Riverside City Council
July 5, 2022

6.11.3. Tieback Design ................................................................................................................26

6.11.4. Anchor Installation...........................................................................................................26

6.11.5. Lagging and Sheeting....................................................................................................26

6.11.6. Lateral Deflection and Settlement..............................................................................27

6.11.7. Monitoring..........................................................................................................................27

6.12. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................27

6.12.1. Flexible Pavement Design............................................................................................27

6.12.2. Rigid Pavement Design.................................................................................................28

6.13. STORMWATER INFILTRATION FACILITY................................................................................28

6.14. DRAINAGE CONTROL...............................................................................................................30

7. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ..................................... 31

7.1. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.................................................................................................31

7.2. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEYS ..............................................................................................31

7.3. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ...............................................................................................31

8. LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................................32

9. SELECTED REFERENCES .................................................................................... 33 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 Exploration Location Map
Figure 3 – Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 – Water Levels in Wells Adjacent to the Site
Figure 5 – Seismic Hazard Zones Map
Figure 6 – Regional Fault Map
Figure 7 – Liquefaction Zones Map
Figure 8 – Dam Inundation Areas Map
Figure 9 – FEMA Flood Map
Figure 10 – Site-Specific Design Response Spectrum
Appendices
Appendix A – Field Exploration
Appendix B – Laboratory Testing
Appendix C – Liquefaction Analysis
Appendix D – 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 Parking Structure 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) and ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2017).

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 Appendix D – Select Project Plans. This report is primarily focused on the proposed parking structure that is a part of Phases 3 through 5.

Based on information from Kaiser, CO Architects, and the project structural engineer, John A. Martin & Associates, the proposed parking structure will consist of five stories above grade with parking on the 5th-story deck. The structure will have a gross building footprint measuring approximately 197 feet by 386 feet and approximately 76,042 square feet. The structure will be constructed with reinforced concrete supported on shallow spread footing foundations.

Other appurtenant improvements for the project are anticipated including hardscape, light poles, utility pipelines, and a stormwater infiltration system. The size and depth of the infiltration basin are to be determined, and details of the system are not yet available for our review.

Anticipated earthwork for the new parking structure will include 5,500 cubic yards (CY) of cut, 4,000 CY of fill, and 1,500 CY of import.

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 site is currently occupied by paved surface parking, landscaping, and associated miscellaneous equipment. The site is bounded by surface parking on the north, an existing medical office building and surface parking on the west, Park Sierra Drive on the south, and a hospital campus driveway on the east.

The approximate site coordinates are latitude 33.903295°N and longitude 117.469535°W, and the site is located on the Riverside West, California 7½-Minute Quadrangle, based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map (USGS 2018). The site is relatively level with a surface elevation of approximately 723 feet above mean sea level (msl). 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

3. SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work included review of background information, pre-field activities and field exploration, 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 project site. Relevant information has been incorporated into this report.

3.2. 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 timing of exploration. 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 program was conducted between December 7, 2019 and February 12, 2020.

It consisted of drilling, testing, sampling, and logging of 4 exploratory hollow-stem-auger (HSA) borings (PS-1 through PS-4) and percolation testing in 2 hand-auger borings (P-1 and P-2). The HSA borings were advanced to approximate depths of 31.5 to 51.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) using a CME-75 truck-mounted drill rigs equipped with 8-inch-diameter HSAs. The hand-auger borings for percolation testing were drilled to approximately 6 and 6.5 feet bgs, respectively. 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 in hand-auger borings P-1 and P-2 were performed 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.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

3.3. 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;
• Atterberg Limits;
• Expansion Index;
• Maximum density and optimum moisture;
• Consolidation;
• Direct shear;
• Unconfined compression;
• R-Value; and
• Corrosivity.

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

3.4. 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 concrete slab-on-grade design; • Lateral earth pressures for retaining wall and shoring design; • Concrete slab-on-grade support;
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

• Pavement section recommendations; and
• Stormwater infiltration rates.

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

4. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1. Site Geology
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.

4.2. Surface and Subsurface Conditions
The site is currently occupied by an asphalt-paved parking lot and each of the four HSA borings was performed within the pavement area. The pavement section consisted of approximately 3 to 4.5 inches of asphaltic concrete over 2.5 to 5 inches of aggregate base. Below the pavement section, boring PS-1 encountered a second layer asphaltic concrete approximately 2 inches in thickness underlying approximately 4 inches of soil.

No artificial fill was identified in our borings. No documentation for the placement and compaction of the artificial fill was available for our review. 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.

Pleistocene-aged old alluvial fan deposit underlies the site to the maximum depth of the exploratory borings (approximately 51.5 feet bgs). In the upper 30 feet bgs, the old alluvium consisted primarily of reddish brown to light brown clay and silt. From 30 to 51.5 feet bgs, the old alluvium consisted primarily of poorly graded sand with silt. Locally, a sand layer was encountered between depths of 20 and 25 feet in boring PS-1 and between depths of 15 to 25 feet in boring PS-2. The clay and silt layers have a very stiff consistency, and the sand layers are mostly dense to very dense and occasionally medium dense.

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
Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration to a maximum depth of approximately

51.5 feet bgs. 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). 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 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

(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 on Figure 3. Historical water levels in the wells from 1960 to 2019 from WMWD (2012) and CDWR (2019) are shown in Figure 4 and summarized in Table 1.

Historic high groundwater data described in WMWD (2012) indicate that pre-development groundwater elevation of approximately 705 feet above msl in the vicinity of the site.

As shown on Figure 4, 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 4 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 above msl assuming a similar water level drop of 40 to 50 feet. Because the closest distance is only about 100 feet from the project site to Daly 2 which is on the south of the site, the highest water level of the site is also between 701.5 and 711.5 feet above msl.

During a recent field investigation that we performed for the proposed tower project at the northwest portion of the hospital campus, groundwater was encountered at approximately 57.5 feet bgs, and the historic high was estimated at 710.5 feet above msl. That investigation was performed at the same time as this current one, and that site was at approximately 900 feet upstream of the current project site.

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
8,600 ft southwest
of site 100 ft south of site 5,100 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 above msl in a well approximately 900 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 above 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. 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 5). Figure 6 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.

5.2. 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 7).

We performed site-specific liquefaction analysis for non-plastic and low plasticity alluvium layers that are susceptible to liquefaction at the site. The analysis was performed based on SPT blowcounts from the HSA borings (PS-12 through PS-4) using the computer program LiqSVs version 2.0 (Geologismiki, 2019) and the procedure of Boulanger and Idriss (2014). The analysis considered 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

an Mw 7.7 associated with a full rupture of the Elsinore Fault Zone, a PGAM 0.61g discussed in Section 5.9, and a groundwater level at 12.5 feet bgs during earthquake discussed in Section 4.3.

Detailed input parameters and results of the liquefaction analyses are presented in Appendix C of this report.

The analysis results indicate that site soils have very low liquefaction potential except for a layer in boring PS-1 between approximately depths of 30 and 40 feet. Calculated maximum seismic settlement is approximately 2 inches. The results suggest that during strong earthquake events, liquefaction and seismic settlement would be limited to localized zones below 30 feet bgs if they were to occur, due to the lack of horizontally continuous liquefiable layers and the presence of 30 feet of overlying predominantly cohesive soils. The results indicate that the maximum seismic settlement is approximately 2 inches at the parking structure site. Based on the calculated total settlements and measured distances between borings, the maximum calculated differential settlement is approximately 0.6 inches over a horizontal distance of 50 feet.

5.3. 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.

5.4. 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.

5.5. Flooding and Dam Inundation
According to the Flood Hazard Areas map (Figure 8) 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 8).

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 9.

5.6. 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 above 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.

5.7. 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 and fault distance are 6.47 Mw and 7.45 miles (11.99 km), respectively.

5.8. Site Class for Seismic Design
Based on the 2006 CGS Site Classification Map, the average seismic shear-wave velocity for the upper 100 feet or 30 meters (VS30) at the site is approximately 387 m/s or 1,270 ft/s. Based on global VS30 from topographic slope (Wald & Allen 2008), the site VS30 is approximately 300 m/s or 984 ft/s.

A geophysical study was performed for the proposed tower project at the northwest corner of the hospital campus approximately 900 feet northwest of this site. The study obtained a VS30 value of approximately 348 m/s or 1,143 ft/s.

Based on the above VS30 values and the site subsurface conditions (Section 4.2 and Appendix A), we recommend a VS30 value of 348 m/s and Site Class D for the project seismic design, in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16.

5.9. 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 2 presents the seismic design parameters for the site based on coordinates of latitude 33.903295°N and longitude 117.469535°W.

