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
32 31
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
Raw SPT DataCSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 1 2
Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
FS Plot
During earthq.

Vertical Liq. Settlements
Cuml. Settlement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
Vertical Liq. Settlements
During earthq.

Lateral Liq. Displacements
Cuml. Displacement (ft)
0 Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
Lateral Liq. Displacements
During earthq.
:: Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots ::

Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 7 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.

Test
Depth
(ft)
:: Field input data ::

SPT Field
Value
(blows)
Fines
Content
(%)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Infl.

Thickness
(ft)
Can
Liquefy

5.00 5 53.40 128.00 5.00 No

10.00 53 55.00 139.00 5.00 No

15.00 34 55.00 139.00 5.00 Yes

20.00 35 55.00 121.00 5.00 Yes

25.00 32 15.00 121.00 5.00 Yes

30.00 18 55.00 127.00 5.00 No
Abbreviations
Depth:

SPT Field Value:

Fines Content:

Unit Weight:

Infl. Thickness:

Can Liquefy:

Depth at which test was performed (ft)
Number of blows per foot
Fines content at test depth (%)
Unit weight at test depth (pcf)
Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis (ft) User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure :: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::

Depth CRR7.5
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 FC (N1)60cs
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
m Δ(Ν1)60

5.00 5 128.00 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.43 1.68 1.25 1.15 0.80 1.20 12 53.40 5.61 18 4.000

10.00 53 139.00 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.26 1.13 1.25 1.15 0.85 1.20 88 55.00 5.61 94 4.000

15.00 34 139.00 1.01 0.00 1.01 0.26 1.01 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 56 55.00 5.61 62 4.000

20.00 35 121.00 1.32 0.00 1.32 0.26 0.94 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 54 55.00 5.61 60 4.000

25.00 32 121.00 1.62 0.00 1.62 0.26 0.89 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 47 15.00 3.26 50 4.000

30.00 18 127.00 1.94 0.00 1.94 0.37 0.80 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 25 55.00 5.61 31 4.000 σv:
uo:
σ'vo:
m:

CN:

CE:

CB:

CR:

CS:

N1(60):

Δ(Ν1)60
N1(60 )cs:

CRR7.5:

Total stress during SPT test (tsf)
Water pore pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Stress exponent normalization factor
Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSPT to a 60% energy ratio
Equivalent clean sand adjustment
Corected N1(60) value for fines content
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
Abbreviations
σv, eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq, M=7.5 Ksigm a CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::

Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo, eq
(tsf)
σ' vo,eq
(tsf)
α MSFmax (N1)60cs FS

5.00 128.00 0.32 0.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 0.382 1.42 18 0.97 0.393 1.10 0.603 2.000

10.00 139.00 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.98 1.00 0.378 2.20 94 0.92 0.409 1.10 0.629 2.000

15.00 139.00 1.01 0.08 0.94 0.97 1.00 0.403 2.20 62 0.92 0.437 1.04 0.713 2.000

20.00 121.00 1.32 0.23 1.08 0.96 1.00 0.446 2.20 60 0.92 0.483 0.99 0.822 2.000

25.00 121.00 1.62 0.39 1.23 0.94 1.00 0.474 2.20 50 0.92 0.514 0.96 0.909 2.000

30.00 127.00 1.94 0.55 1.39 0.92 1.00 0.492 2.06 31 0.93 0.528 0.94 0.947 2.000 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 8 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.
σv, eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq, M=7.5 Ksigm a CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::

Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo, eq
(tsf)
σ' vo,eq
(tsf)
α MSFmax (N1)60cs FS
σv,eq:
uo,eq:
σ'vo,eq:
rd:
α:

CSR :

MSF :

CSReq,M=7.5:

Ksigma:

CSR*:

FS:

Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf) Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Improvement factor due to stone columns
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted (user FS applied) ***
Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction
Abbreviations

1.30 *** User FS:
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::

Depth
(ft)
FS F Thickness
(ft)
wz IL

5.00 2.000 0.00 9.24 5.00 0.00

10.00 2.000 0.00 8.48 5.00 0.00

15.00 2.000 0.00 7.71 5.00 0.00

20.00 2.000 0.00 6.95 5.00 0.00

25.00 2.000 0.00 6.19 5.00 0.00

30.00 2.000 0.00 5.43 5.00 0.00

0.00 IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
Overall potential IL :
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::