The site-specific ground motion hazard analysis and seismic design parameters are presented in Section 5.10.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Table 2 – 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 Short Periods, Ss (g) 1.5 Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameter at a Period of 1-Second, S1 (g) 0.582 Site Coefficient, Fa 1
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.718
Adjusted MCER1 Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SMS (g) 1.500 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 (PGA) for Liquefaction Analysis, PGAM (g) 2 0.606 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 (SD1 TL)/(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 PGAM is PGA adjusted for site effects for liquefaction analysis. 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

5.10. Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters
The site-specific specific seismic design parameters were developed based on a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis. The 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 VS30 value of 348 m/sec and site coordinates of latitude

33.903295°N and longitude 117.469535°W. The site-specific design response spectrum is presented in Figure 10 – 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.

5.10.1. 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 2.

5.10.2. 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 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

percentile of the maximum rotated component of ground motion computed at each period for characteristic earthquakes on known active faults within the region.

The active faults and their parameters used in our DSHA are provided in Table 3, 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 3 - 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) 12.68 22.23 23.96 13.1 27.17 34.89
RJB (km) 12.68 22.23 23.96 13.1 27.17 34.89
RX (km) 12.68 22.23 23.96 13.0 18.69 34.89
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

5.10.1 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

5.10.3. 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 2 , 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 4 and on Figure 10 – SiteSpecific Design Response Spectrum.

Table 4 - 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
adjusted with
Scale Factor
of
80% General
Procedure
Design
Response
Spectrum with
Fv=2.5
Site
Specific
MCER
SiteSpecific
Design
Response
Spectrum 1

0.01 0.445 0.943 0.852 0.803 0.651 0.651 0.345 0.651 0.434

0.02 0.490 0.943 0.858 0.809 0.654 0.654 0.369 0.654 0.436

0.03 0.535 0.943 0.906 0.854 0.679 0.679 0.394 0.679 0.452

0.05 0.625 0.943 1.084 1.022 0.775 0.775 0.444 0.775 0.517

0.075 0.738 0.943 1.379 1.300 0.940 0.940 0.506 0.940 0.627

0.1 0.850 0.943 1.625 1.533 1.092 1.092 0.567 1.092 0.728

0.133 1.000 0.943 1.817 1.713 1.246 1.246 0.650 1.246 0.831

0.15 1.000 0.943 1.912 1.803 1.323 1.323 0.691 1.323 0.882

0.194 1.000 0.943 2.025 1.909 1.450 1.450 0.800 1.450 0.966

0.2 1.000 0.943 2.040 1.924 1.467 1.467 0.800 1.467 0.978

0.25 1.000 0.942 2.097 1.975 1.565 1.565 0.800 1.565 1.043

0.3 1.000 0.940 2.114 1.988 1.679 1.679 0.800 1.679 1.119

0.4 1.000 0.938 2.017 1.891 1.761 1.761 0.800 1.761 1.174

0.5 1.000 0.935 1.889 1.766 1.803 1.803 0.800 1.766 1.177

0.667 1.000 0.930 1.636 1.521 1.696 1.696 0.800 1.521 1.014

0.75 0.889 0.928 1.509 1.400 1.642 1.642 0.800 1.400 0.933

0.9 0.741 0.924 1.348 1.245 1.582 1.582 0.800 1.245 0.830

0.97 0.687 0.922 1.273 1.173 1.554 1.554 0.800 1.200 0.800 1 0.667 0.921 1.241 1.143 1.542 1.542 0.776 1.164 0.776

1.5 0.444 0.921 0.822 0.757 1.219 1.219 0.517 0.776 0.517 2 0.333 0.921 0.605 0.557 1.005 1.005 0.388 0.582 0.388 3 0.222 0.921 0.402 0.370 0.773 0.773 0.259 0.388 0.259 4 0.167 0.921 0.300 0.277 0.613 0.613 0.194 0.291 0.194 5 0.133 0.921 0.248 0.229 0.489 0.489 0.155 0.233 0.155 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

5.10.4. Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters
The site-specific seismic design parameters are provided in Table 5. These parameters were determined from the site-specific design response spectrum presented in Table 4 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 4 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 5 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 2 of this report should be used in ASCE 7-16 Eqs. (12.8-6), (15.4-2), and (15.4-4).

Table 5 - Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters
Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters Design Values (g) Spectral Response Acceleration 0.2-second period, SMS 1.589 Spectral Response Acceleration 1-second period, SM1 1.164 Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, SDS 1.060 Design Spectral Response Acceleration for 1-second period, SD1 0.776 MCE Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.592 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

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.

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 267 ppm or 0.0267% 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 118 ppm of water soluble chlorides by weight and the potential for chloride attack of reinforcing steel in concrete structures and pipes in contact with 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

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 minimum electrical resistivity value of 3,700 ohm-centimeters. Based on the criteria of the County of Los Angeles and the California Department of Transportation, the soils are considered to have low corrosion potential to buried metals.

Correlations between resistivity and corrosion potential published by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE, 1984) indicate that the soils are mildly corrosive to buried metals. 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.

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 are expected for the project. We anticipate that unsurcharged excavations with vertical sides less than 4 feet high will generally be stable. 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.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

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 building may be supported by shallow foundations. It is recommended that the footings be founded on undisturbed competent native soils or engineered fill.

No undocumented fill was identified in our borings; however, if encountered during construction within the parking structure footprint, undocumented fill should be removed to its full depth. If undocumented fill is encountered during excavation for minor structures that are structurally separated from the building, 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.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

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).

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).
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

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.

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 in Section 4.3, groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet bgs. 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 parking structure 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 parking structure should be placed on the subgrade prepared in accordance the requirements described in 6.4.

Geotechnical design parameters for these footings presented in Table 6 may be used. Twining 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

should be contacted for footing dimensions, allowable bearing pressures, and settlements that are outside the indicated applicable ranges.

Lateral loads may be resisted by footing base friction and by the passive resistance of the soils based on recommendations provided in Table 6.

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.

Table 6 - 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
 An allowable bearing pressures of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used. The allowable may be increased by 230 psf for each additional foot of width and 650 psf for each additional foot of embedment, up to a maximum allowable capacity of 5,000 psf.  The allowable bearing values correspond to a factor of safety of 3.  The allowable bearing values may be increased by one-third 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.

Estimated
Seismic
Settlement
 Approximately 1.0 inches with differential settlement of less than

0.5 inches over a horizontal distance of 50 feet
Allowable
Coefficient of
Friction Below
Footings
 An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used at bottom of footings.
 The allowable bottom friction values correspond to a factor of safety of 1.5.

Allowable Lateral
Passive
Resistance
 Increases with depth at a rate of 300 psf per foot (300 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

6.6. 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 combined footing and slabs-on-grade 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-On-Grade
Concrete slabs-on-grade 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.

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 7 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 7 - 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- mil-thick 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 18-1 of 2019 IBC (shown below) or a minimum 3 feet below the ground surface, whichever is deeper. d = A
2 (1 + �1 + 4.36hA ) (Equation 18-1 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 300 pcf up to a maximum of 4,500 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 18-2 of 2019 IBC (shown below) or a minimum 3 feet below the ground surface, whichever is deeper. d = �4.25Ph
S3b (Equation 18-2 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 300 pcf up to a maximum of 4,500 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 water pressure 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 1805.4.2 and 1805.4.3 of 2019 CBC.

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 1805.4.2 and 1805.4.3 of 2019 CBC and that external hydrostatic pressure will not develop behind the walls. Where wall backfill does not have adequate drainage, the full hydrostatic pressure should be added to the lateral earth pressures provided below in design.

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.

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.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

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.

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.

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

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 8. 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 8 - 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) 300 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 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 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

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.

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. 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

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 18, 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.

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 9 provides recommended minimum thicknesses for hot mix asphalt (HMA) and aggregate base sections for different traffic indices.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

Table 9 – 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) 6 7 10

6.12.2.Rigid Pavement Design
For preliminary design of rigid pavement section, Table 10 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 10 – 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 11.

Any proposed infiltration facility should have a minimum setback from property lines and foundations recommended in Table 12. 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 11 – Infiltration Rate with a Factor of Safety of 3 Test Location Depth of Test Borehole
(feet)
Infiltration Rate
(inch/hour)
P-1 6 0.3
P-2 6.5 0.7
Table 12 – 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
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

6.14. Drainage Control
The control of surface water is essential to the satisfactory performance of the structure 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. • 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), 2006, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Riverside West 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 012, 1998 (Updated January 17, 2006).

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), 2013, 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, Riverside West Quadrangle, Seismic Hazards Zones Official Map, scale 1:24,000, released January 17, 2001, Updated 2016.

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.
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

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.

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 Miller, F.K., 2006, Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2006-1217, scale 1:100,000.