Depth
(ft)
(N1)60 τav p Gmax
(tsf)
α b γ ε15 Nc εNc
(%)
ΔS
(in)
Δh
(ft)

5.00 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000

10.00 88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 Abbreviations
τav:
p:

Gmax:
α, b:
γ:
ε15:

Nc:
εNc:

Δh:

ΔS:

Average cyclic shear stress
Average stress
Maximum shear modulus (tsf)
Shear strain formula variables
Average shear strain
Volumetric strain after 15 cycles
Number of cycles
Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nc (%)
Thickness of soil layer (in)
Settlement of soil layer (in)
Cumulative settlemetns: 0.000
:: Vertical & Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands ::

Depth
(ft)
γlim
(%)
ev
(%)
dz
(ft)
Sv-1D
(in)
(N1)60cs Fα γmax
(%)
FSliq LDI
(ft)
Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 9 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.
:: Vertical & Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands ::

Depth
(ft)
γlim
(%)
ev
(%)
dz
(ft)
Sv-1D
(in)
(N1)60cs Fα γmax
(%)
FSliq LDI
(ft)

15.00 62 0.00 -2.59 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

20.00 60 0.00 -2.42 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

25.00 50 0.04 -1.59 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

30.00 31 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
Abbreviations
Cumulative settlements: 0.000
γlim:

Fα/N:
γmax:
ev::

Sv-1D:

LDI:

Limiting shear strain (%)
Maximun shear strain factor
Maximum shear strain (%)
Post liquefaction volumetric strain (%)
Estimated vertical settlement (in)
Estimated lateral displacement (ft)

0.00 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 10

SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::

Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Sampling method:

Borehole diameter:

Rod length:

Hammer energy ratio:

Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Sampler wo liners
200mm

5.00 ft

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

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Eq. external load:

Project title : New Tower at Kaiser Riverside Medical Center Location : 10800 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 2883 East Spring Street, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
SPT Name: B-3

57.50 ft

12.50 ft

7.70 0.59 g

0.00 tsf
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
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 CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 FS Plot
During earthq.

LPI
Liquefaction potential
0 Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 LPI
During earthq.

CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Cyclic Stress Ratio*

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.0 CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
F.S. color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 11 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.

Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
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 CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 FS Plot
During earthq.

Vertical Liq. Settlements
Cuml. Settlement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 Vertical Liq. Settlements
During earthq.

Lateral Liq. Displacements
Cuml. Displacement (ft)
0 Depth (ft)
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 Lateral Liq. Displacements
During earthq.
:: Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots ::

Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 12 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.

Test
Depth
(ft)
:: Field input data ::

SPT Field
Value
(blows)
Fines
Content
(%)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Infl.

Thickness
(ft)
Can
Liquefy

5.00 10 70.00 110.00 5.00 No

10.00 26 75.90 110.00 5.00 No

15.00 31 75.00 122.00 5.00 No

20.00 40 5.10 122.00 5.00 Yes

25.00 31 70.00 107.00 5.00 No

30.00 26 63.60 107.00 5.00 No

35.00 53 15.00 121.00 5.00 Yes

40.00 38 15.00 121.00 5.00 Yes

45.00 42 15.00 113.00 5.00 Yes

50.00 21 81.70 113.00 5.00 Yes
Abbreviations
Depth:

SPT Field Value:

Fines Content:

Unit Weight:

Infl. Thickness:

Can Liquefy:

Depth at which test was performed (ft)
Number of blows per foot
Fines content at test depth (%)
Unit weight at test depth (pcf)
Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis (ft) User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure :: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::

Depth CRR7.5
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 FC (N1)60cs
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
m Δ(Ν1)60

5.00 10 110.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.35 1.61 1.25 1.15 0.80 1.20 22 70.00 5.57 28 4.000

10.00 26 110.00 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.26 1.19 1.25 1.15 0.85 1.20 45 75.90 5.56 51 4.000

15.00 31 122.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.26 1.06 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 54 75.00 5.56 60 4.000

20.00 40 122.00 1.16 0.00 1.16 0.26 0.98 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 64 5.10 0.00 64 4.000

25.00 31 107.00 1.43 0.00 1.43 0.26 0.92 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 47 70.00 5.57 53 4.000

30.00 26 107.00 1.70 0.00 1.70 0.27 0.88 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 39 63.60 5.59 45 4.000

35.00 53 121.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.26 0.85 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 77 15.00 3.26 80 4.000

40.00 38 121.00 2.30 0.00 2.30 0.26 0.82 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 53 15.00 3.26 56 4.000

45.00 42 113.00 2.58 0.00 2.58 0.26 0.79 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 57 15.00 3.26 60 4.000

50.00 21 113.00 2.87 0.00 2.87 0.37 0.69 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 25 81.70 5.54 31 4.000 σv:
uo:
σ'vo:
m:

CN:

CE:

CB:

CR:

CS:

N1(60):

Δ(Ν1)60
N1(60 )cs:

CRR7.5:

Total stress during SPT test (tsf)
Water pore pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Stress exponent normalization factor
Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSPT to a 60% energy ratio
Equivalent clean sand adjustment
Corected N1(60) value for fines content
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
Abbreviations
σv, eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq, M=7.5 Ksigm a CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::

Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo, eq
(tsf)
σ' vo,eq
(tsf)
α MSFmax (N1)60cs FS

5.00 110.00 0.28 0.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.382 1.88 28 0.94 0.405 1.10 0.622 2.000 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 13 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.
σv, eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq, M=7.5 Ksigm a CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::

Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo, eq
(tsf)
σ' vo,eq
(tsf)
α MSFmax (N1)60cs FS

10.00 110.00 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.98 1.00 0.378 2.20 51 0.92 0.409 1.10 0.629 2.000

15.00 122.00 0.86 0.08 0.78 0.97 1.00 0.410 2.20 60 0.92 0.444 1.09 0.688 2.000

20.00 122.00 1.16 0.23 0.93 0.96 1.00 0.459 2.20 64 0.92 0.498 1.04 0.809 2.000

25.00 107.00 1.43 0.39 1.04 0.94 1.00 0.495 2.20 53 0.92 0.537 1.01 0.902 2.000

30.00 107.00 1.70 0.55 1.15 0.92 1.00 0.521 2.20 45 0.92 0.565 0.98 0.978 2.000

35.00 121.00 2.00 0.70 1.30 0.90 1.00 0.533 2.20 80 0.92 0.578 0.94 1.039 2.000

40.00 121.00 2.30 0.86 1.44 0.88 1.00 0.539 2.20 56 0.92 0.585 0.91 1.087 2.000

45.00 113.00 2.58 1.01 1.57 0.86 1.00 0.544 2.20 60 0.92 0.589 0.88 1.127 2.000

50.00 113.00 2.87 1.17 1.70 0.84 1.00 0.545 2.06 31 0.93 0.585 0.90 1.099 2.000 σv,eq:
uo,eq:
σ'vo,eq:
rd:
α:

CSR :

MSF :

CSReq,M=7.5:

Ksigma:

CSR*:

FS:

Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf) Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Improvement factor due to stone columns
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted (user FS applied) ***
Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction
Abbreviations

1.30 *** User FS:
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::

Depth
(ft)
FS F Thickness
(ft)
wz IL

5.00 2.000 0.00 9.24 5.00 0.00

10.00 2.000 0.00 8.48 5.00 0.00

15.00 2.000 0.00 7.71 5.00 0.00

20.00 2.000 0.00 6.95 5.00 0.00

25.00 2.000 0.00 6.19 5.00 0.00

30.00 2.000 0.00 5.43 5.00 0.00

35.00 2.000 0.00 4.67 5.00 0.00

40.00 2.000 0.00 3.90 5.00 0.00

45.00 2.000 0.00 3.14 5.00 0.00

50.00 2.000 0.00 2.38 5.00 0.00

0.00 IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
Overall potential IL :
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::

Depth
(ft)
(N1)60 τav p Gmax
(tsf)
α b γ ε15 Nc εNc
(%)
ΔS
(in)
Δh
(ft)

5.00 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000

10.00 45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 14 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::

Depth
(ft)
(N1)60 τav p Gmax
(tsf)
α b γ ε15 Nc εNc
(%)
ΔS
(in)
Δh
(ft)
Abbreviations
τav:
p:

Gmax:
α, b:
γ:
ε15:

Nc:
εNc:

Δh:

ΔS:

Average cyclic shear stress
Average stress
Maximum shear modulus (tsf)
Shear strain formula variables
Average shear strain
Volumetric strain after 15 cycles
Number of cycles
Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nc (%)
Thickness of soil layer (in)
Settlement of soil layer (in)
Cumulative settlemetns: 0.000
:: Vertical & Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands ::