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

Orange County Public Works (OCPW), 2013, Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), December 20, http://prg.ocpublicworks.com/DocmgmtInternet/Download.aspx?id=1098 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 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

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 PARKING STRUCTURE

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
0 2000 4000
SITE
FIGURE 2 REPORT DATE July 2021 PROJECT No. 190919.3 PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE 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' 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 PARKING STRUCTURE

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
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 4
190191.3 March 2021

WATER LEVELS IN WELLS ADJACENT TO THE SITE

PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE

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 5

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
0 4 8
SITE

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 6

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 PARKING STRUCTURE

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 7

LIQUEFACTION ZONES MAP

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
0 1 2
SITE
FIGURE 8

DAM INUNDATION AREAS MAP

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
0 1 2
SITE
FIGURE 9

FEMA FLOOD MAP

SCALE IN FEET

REPORT DATE
March 2021
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
0 400 800

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY
Note: See Table 4 of the report for ordinates of the various curves.

1.119

1.174

1.177

1.014

0.933

0.830

0.800

0.776

0.517

0.388

0.259

0.194

0.155

0.831

0.882

0.966

0.978

1.043

0.436

0.452

0.517

0.627

0.728

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.667

0.75 0.9

0.97 1

1.5 2
3 4
5 0.434

0.133

0.15 0.194

0.2 0.25

0.02 0.03

0.05 0.075

0.1 PERIOD
(seconds)

SITE-SPECIFIC

DESIGN SPECTRAL

ACCELERATION
Sa, (g)
PERIOD
(seconds)

SITE-SPECIFIC

DESIGN SPECTRAL

ACCELERATION
Sa, (g)

0.01 March 2021
FIGURE 10

SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM

PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE

KAISER RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
10800 MAGNOLIA AVENUE

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.
190191.3
DATE
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Spectral response acceleration, Sa (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 subsurface exploration program for the proposed project consisted of drilling, testing, sampling and logging four hollow-stem-auger (HSA) exploratory borings (PS-1 through PS-4) and percolation testing in two hand-auger borings (P-1 and P-2) at the site between December 7, 2019 and February 12, 2020.

The HSA Borings (PS-1 through PS-4) were advanced to depths of approximately 31½ to 51½ feet below ground surface (bgs). Drilling operation for the HSA borings was performed by 2R drilling of Chino, California using a truck-mounted CME-75 drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem-auger. Borings P-1 and P-2 were advanced to depths of approximately 6.5 and 6 feet bgs, respectively, 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-7. The boring logs show the earth materials encountered, samples obtained, and 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 a Twining field 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 without room for liner. 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.

No groundwater was encountered in any of the borings. 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, 2020 in the hand auger borings (P-1 and P2) 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 boreholes were filled with water to approximately one foot bgs and presoaked for two consecutive 25-minute 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
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 Rates with a Factor of Safety of 3 Test Location Depth of Test Borehole
(feet)
Infiltration Rate
(inch/hour)
P-1 6 0.3
P-2 6.5 0.7
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Parking Structure
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 2/20/20 118.8
108.3
118.5
3 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of base over 4 inches of soil over 2 inches of asphalt concrete
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist
-- same; very stiff; with some tan mottling
-- same; very stiff
SILT with sand; very stiff; brown with khaki mottling; slightly moist; some caliche nodules
Silty SAND; medium dense; light brown; slightly moist; some interbedded clay
Sandy lean CLAY; very stiff; brown; slightly moist
Poorly graded SAND with silt; medium dense; tan with black, red, and brown; slightly moist; some thin interbedded clay CL
CL
CL
ML
SM
CL
SP-SM
CORR,
RV
C, DS
ATT
C
36 15
39 26
35 14

13.5 18.8

15.1 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Parking Structure
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 12/8/19 BORING NO. PS-1
107.3
109.7
SILT with sand; very stiff; khahki with orange oxidation staining; slightly moist
Silty SAND; medium dense; light brown; slightly moist
Poorly graded SAND with silt; very dense; tan with orange, black, and red; slightly moist
-- same; dense
Total Depth = 51.5 feet
Backfilled on 12/8/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

ML
SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
28 30
80 34

15.5 1.9
683
678
673
668
663
658
653
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Parking Structure
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 12/8/19 BORING NO. PS-1
110.3
122.4
117.9
4 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of base
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; dry to slightly moist
-- same; hammer interrupted
-- same; very stiff; yellowish tan
Poorly graded SAND; very dense; light tan; dry to slightly moist; with approximately 5% gravel
Silty SAND; dense; brown; dry to slightly moist
Sandy lean CLAY; hard; brown; slightly moist
Poorly graded SAND; with silt; dense; light brown; slihgtly moist Total Depth = 31.5 feet
Backfilled on 12/7/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

CL
CL
CL
SP
SM
CL
SP-SM
C
#200, ATT
#200, ATT
--
18 71
31 80
33 5.7

1.1 6.6
718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Parking Structure
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 12/7/19 BORING NO. PS-2
119.8

94.2 120.4

4.5 inches of asphalt concrete over 2.5 inches of base
Lean CLAY with sand; reddish brown; slightly moist
-- same; very stiff; reddish brown with some grey mottling -- same; very stiff
Sandy SILT; very stiff; tan with white mottling; dry to slightly moist; some caliche nodules
-- same; very stiff; some interbedded silty sand
Lean CLAY with sand; hard; brown with tan mottling; slightly moist
Silty SAND; medium dense; light brown; dry to slightly moist Total Depth = 31.5 feet
Backfilled on 12/8/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

CL
CL
CL
ML
ML
CL
SM
UC
#200, ATT
C
#200, ATT
UC
41 21
26 26
41 27

12.9 11.6

12.6 718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Parking Structure
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 12/8/19 BORING NO. PS-3
126.2
111.9
105.5
3 inches of asphalt concrete over 5 inches of base
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; dry to slightly moist
-- same; very stiff
Sandy SILT; hard; light brown with some white mottling; some caliche nodules
-- same; very stiff
Silty SAND; light brown
Sandy SILT; hard; brown with some orange oxidation; slightly moist
Sandy lean CLAY; very stiff; brown with tan mottling; slightly moist; some caliche nodules
Sandy SILT; very stiff; brown with tan mottling; slightly moist; some caliche nodules
CL
CL
ML
ML
SM
ML
CL
ML

DS, EI,
MAX
27 ATT
50 for
5"
24 71
26 33

12.2 8.6

11.1 21.2
718
713
708
703
698
693
688
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Parking Structure
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 12/7/19 BORING NO. PS-4
109.3
112.8
Sandy lean CLAY; stiff; brown; slightly moist
Poorly graded SAND with silt; dense; light brown with black, tan, and orange; dry to slightly moist; with some fine gravel -- same; dense
-- same; very dense
Total Depth = 51.5 feet
Backfilled on 12/7/2019
Groundwater not encountered.

Borehole filled with cuttings at completion.

CL
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
#200
15 68
41 40/50
for 5"

1.8 2.2
683
678
673
668
663
658
653
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

LOGGED BY DHC
SURFACE ELEVATION (ft.) 723 +(MSL)
Proposed Parking Structure
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 - 5
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs.

DRILLING METHOD 8" HSA DRILLER 2R Drilling
DROP 30 inches
DATE DRILLED 12/7/19 BORING NO. PS-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 Parking Structure
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 - 6

DRIVE WEIGHT
DRILLING METHOD 5" Hand Auger DRILLER Twining, Inc.

DROP
DATE DRILLED 2/12/2020 BORING NO. P-1
Sandy lean CLAY; reddish brown; slightly moist
Total Depth = 6.5 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 Parking Structure
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
DRILLING METHOD 5" Hand Auger DRILLER Twining, Inc.

DROP
DATE DRILLED 2/12/2020 BORING NO. P-2
Project : Project No. : Date : 3/31/2021
P-1 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 9:00 AM 9:25 AM 25 12.0 30.0 18.0 Y
2 9:25 AM 9:40 AM 15 13.2 27.6 14.4 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 9:40 AM 9:50 AM 10 58.20 50.40 7.80 1.36
2 9:50 AM 10:00 AM 10 60.00 54.00 6.00 1.00
3 10:00 AM 10:10 AM 10 60.00 55.20 4.80 0.79
4 10:10 AM 10:20 AM 10 60.00 55.20 4.80 0.79
5 10:20 AM 10:30 AM 10 60.00 55.20 4.80 0.79
6 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 10 61.20 56.40 4.80 0.77
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.3 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-2 Tested by :
78 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 10:55 AM 11:20 AM 25 12.0 30.0 18.0 Y
2 11:20 AM 11:45 AM 25 13.2 31.8 18.6 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 11:50 AM 12:00 PM 10 60.00 48.00 12.00 2.10
2 12:02 PM 12:12 PM 10 70.80 54.00 16.80 2.56
3 12:12 PM 12:22 PM 10 67.20 51.60 15.60 2.49
4 12:22 PM 12:32 PM 10 67.20 54.00 13.20 2.07
5 12:32 PM 12:42 PM 10 66.00 54.00 12.00 1.90
6 12:42 PM 12:52 PM 10 68.40 54.00 14.40 2.23
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Infiltration Rate with a factor of safety of 3 = 0.7 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) = 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.

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 Figure B-1 and Table B-3.

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 tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557 Method A. The curves are attached to this appendix as Figure B-2.

Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were performed on a remolded sample and a select modified-California soil sample in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected materials. The remolded sample was prepared to a relative compaction of 90% according to the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557.

The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. Test results are presented on Figures B-3 and B-4.

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 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
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 Figure B-5 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 report 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) PS-1 5 13.5 118.1
PS-1 15 18.8 108.3
PS-1 25 15.1 118.5
PS-1 35 15.5 107.3
PS-1 45 1.9 109.7
PS-2 5 5.7 110.3
PS-2 15 1.1 122.4
PS-2 25 6.6 117.9
PS-3 5 12.9 119.8
PS-3 15 11.6 94.2
PS-3 25 12.6 120.4
PS-4 10 8.6 126.2
PS-4 20 11.1 111.9
PS-4 30 21.2 105.5
PS-4 40 1.8 109.3
PS-4 50 2.2 112.8
Table B-2
Number 200 Wash Results
Boring No. Depth (feet) Percent Passing #200
PS-2 10 55.3
PS-2 20 28.5
PS-3 10 71.8
PS-3 20 50.5
PS-4 45 5.2
Table B-3
Atterberg Limits Results
Boring
No.

Depth
(feet)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index U.S.C.S. Classification
PS-1 10 33 17 16 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
PS-2 10 33 22 11 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
PS-2 20 NP NP NP Silty Sand (SM)
PS-3 10 36 17 19 Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
PS-3 20 NP NP NP Sandy Silt (ML)
PS-4 5 35 15 20 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424
Table B-4
Resistance Value (R-value)
Boring No. Depth
(feet) R Value
PS-1 0 – 5 18
Table B-5
Expansion Index
Boring No. Depth
(feet)
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential
PS-4 0 – 5 2 Very low
Table B-6
Unconfined Compression Test Results
Boring
No.

Depth
(feet) Soil Classification Unconfined CompressionStrength, qu, (psf) PS-3 5 Lean Clay with Sand (CL) 9,435
PS-3 25 Lean Clay with Sand (CL) 7,114
Table B-7
Corrosivity Test Results
Boring No. Depth
(feet) pH
Water
Soluble
Sulfate
(ppm)
Water
Soluble
Chloride
(ppm)
Minimum
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
PS-1 0-5 7.6 267 118 3,700
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 20 406080 100
ML
CL
MH
CH
Sample Location

LIQUID LIMIT
LL

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL PI U.S.C.S. Classification
16 11
NP
19 NP
19 33
33 NP
36 NP
35 17
22 NP
17 NP
16 CL-ML
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y
I
N
D
E
X
PS-1 at 10 ft
PS-2 at 10 ft
PS-2 at 20 ft
PS-3 at 10 ft
PS-3 at 20 ft
PS-4 at 5 ft
FIGURE B-1
Sandy lean CLAY
Sandy lean CLAY
Silty SAND
Lean CLAY with sand
Sandy SILT
Sandy lean CLAY
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Parking Structure
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
ATTERBERG LIMITS 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 1/15/20 95 100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
pcf
DRY DENSITY, pcf
Maximum Dry Density
WATER CONTENT, %
%

TEST RESULTS
Sample Location
Sample Description
FIGURE B-2
128.5

8.0 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Test Method

2.80 2.70

2.60 2.50
ASTM D1557 Method A
Optimum Water Content
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:

Sandy lean CLAY
PS-4 at 0-5 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Parking Structure
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
COMPACTION 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 1/3/20 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 PS-1
5 Sandy lean CLAY

0.005
118.8
450
27 13.5

22.6 24
29 FIGURE B-3
PS-1
5 Sandy lean CLAY

0.005
118.8
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 Parking Structure
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
288
27 12.2
120
28 FIGURE B-4
PS-4
Sandy lean CLAY Sandy lean CLAY

0.005
115.7
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 Parking Structure
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
DIRECT SHEAR 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 2/20/20 0-5 remolded to 90% relative RC
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10

CONSOLIDATION TEST
STRAIN, %
STRESS, ksf
118.8 13.5
FIGURE B-5
Soil Description
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Sandy lean CLAY
Sample Location
PS-1 at 5 ft
PROJECT NO.
190919.3

REPORT DATE
March 2021
Proposed Parking Structure
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Riverside, California
CONSOL STRAIN 190919.3 - KAISER RIVERSIDE TOWER.GPJ TWINING LABS.GDT 1/15/20 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
4 PS-1 R 25 838.06 4.00 2.416 0.0106 181.44 656.62 136.4 172.05 150.98 11.81 15.1 118.5 5 PS-2 R 5 557.02 3.00 2.416 0.0080 136.08 420.94 116.6 168.55 160.09 10.98 5.7 110.3 6 PS-3 R 5 820.92 5.06 2.413 0.0134 0.00 820.92 135.2 835.71 742.28 16.42 12.9 119.8 7 PS-3 R 15 859.10 5.00 2.416 0.0133 226.80 632.30 105.1 158.41 144.35 23.06 11.6 94.2 8 PS-3 R 25 811.97 4.98 2.416 0.0132 0.00 811.97 135.5 827.03 736.58 16.05 12.6 120.4 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.: PS-1 Date: 12/13/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 25
Soil Description: Brown, Clayey Sand (SC)
H (in)
Hs (in)
Hw (in)
Ha (in)
(pcf)
(%)
(%)
* Saturation is calcualted based on Gs= 2.70
Load δH H Voids av Mv
(ksf) (in) (in) (in) (ksf-1) (ksf-1)

0.01 ------- 1.0040 0.298 0.422

0.25 0.0045 0.9995 0.293 0.415 2.7E-02 1.9E-02

0.5 0.0102 0.9938 0.288 0.407 3.2E-02 2.3E-02
1 0.0144 0.9896 0.283 0.401 1.2E-02 8.5E-03
2 0.0209 0.9831 0.277 0.392 9.2E-03 6.6E-03
2 0.0225 0.9815 0.275 0.390
4 0.0291 0.9749 0.269 0.381 4.7E-03 3.4E-03
8 0.0395 0.9645 0.258 0.366 3.7E-03 2.7E-03
4 0.0385 0.9655 0.259 0.367
1 0.0353 0.9687 0.263 0.372

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435
100.0
Height of Air

13.8 95.7

15.0 0.013
118.5 126.8

0.000
Saturation
Water Content
Dry Density
Height

0.262

0.706

0.969
164.65
Height of Water
Height of Solids
Initial Total Weight
143.23

1.004
Final Total Weight Final Dry Weight

0.706
Final Conditions
(g) (g) (g)
162.95

3.5 3.8

3.9 1.4

1.0 0.5
0 Consol.

0.285
Initial Conditions
e Comment
(%)

2.1 2.9

2.2 Unloaded
Water Added
Client : Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project Name: RMC Tested by: KL
Project Number: 190919.3 Checked by: MJ
Boring No.: PS-1 Date: 12/13/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 25
Soil Description: Brown, Clayey Sand (SC)

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435

0.0 1.2

2.4 3.6

4.8 6.0

0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added

0.35 0.37

0.39 0.41

0.43 0.45

0.1 1 10 100
Void Ratio, e
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
Client : Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project Name: RMC Tested by: KL
Project Number: 190919.3 Checked by: MJ
Boring No.: PS-2 Date: 12/13/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 5
Soil Description: Reddish Brown, Silty Sand (SM)
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 ------- 1.0230 0.347 0.513

0.25 0.0025 1.0206 0.345 0.510 1.5E-02 1.0E-02

0.5 0.0051 1.0179 0.342 0.506 1.6E-02 1.1E-02
1 0.0081 1.0149 0.339 0.501 8.7E-03 5.8E-03
2 0.0115 1.0115 0.335 0.496 5.1E-03 3.4E-03
2 0.0176 1.0054 0.329 0.487
4 0.0228 1.0002 0.324 0.479 3.9E-03 2.6E-03
8 0.0337 0.9893 0.313 0.463 4.0E-03 2.7E-03
4 0.0327 0.9903 0.314 0.465
1 0.0291 0.9939 0.318 0.470

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435

87.8 Height of Air

15.5 29.5

5.7 0.245
110.1 114.0

0.039
Saturation
Water Content
Dry Density
Height

0.279

0.676

0.994
143.28
Height of Water
Height of Solids
Initial Total Weight
135.60

1.023
Final Total Weight Final Dry Weight

0.676
Final Conditions
(g) (g) (g)
156.57

2.8 3.2

3.3 0.8

0.5 0.2
0 Consol.