Depth
(ft)
γlim
(%)
ev
(%)
dz
(ft)
Sv-1D
(in)
(N1)60cs Fα γmax
(%)
FSliq LDI
(ft)

15.00 60 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

20.00 64 0.00 -2.77 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

25.00 53 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

30.00 45 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

35.00 80 0.00 -4.20 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

40.00 56 0.00 -2.08 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

45.00 60 0.00 -2.42 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

50.00 31 4.04 -0.16 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
Abbreviations
Cumulative settlements: 0.000
γlim:

Fα/N:
γmax:
ev::

Sv-1D:

LDI:

Limiting shear strain (%)
Maximun shear strain factor
Maximum shear strain (%)
Post liquefaction volumetric strain (%)
Estimated vertical settlement (in)
Estimated lateral displacement (ft)

0.00 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 15

SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::

Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Sampling method:

Borehole diameter:

Rod length:

Hammer energy ratio:

Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Sampler wo liners
200mm

5.00 ft

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

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Eq. external load:

Project title : New Tower at Kaiser Riverside Medical Center Location : 10800 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 2883 East Spring Street, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
SPT Name: B-4

57.50 ft

12.50 ft

7.70 0.59 g

0.00 tsf
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
32 31
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 1 2
Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
FS Plot
During earthq.

LPI
Liquefaction potential
0 Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
LPI
During earthq.

CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Cyclic Stress Ratio*

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.0 CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
F.S. color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 16 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.

Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
32 31
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
Raw SPT DataCSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 1 2
Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
FS Plot
During earthq.

Vertical Liq. Settlements
Cuml. Settlement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
Vertical Liq. Settlements
During earthq.

Lateral Liq. Displacements
Cuml. Displacement (ft)
0 Depth (ft)
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
Lateral Liq. Displacements
During earthq.
:: Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots ::

Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 17 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.

Test
Depth
(ft)
:: Field input data ::

SPT Field
Value
(blows)
Fines
Content
(%)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Infl.

Thickness
(ft)
Can
Liquefy

5.00 5 70.00 128.00 5.00 No

10.00 53 83.80 130.00 5.00 No

15.00 34 65.10 130.00 5.00 No

20.00 35 5.10 103.00 5.00 Yes

25.00 32 70.00 103.00 5.00 No

30.00 18 75.00 124.00 5.00 Yes
Abbreviations
Depth:

SPT Field Value:

Fines Content:

Unit Weight:

Infl. Thickness:

Can Liquefy:

Depth at which test was performed (ft)
Number of blows per foot
Fines content at test depth (%)
Unit weight at test depth (pcf)
Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis (ft) User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure :: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::

Depth CRR7.5
(ft)
SPT
Field
Value
CN CE CB CR CS (N1)60 FC (N1)60cs
(%)
σv
(tsf)
uo
(tsf)
σ'vo
(tsf)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
m Δ(Ν1)60

5.00 5 128.00 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.43 1.68 1.25 1.15 0.80 1.20 12 70.00 5.57 18 4.000

10.00 53 130.00 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.26 1.14 1.25 1.15 0.85 1.20 89 83.80 5.53 95 4.000

15.00 34 130.00 0.97 0.00 0.97 0.26 1.02 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 57 65.10 5.59 63 4.000

20.00 35 103.00 1.23 0.00 1.23 0.26 0.96 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 55 5.10 0.00 55 4.000

25.00 32 103.00 1.49 0.00 1.49 0.26 0.91 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 48 70.00 5.57 54 4.000

30.00 18 124.00 1.80 0.00 1.80 0.36 0.83 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 26 75.00 5.56 32 4.000 σv:
uo:
σ'vo:
m:

CN:

CE:

CB:

CR:

CS:

N1(60):

Δ(Ν1)60
N1(60 )cs:

CRR7.5:

Total stress during SPT test (tsf)
Water pore pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Stress exponent normalization factor
Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSPT to a 60% energy ratio
Equivalent clean sand adjustment
Corected N1(60) value for fines content
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
Abbreviations
σv, eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq, M=7.5 Ksigm a CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::

Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo, eq
(tsf)
σ' vo,eq
(tsf)
α MSFmax (N1)60cs FS

5.00 128.00 0.32 0.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 0.382 1.42 18 0.97 0.393 1.10 0.603 2.000

10.00 130.00 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.98 1.00 0.378 2.20 95 0.92 0.409 1.10 0.629 2.000

15.00 130.00 0.97 0.08 0.89 0.97 1.00 0.405 2.20 63 0.92 0.439 1.05 0.706 2.000

20.00 103.00 1.23 0.23 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.453 2.20 55 0.92 0.491 1.02 0.814 2.000

25.00 103.00 1.49 0.39 1.10 0.94 1.00 0.488 2.20 54 0.92 0.529 0.99 0.903 2.000

30.00 124.00 1.80 0.55 1.25 0.92 1.00 0.507 2.12 32 0.93 0.547 0.96 0.960 2.000 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 18 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.
σv, eq
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq, M=7.5 Ksigm a CSR*
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::

Depth
(ft)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
uo, eq
(tsf)
σ' vo,eq
(tsf)
α MSFmax (N1)60cs FS
σv,eq:
uo,eq:
σ'vo,eq:
rd:
α:

CSR :

MSF :

CSReq,M=7.5:

Ksigma:

CSR*:

FS:

Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf) Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Improvement factor due to stone columns
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted (user FS applied) ***
Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction
Abbreviations

1.30 *** User FS:
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::

Depth
(ft)
FS F Thickness
(ft)
wz IL

5.00 2.000 0.00 9.24 5.00 0.00

10.00 2.000 0.00 8.48 5.00 0.00

15.00 2.000 0.00 7.71 5.00 0.00

20.00 2.000 0.00 6.95 5.00 0.00

25.00 2.000 0.00 6.19 5.00 0.00

30.00 2.000 0.00 5.43 5.00 0.00

0.00 IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
Overall potential IL :
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::

Depth
(ft)
(N1)60 τav p Gmax
(tsf)
α b γ ε15 Nc εNc
(%)
ΔS
(in)
Δh
(ft)

5.00 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000

10.00 89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 Abbreviations
τav:
p:

Gmax:
α, b:
γ:
ε15:

Nc:
εNc:

Δh:

ΔS:

Average cyclic shear stress
Average stress
Maximum shear modulus (tsf)
Shear strain formula variables
Average shear strain
Volumetric strain after 15 cycles
Number of cycles
Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nc (%)
Thickness of soil layer (in)
Settlement of soil layer (in)
Cumulative settlemetns: 0.000
:: Vertical & Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands ::

Depth
(ft)
γlim
(%)
ev
(%)
dz
(ft)
Sv-1D
(in)
(N1)60cs Fα γmax
(%)
FSliq LDI
(ft)
Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 19 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.
:: Vertical & Lateral displ.acements estimation for saturated sands ::

Depth
(ft)
γlim
(%)
ev
(%)
dz
(ft)
Sv-1D
(in)
(N1)60cs Fα γmax
(%)
FSliq LDI
(ft)

15.00 63 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

20.00 55 0.00 -2.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

25.00 54 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

30.00 32 3.50 -0.22 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
Abbreviations
Cumulative settlements: 0.000
γlim:

Fα/N:
γmax:
ev::

Sv-1D:

LDI:

Limiting shear strain (%)
Maximun shear strain factor
Maximum shear strain (%)
Post liquefaction volumetric strain (%)
Estimated vertical settlement (in)
Estimated lateral displacement (ft)

0.00 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 20

SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::

Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Sampling method:

Borehole diameter:

Rod length:

Hammer energy ratio:

Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Sampler wo liners
200mm

5.00 ft

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

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Eq. external load:

Project title : New Tower at Kaiser Riverside Medical Center Location : 10800 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 2883 East Spring Street, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
SPT Name: B-5

57.50 ft

12.50 ft

7.70 0.59 g

0.00 tsf
Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
90 85
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
90 85
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
90 85
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
FS Plot
During earthq.

LPI
Liquefaction potential
0 Depth (ft)
90 85
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
LPI
During earthq.

CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Cyclic Stress Ratio*

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.0 CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
F.S. color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for Tower - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 21 This software is registered to: Twining, Inc.

Raw SPT Data
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)
90 85
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
Raw SPT Data
Insitu
CSR - CRR Plot

CSR - CRR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depth (ft)
90 85
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
CSR - CRR Plot
During earthq.

FS Plot
Factor of Safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
90 85
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
FS Plot
During earthq.

Vertical Liq. Settlements
Cuml. Settlement (in)
0 Depth (ft)
90 85
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
Vertical Liq. Settlements
During earthq.