0.102
Initial Conditions
e Comment
(%)

1.1 2.2

1.7 Water Added
Unloaded
Client : Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project Name: RMC Tested by: KL
Project Number: 190919.3 Checked by: MJ
Boring No.: PS-2 Date: 12/13/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 5
Soil Description: Reddish Brown, Silty Sand (SM)

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435

0.0 1.2

2.4 3.6

4.8 6.0

0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added

0.43 0.45

0.47 0.49

0.51 0.53

0.1 1 10 100
Void Ratio, e
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
Client : Twining Inc. HAI Project No.: TWI-19-013
Project Name: RMC Tested by: KL
Project Number: 190919.3 Checked by: MJ
Boring No.: PS-3 Date: 12/13/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 15
Soil Description: Light Brown, Sandy Silt (ML)
H (in)
Hs (in)
Hw (in)
Ha (in)
(pcf)
(%)
(%)
* Saturation is calcualted based on Gs= 2.72
Load δH H Voids av Mv
(ksf) (in) (in) (in) (ksf-1) (ksf-1)

0.01 ------- 1.0160 0.452 0.802

0.25 0.0023 1.0137 0.450 0.798 1.7E-02 9.5E-03

0.5 0.0056 1.0104 0.446 0.792 2.3E-02 1.3E-02
1 0.0106 1.0054 0.441 0.783 1.8E-02 9.9E-03
2 0.0186 0.9974 0.433 0.769 1.4E-02 8.0E-03
2 0.0301 0.9859 0.422 0.748
4 0.0440 0.9720 0.408 0.724 1.2E-02 7.2E-03
8 0.0626 0.9534 0.389 0.691 8.3E-03 4.9E-03
4 0.0615 0.9545 0.391 0.693
1 0.0566 0.9594 0.395 0.701
e Comment
(%)

1.8 4.3

3.0 Water Added
Unloaded

5.6 6.1

6.2 1.0

0.6 0.2
0 Consol.

0.177
Initial Conditions
(g) (g) (g)
144.92
Height

0.395

0.564

0.959
128.55
Height of Water
Height of Solids
Initial Total Weight
115.23

1.016
Final Total Weight Final Dry Weight

0.564
Final Conditions

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435

99.9 Height of Air

25.8 39.2

11.6 0.275

94.2 104.0

0.000
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.: PS-3 Date: 12/13/19
Sample No.: R
Type of Sample: Undisturbed Ring
Depth (ft): 15
Soil Description: Light Brown, Sandy Silt (ML)

CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added

0.64 0.68

0.72 0.76

0.80 0.84

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.: PS-3 Date: 12/13/2019
Sample No.: 5
Soil Description: Borwn, Fat Clay with Sand (CH)

1. Initial Specimen Information
Height: (in) 5.06 Initial Wet Weight: (g) 820.92
Diameter: (in) 2.41 Wet Density: (pcf) 135.2
Area: (in2
) 4.57 Moisture Content: (%) 12.9
Volume: (in3
) 23.13 Dry Density: (pcf) 119.8

2. Compression Test Data Curing Days: -

0.0000 0.0 -3.1 0.00

0.0037 2.1 63.1 0.07

0.0098 10.4 322.9 0.19

0.0163 20.2 629.5 0.32

0.0211 28.1 877.4 0.42

0.0276 38.1 1190.4 0.55

0.0337 49.8 1553.5 0.67

0.0389 59.4 1853.6 0.77

0.0454 70.9 2209.6 0.90

0.0554 87.7 2729.3 1.10

0.0806 125.0 3871.2 1.59

0.1010 152.0 4686.9 2.00

0.1262 183.6 5633.5 2.50

0.1514 212.5 6488.3 3.00

0.1719 234.1 7119.3 3.40

0.1971 258.8 7829.3 3.90

0.2223 280.7 8446.9 4.40

0.2423 296.1 8873.9 4.79

0.2905 318.0 9435.3 5.75

0.3409 266.1 7811.3 6.74

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH TEST
Failure of the specimen
ASTM D2166
Vertical Displ.
(in)
Strain
(%)
qu
(psf)
Load
(lbs)
0 2000
4000
6000
8000
10000

0.0 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 8.0
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.: PS-3 Date: 12/13/2019
Sample No.: 25
Soil Description: Borwn, Lean Clay with Sand (CL)

1. Initial Specimen Information
Height: (in) 4.98 Initial Wet Weight: (g) 811.97
Diameter: (in) 2.42 Wet Density: (pcf) 135.5
Area: (in2
) 4.58 Moisture Content: (%) 12.6
Volume: (in3
) 22.83 Dry Density: (pcf) 120.4

2. Compression Test Data Curing Days: -

0.0000 0.0 4.4 0.00

0.0034 2.4 79.9 0.07

0.0098 7.8 248.5 0.20

0.0163 13.4 425.2 0.33

0.0223 19.4 610.0 0.45

0.0287 25.3 793.5 0.58

0.0347 31.7 991.7 0.70

0.0411 37.9 1186.3 0.83

0.0475 44.5 1389.5 0.95

0.0646 62.3 1935.7 1.30

0.0899 87.6 2706.1 1.81

0.1096 106.7 3281.2 2.20

0.1348 128.3 3925.1 2.71

0.1596 148.0 4504.6 3.21

0.1844 167.0 5055.7 3.70

0.2093 184.2 5547.9 4.20

0.2341 200.2 5995.9 4.70

0.2739 222.8 6617.8 5.50

0.3364 242.7 7114.0 6.76

0.3860 210.9 6113.6 7.75

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH TEST
Failure of the specimen
ASTM D2166
Vertical Displ.
(in)
Strain
(%)
qu
(psf)
Load
(lbs)
0 2000
4000
6000
8000
10000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
qu (psf)
Strain (%)

2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

APPENDIX C

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 : Proposed Parking Structure at Kaiser Riverside Medical Center Location : 10800 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 2883 East Spring Street, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
SPT Name: PS-1

57.50 ft

12.50 ft

7.70 0.61 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 parking - 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 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 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 parking - 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 24 65.00 134.80 5.00 No

10.00 15 65.00 134.80 5.00 No

15.00 26 85.00 128.70 5.00 Yes

20.00 26 28.50 128.70 5.00 Yes

25.00 24 65.00 136.00 5.00 No

30.00 14 10.00 136.00 5.00 Yes

35.00 19 85.00 124.00 5.00 Yes

40.00 30 15.00 112.00 5.00 Yes

45.00 50 5.20 112.00 5.00 Yes

50.00 34 5.20 112.00 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 24 134.80 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.26 1.35 1.25 1.15 0.80 1.20 45 65.00 5.59 51 4.000

10.00 15 134.80 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.35 1.17 1.25 1.15 0.85 1.20 26 65.00 5.59 32 4.000

15.00 26 128.70 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.26 1.02 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 43 85.00 5.53 49 4.000

20.00 26 128.70 1.32 0.00 1.32 0.27 0.94 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 40 28.50 5.30 45 4.000

25.00 24 136.00 1.66 0.00 1.66 0.30 0.87 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 34 65.00 5.59 40 4.000

30.00 14 136.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.45 0.75 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 18 10.00 1.15 19 0.194

35.00 19 124.00 2.31 0.00 2.31 0.37 0.75 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 24 85.00 5.53 30 0.485

40.00 30 112.00 2.59 0.00 2.59 0.28 0.78 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 40 15.00 3.26 43 4.000

45.00 50 112.00 2.87 0.00 2.87 0.26 0.77 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 66 5.20 0.00 66 4.000

50.00 34 112.00 3.15 0.00 3.15 0.28 0.74 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 43 5.20 0.00 43 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

5.00 134.80 0.34 0.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 0.395 2.20 51 0.92 0.428 1.10 0.658 2.000 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for parking - 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

10.00 134.80 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.98 1.00 0.390 2.12 32 0.93 0.421 1.10 0.647 2.000

15.00 128.70 1.00 0.08 0.92 0.97 1.00 0.418 2.20 49 0.92 0.453 1.04 0.734 2.000

20.00 128.70 1.32 0.23 1.08 0.96 1.00 0.461 2.20 45 0.92 0.499 0.99 0.850 2.000

25.00 136.00 1.66 0.39 1.27 0.94 1.00 0.487 2.20 40 0.92 0.528 0.95 0.942 2.000

30.00 136.00 2.00 0.55 1.45 0.92 1.00 0.502 1.45 19 0.97 0.517 0.96 0.911 0.277

35.00 124.00 2.31 0.70 1.61 0.90 1.00 0.514 2.00 30 0.94 0.549 0.92 1.014 0.622

40.00 112.00 2.59 0.86 1.73 0.88 1.00 0.523 2.20 43 0.92 0.567 0.86 1.121 2.000

45.00 112.00 2.87 1.01 1.85 0.86 1.00 0.528 2.20 66 0.92 0.573 0.83 1.160 2.000

50.00 112.00 3.15 1.17 1.98 0.84 1.00 0.530 2.20 43 0.92 0.575 0.82 1.192 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 0.277 0.72 5.43 5.00 5.98

35.00 0.622 0.38 4.67 5.00 2.69

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

8.67 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 45 0.13 0.23 0.79 0.14 12291.42 0.00 0.00 17.10 0.01 5.00 0.013

10.00 26 0.26 0.45 0.95 0.15 8109.31 0.00 0.00 17.10 0.03 5.00 0.042 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for parking - 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: 0.055
:: 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 49 0.06 -1.51 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

20.00 45 0.25 -1.19 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

25.00 40 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

30.00 19 17.78 0.57 0.277 17.78 2.40 5.00 1.441 0.00

35.00 30 4.65 -0.09 0.622 4.65 0.92 5.00 0.554 0.00

40.00 43 0.44 -1.03 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 43 0.44 -1.03 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
Abbreviations
Cumulative settlements: 1.996
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 parking - 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 : Proposed Parking Structure at Kaiser Riverside Medical Center Location : 10800 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 2883 East Spring Street, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
SPT Name: PS-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 parking - 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 0.02 0.04
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 parking - 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 15 55.30 117.00 5.00 No

10.00 18 55.30 117.00 5.00 No

15.00 47 5.00 124.00 5.00 Yes

20.00 31 28.50 124.00 5.00 Yes

25.00 50 51.00 126.00 5.00 No

30.00 33 10.00 126.00 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 15 117.00 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.30 1.48 1.25 1.15 0.80 1.20 31 55.30 5.61 37 4.000

10.00 18 117.00 0.59 0.00 0.59 0.31 1.20 1.25 1.15 0.85 1.20 32 55.30 5.61 38 4.000

15.00 47 124.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.26 1.05 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 80 5.00 0.00 80 4.000

20.00 31 124.00 1.21 0.00 1.21 0.26 0.97 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 49 28.50 5.30 54 4.000

25.00 50 126.00 1.52 0.00 1.52 0.26 0.91 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 74 51.00 5.61 80 4.000

30.00 33 126.00 1.84 0.00 1.84 0.26 0.87 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 49 10.00 1.15 50 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

5.00 117.00 0.29 0.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.382 2.20 37 0.92 0.414 1.10 0.636 2.000

10.00 117.00 0.59 0.00 0.59 0.98 1.00 0.378 2.20 38 0.92 0.409 1.10 0.629 2.000

15.00 124.00 0.90 0.08 0.82 0.97 1.00 0.408 2.20 80 0.92 0.442 1.08 0.694 2.000

20.00 124.00 1.21 0.23 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.455 2.20 54 0.92 0.493 1.03 0.812 2.000

25.00 126.00 1.52 0.39 1.13 0.94 1.00 0.484 2.20 80 0.92 0.525 0.98 0.905 2.000

30.00 126.00 1.84 0.55 1.29 0.92 1.00 0.503 2.20 50 0.92 0.545 0.94 0.978 2.000 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for parking - 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 31 0.11 0.20 0.66 0.14 13381.49 0.00 0.00 17.10 0.02 5.00 0.021

10.00 32 0.22 0.39 0.94 0.15 8828.49 0.00 0.00 17.10 0.02 5.00 0.026 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: 0.047
:: 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 parking - 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 80 0.00 -4.20 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

20.00 54 0.00 -1.92 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

25.00 80 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

30.00 50 0.04 -1.59 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 parking - 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 : Proposed Parking Structure at Kaiser Riverside Medical Center Location : 10800 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 2883 East Spring Street, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
SPT Name: PS-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)
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 parking - 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)
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 0.01 0.02 0.03
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 parking - 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 27 71.80 135.00 5.00 No

10.00 21 71.80 135.00 5.00 No

15.00 17 50.50 105.00 5.00 Yes

20.00 26 50.50 105.00 5.00 Yes

25.00 27 85.00 135.00 5.00 No

30.00 27 15.00 135.00 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 27 135.00 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.26 1.35 1.25 1.15 0.80 1.20 50 71.80 5.57 56 4.000

10.00 21 135.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 0.29 1.14 1.25 1.15 0.85 1.20 35 71.80 5.57 41 4.000

15.00 17 105.00 0.94 0.00 0.94 0.33 1.04 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 29 50.50 5.61 35 4.000

20.00 26 105.00 1.20 0.00 1.20 0.26 0.97 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 41 50.50 5.61 47 4.000

25.00 27 135.00 1.54 0.00 1.54 0.27 0.90 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 40 85.00 5.53 46 4.000

30.00 27 135.00 1.88 0.00 1.88 0.28 0.85 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 40 15.00 3.26 43 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

5.00 135.00 0.34 0.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 0.382 2.20 56 0.92 0.414 1.10 0.636 2.000

10.00 135.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 0.98 1.00 0.378 2.20 41 0.92 0.409 1.10 0.629 2.000

15.00 105.00 0.94 0.08 0.86 0.97 1.00 0.406 2.20 35 0.92 0.440 1.05 0.706 2.000

20.00 105.00 1.20 0.23 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.455 2.20 47 0.92 0.493 1.03 0.812 2.000

25.00 135.00 1.54 0.39 1.15 0.94 1.00 0.482 2.20 46 0.92 0.523 0.98 0.905 2.000

30.00 135.00 1.88 0.55 1.33 0.92 1.00 0.498 2.20 43 0.92 0.540 0.93 0.978 2.000 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for parking - 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
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 50 0.13 0.23 0.81 0.14 12280.49 0.00 0.00 17.10 0.01 5.00 0.010

10.00 35 0.25 0.45 1.04 0.15 8102.10 0.00 0.00 17.10 0.02 5.00 0.024 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: 0.034
:: 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 parking - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 14 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 35 2.20 -0.44 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

20.00 47 0.13 -1.35 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

25.00 46 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

30.00 43 0.44 -1.03 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 parking - 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 : Proposed Parking Structure at Kaiser Riverside Medical Center Location : 10800 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 2883 East Spring Street, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
SPT Name: PS-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)
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 parking - 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)
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 0.005 0.01 0.015
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 parking - 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 27 55.00 137.00 5.00 No

10.00 50 55.00 137.00 5.00 No

15.00 24 55.00 137.00 4.00 Yes

19.00 24 15.00 137.00 1.00 Yes

20.00 47 51.00 124.00 5.00 Yes

25.00 26 51.00 124.00 5.00 No

30.00 22 51.00 128.00 5.00 Yes

35.00 15 51.00 128.00 5.00 No

40.00 45 5.20 111.00 5.00 Yes

45.00 41 5.20 111.00 5.00 Yes

50.00 50 5.20 115.00 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 27 137.00 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.26 1.35 1.25 1.15 0.80 1.20 50 55.00 5.61 56 4.000

10.00 50 137.00 0.69 0.00 0.69 0.26 1.12 1.25 1.15 0.85 1.20 82 55.00 5.61 88 4.000

15.00 24 137.00 1.03 0.00 1.03 0.27 1.01 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 40 55.00 5.61 46 4.000

19.00 24 137.00 1.30 0.00 1.30 0.30 0.94 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 37 15.00 3.26 40 4.000

20.00 47 124.00 1.36 0.00 1.36 0.26 0.94 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 72 51.00 5.61 78 4.000

25.00 26 124.00 1.67 0.00 1.67 0.28 0.88 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.20 37 51.00 5.61 43 4.000

30.00 22 128.00 1.99 0.00 1.99 0.33 0.81 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 31 51.00 5.61 37 4.000

35.00 15 128.00 2.31 0.00 2.31 0.42 0.72 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 19 51.00 5.61 25 4.000

40.00 45 111.00 2.59 0.00 2.59 0.26 0.79 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 61 5.20 0.00 61 4.000

45.00 41 111.00 2.87 0.00 2.87 0.26 0.77 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 54 5.20 0.00 54 4.000

50.00 50 115.00 3.16 0.00 3.16 0.26 0.75 1.25 1.15 1.00 1.20 65 5.20 0.00 65 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
Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for parking - 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

5.00 137.00 0.34 0.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 0.382 2.20 56 0.92 0.414 1.10 0.636 2.000

10.00 137.00 0.69 0.00 0.69 0.98 1.00 0.378 2.20 88 0.92 0.409 1.10 0.629 2.000

15.00 137.00 1.03 0.08 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.403 2.20 46 0.92 0.437 1.03 0.715 2.000

19.00 137.00 1.30 0.20 1.10 0.96 1.00 0.435 2.20 40 0.92 0.472 0.99 0.807 2.000

20.00 124.00 1.36 0.23 1.13 0.96 1.00 0.442 2.20 78 0.92 0.480 0.98 0.826 2.000

25.00 124.00 1.67 0.39 1.28 0.94 1.00 0.469 2.20 43 0.92 0.509 0.94 0.912 2.000

30.00 128.00 1.99 0.55 1.45 0.92 1.00 0.486 2.20 37 0.92 0.527 0.91 0.981 2.000

35.00 128.00 2.31 0.70 1.61 0.90 1.00 0.496 1.72 25 0.95 0.520 0.93 0.944 2.000

40.00 111.00 2.59 0.86 1.73 0.88 1.00 0.505 2.20 61 0.92 0.548 0.85 1.084 2.000

45.00 111.00 2.87 1.01 1.85 0.86 1.00 0.511 2.20 54 0.92 0.554 0.83 1.122 2.000

50.00 115.00 3.16 1.17 1.99 0.84 1.00 0.512 2.20 65 0.92 0.555 0.81 1.153 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

19.00 2.000 0.00 7.10 4.00 0.00

20.00 2.000 0.00 6.95 1.00 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 50 0.13 0.23 0.82 0.14 12172.61 0.00 0.00 17.10 0.01 5.00 0.010 Project File: T:\Satellite Offices\San Bernardino\PROJECTS\2019 Projects\190919.3 - Kaiser Riverside Medical Center\Analysis\Liquefaction - SPT for parking - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 19 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)

10.00 82 0.26 0.46 1.35 0.15 8030.93 0.00 0.00 17.10 0.01 5.00 0.006 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: 0.016
:: 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 46 0.19 -1.27 2.000 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.000 0.00

19.00 40 0.87 -0.80 2.000 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.000 0.00

20.00 78 0.00 -4.01 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

25.00 43 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

30.00 37 1.56 -0.58 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

35.00 25 0.00 0.00 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

40.00 61 0.00 -2.51 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

45.00 54 0.00 -1.92 2.000 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00

50.00 65 0.00 -2.86 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 parking - revised.lsvs LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Page: 20 References
⦁ Ronald D. Andrus, Hossein Hayati, Nisha P. Mohanan, 2009. Correcting Liquefaction Resistance for Aged Sands Using Measured to Estimated Velocity Ratio, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 6, June 1 ⦁ 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 ⦁ Dipl.-Ing. Heinz J. Priebe, Vibro Replacement to Prevent Earthquake Induced Liquefaction, Proceedings of the GeotechniqueColloquium at Darmstadt, Germany, on March 19th, 1998 (also published in Ground Engineering, September 1998), Technical paper 12-57E
⦁ Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2007, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Available at no cost at http://www.geologismiki.gr/
⦁ Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, October, pp 817-833
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and CPT, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 861-871 ⦁ 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
⦁ R. Kayen, R. E. S. Moss, E. M. Thompson, R. B. Seed, K. O. Cetin, A. Der Kiureghian, Y. Tanaka, K. Tokimatsu, 2013. ShearWave Velocity–Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 3, March 1 LiqSVs 2.0.1.8 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software 2883 East Spring Street
Suite 300
Long Beach CA 90806
Tel 562.426.3355
Fax 562.426.6424

APPENDIX D

SELECT PROJECT PLANS

CITY OF RIVERSIDE
Site Development Plan Number:

OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals PHONE: 626.405.6333
Sheet:

JULY 19, 2021
ADDRESS: 393 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188
ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: CO Architects, Michael Baker International, Ridge Landscape Architects, Glumac PHONE: 323.525.0500 (Architect) ADDRESS: 5055 Wilshire Blvd. 9th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90036 (Architect) TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: XXXXX
LOCATION: 10800 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92505
ZONE: XXXXX ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 138-470-010

RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER
SITE PHASING - 1 A 1.20
Phase 1 – Offsite Make Ready
Improvement of off-campus lots at 11510 Magnolia Ave (Fillmore) and 10861 Magnolia Ave (Pep Boys). The Fillmore parking lot will accomodate displacement of staff parking during the construction of the new parking structure and General Contractor parking during hospital construction. The Pep Boys lot will be improved for use by the General Contractor . (E) LIGHT POLE

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

AMBULANCE ONLY

AMBULANCE ONLY

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT
(E) LIGHT POLE

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

AMBULANCE ONLY

AMBULANCE ONLY

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT
MRI

AMBULANCE ONLY

AMBULANCE ONLY

LOADING

POLK STREET

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

PARK SIERRA DRIVE
MRI
STAFF

PARKING

STRUCTURE

STAFF PARKING

MEMBER ROUTE

AMBULANCE ROUTE

CIRCULATION LEGEND
AMB ED

STAFF ROUTE

SERVICE ROUTE

TECH DOCK

TECH DOCK

POLK STREET

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

PARK SIERRA DRIVE
STAFF

PARKING

STRUCTURE
STANDARD:

ACCESSIBLE:

ACCESSIBLE VAN:

LOT TOTAL:
454
26 0
480
STANDARD:

ACCESSIBLE:

ACCESSIBLE VAN:

LOT TOTAL:
7 0
0 7
STANDARD:

ACCESSIBLE:

ACCESSIBLE VAN:

LOT TOTAL:
65 0
0 65
STANDARD:

ACCESSIBLE:

ACCESSIBLE VAN:

LOT TOTAL:
643
15 4
662
STANDARD:

ACCESSIBLE:

ACCESSIBLE VAN:

LOT TOTAL:
190
0 0
190
STANDARD:

ACCESSIBLE:

ACCESSIBLE VAN:

LOT TOTAL:
359
36 7
402
STANDARD:

ACCESSIBLE:

ACCESSIBLE VAN:

LOT TOTAL:
288
45 1
334
STANDARD:

ACCESSIBLE:

ACCESSIBLE VAN:

LOT TOTAL:
249
42 13
304
STANDARD:

ACCESSIBLE:

ACCESSIBLE VAN:

LOT TOTAL:
11 0
2 13
This lot was re-striped
to remove all compact
spots.

ADA spots under
const. Connexes, but
included in counts.

No parking available
There are new added
spots parrellel to the
parking sturcture not
shown to the left.
-16
+13
-40
-42
-7 -12
STANDARD:

ACCESSIBLE:

ACCESSIBLE VAN:

ON SITE TOTAL:
2268
169
22 2459
UNDER 8'-6": 0
COMPACT: 0
SHEET TOTAL:

OFFSITE STALLS: 286
TOTAL: 2745

CITY OF RIVERSIDE
Site Development Plan Number:

OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals PHONE: 626.405.6333
Sheet:

JULY 19, 2021
ADDRESS: 393 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188
ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: CO Architects, Michael Baker International, Ridge Landscape Architects, Glumac PHONE: 323.525.0500 (Architect) ADDRESS: 5055 Wilshire Blvd. 9th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90036 (Architect) TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: XXXXX
LOCATION: 10800 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92505
ZONE: XXXXX ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 138-470-010
RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER 1" = 100'-0"
SITE PHASING - 2 A 1.21
N
N
Phase 2: On-Site Parking Re-Stripe
Re-striping of onsite parking lots to convert all compact and sub-standard parking stalls to standard parking stalls. Convert parking lot south of Park Sierra's entry drive into accessible parking lot.

Existing Site Plan

EXISTING PARKING MATRIX
CODE REQ'D: 2,543
PROVIDED: 2,842
PHASE 2 PARKING MATRIX
CODE REQ'D: 2,543
PROVIDED: 2,745 1 1" = 100'-0"
EXISTING SITE PLAN 2 1" = 100'-0"
PH 2.0
(E) LIGHT POLE

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

AMBULANCE ONLY

AMBULANCE ONLY

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT
(E) LIGHT POLE

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

LOADING

POLK STREET

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

PARK SIERRA DRIVE
MRI
STAFF

PARKING

STRUCTURE
AMB ED

NEW AMBULANCE, ED AND
GENERAL ROUTE.

MOB1

TECH DOCK

TECH DOCK

PARKING STRUCTURE

LAYDOWN
MEMBER

PARKING

MEMBER ROUTE

AMBULANCE ROUTE

CIRCULATION LEGEND

PHASING LEGEND
NEW

CONSTRUCTION AREA

STAFF ROUTE

SERVICE ROUTE

CONSTRUCTION
ZONE

LOADING

POLK STREET

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

PARK SIERRA DRIVE
MRI
STAFF

PARKING

STRUCTURE
AMB ED

TEMPORARY AMBULANCE WITH

PEDESTRIAN CANOPY

TECH DOCK

TECH DOCK

PARKING STRUCTURE

LAYDOWN

MOB DROPOFF MAKE READY
MEMBER

INTERMITTANT TRENCH/UTILITIES

PARKING

CONSTRUCTION
ZONE

CITY OF RIVERSIDE
Site Development Plan Number:

OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals PHONE: 626.405.6333
Sheet:

JULY 19, 2021
ADDRESS: 393 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188
ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: CO Architects, Michael Baker International, Ridge Landscape Architects, Glumac PHONE: 323.525.0500 (Architect) ADDRESS: 5055 Wilshire Blvd. 9th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90036 (Architect) TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: XXXXX
LOCATION: 10800 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92505
ZONE: XXXXX ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 138-470-010
RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER 1" = 100'-0"
SITE PHASING - 3,4 A 1.22
N N
Phase 3 - Shortened Ambulance Drive and Parking Structure Laydown Shorten the ambulance and patient drop off loop, removing 2 parking stalls.

PHASE 3 PARKING MATRIX
CODE REQ'D: 2,543
PROVIDED: 2,961
PHASE 4 PARKING MATRIX
CODE REQ'D: 2,543
PROVIDED: 2,961
1 1" = 100'-0"
PH 3.0 2 1" = 100'-0"PH 4.0
Phase 4 - Temporary Ambulance Drop-off and Upgrade CUP
Install new temporary ambulance drop-off area and canopy.

Upgrades to the Central Utility Plant (CUP) and utility connections from the CUP to the new Hospital Tower location. (E) LIGHT POLE

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT

LOADING

POLK STREET

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

PARK SIERRA DRIVE
MRI
STAFF

PARKING

STRUCTURE
AMB ED
MOB3

NEW VALET LOCATION

VALET TURN AROUND

TECH DOCK

TECH DOCK

MOB DROPOFF MAKE READY
MEMBER

PARKING

PHASING LEGEND
NEW

CONSTRUCTION AREA

CIRCULATION LEGEND

AMBULANCE ROUTE

STAFF ROUTE

SERVICE ROUTE

MEMBER ROUTE

LOADING

POLK STREET

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

PARK SIERRA DRIVE
MRI
STAFF

PARKING

STRUCTURE
MOB2
MOB3
NEW

PARKING

STRUCTURE

RELOCATE TECH DOCK

TECH DOCK

CITY OF RIVERSIDE
Site Development Plan Number:

OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals PHONE: 626.405.6333
Sheet:

JULY 19, 2021
ADDRESS: 393 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188
ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: CO Architects, Michael Baker International, Ridge Landscape Architects, Glumac PHONE: 323.525.0500 (Architect) ADDRESS: 5055 Wilshire Blvd. 9th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90036 (Architect) TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: XXXXX
LOCATION: 10800 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92505
ZONE: XXXXX ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 138-470-010
RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER 1" = 100'-0"
SITE PHASING - 5,6 A 1.23
N N
Phase 5 – Temporary Ambulance Drop off and Patient Drop off New temporary Ambulance Drop off.

New Temporary Patient Drop off.

PHASE 5 PARKING MATRIX
CODE REQ'D: 2,543
PROVIDED: 2,961
PHASE 6 PARKING MATRIX
CODE REQ'D: 2,543
PROVIDED: 3,251
1 1" = 100'-0"
PH 5.0 2 1" = 100'-0"PH 6.0
Phase 6 - Hospital New Tower (NT)
(NT), Hospital Tower construction, and correlating site work. The construction sequence and methods are as follows:

Demo and Grading
Sitework - Underground Utilities including relocating outside the building footprint, connections from the CUP to new Hospital Tower, and underground tanks.

Shoring and Mass Excavation
NT Underground – Cast-in-place reinforced concrete walls with spread footings, underground utilities, and waterproofing installation NT Superstructure – Structural steel columns & beams including Sideplate moment frames and reinforced concrete slab on metal decks
NT Exterior façade – Glass and Aluminum Curtainwall system with select areas of stick built glass and aluminum storefront system and light gauge framed penthouses with metal panels
NT Building Interiors – Light gauge framing and drywall and mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems, medical equipment, interior specialties & finishes
Landscaping - Planting and site concrete, exterior lighting, signage, site structures, and driveways and parking

COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT

COMPACTCOMPACT

COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACT

LOADING

POLK STREET

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

PARK SIERRA DRIVE
MRI
STAFF

PARKING

STRUCTURE
MOB2
MOB3
NEW

PARKING

STRUCTURE

TECH DOCK

PHASING LEGEND
NEW

CONSTRUCTION AREA

CIRCULATION LEGEND

AMBULANCE ROUTE

STAFF ROUTE

SERVICE ROUTE

MEMBER ROUTE
HOSP MOB 1 MOB 2
MOB 3
MOB

LOADING
STAFF

PARKING

STRUCTURE

POLK STREET

MAGNOLIA AVENUE

PARK SIERRA DRIVE
MRI

PAT DROPOFF
ED
TECH
DOCK 2 LEVEL D&T
5 LEVEL TOWERNO PARKING
NEW

PARKING

STRUCTURE
AMB
MOB

ROTUNDA
CUP
197'-0"
386'-0"
240'-0" 81'-11" 272'-0"
40'-2"
151'-4"

CITY OF RIVERSIDE
Site Development Plan Number:

OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals PHONE: 626.405.6333
Sheet:

JULY 19, 2021
ADDRESS: 393 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188
ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: CO Architects, Michael Baker International, Ridge Landscape Architects, Glumac PHONE: 323.525.0500 (Architect) ADDRESS: 5055 Wilshire Blvd. 9th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90036 (Architect) TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: XXXXX
LOCATION: 10800 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92505
ZONE: XXXXX ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 138-470-010
RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER 1" = 100'-0"
SITE PHASING - 7 A 1.24
PHASE 7 PARKING MATRIX N
CODE REQ'D: 2,543
PROVIDED: 3,058
Phase 7 – Hospital Construction and New Parking Lot Configuration Phase 7 extends scope of construction to the NE parking lot where a new parking configuration will be constructed to accomodate the New Tower.
1 1" = 100'-0"
PH 7.0
Final Site Plan
N
2 1" = 100'-0"

SITE FINISHED - PLAN - FINAL SITE PLAN ENTITLEMENT

PHASING
PB
PB
PB ss s s s s V V V V V V V V V V V V V V
V
V
V
V
V V
V
V V
V
V
V
V V
V
V V
V
V V
V V
V
V
V V
V

V V V V
V V
V
V
V
V
V V
V V
V V
V
V V V V s V FH FH s s s s s s FH FH s s s s s V ss s s s s FH s s s ss s s s sFH ss s V V V Vs s s s V V ss V V s s s s V V V V V V s s s s FH FH s FH V FH V X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 715 720 720 720 725 725 725
720
720
720
720 720
720 W W W W W W W W W W

WW S S S S FIRE

FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE

FIRE W WS C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C E E E E E E E E E E E E S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE EX HOSPITAL EX MOB 1 EX MOB 2 EX MOB 3 MAGNOLIA AVE. PROP TOWER
PROP D&T PROP PARKING STRUCTURE PARK SIERRA AVE. PROP PARKING LOT PROP PARKING LOT C C C C C C C C C C C C C FIRE MAGNOLIA AVE. MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C2.00 VICINITY MAP CITY OF RIVERSIDE Site Development Plan Number:

OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals PHONE: 626.405.5099 Sheet: MARCH 6, 2020 ADDRESS: 393 E. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188 ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: CO Architects, Michael Baker International, Ridge Landscape Architects, Glumac PHONE: 323.525.0500 (Architect) ADDRESS: 5055 Wilshire Blvd. 9th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90036 (Architect) TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: XXXXX LOCATION: 10800 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92505 ZONE: XXXXX ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 138-470-010 RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER LEGEND SITE PLAN C2.01 EMERGENCY ENTRANCE DETAIL

INITIALSTUDY APPENDIXF
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Technical Memorandum
Technical Memorandum:

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Expansion Project

Technical Memorandum
TO: City of Riverside DATE: September 3, 2021
FROM: Michael Baker International SUBJECT: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center
Expansion Project

PURPOSE
Kaiser Permanente (Applicant) is proposing the Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project (project) in the City of Riverside (City). The project requires California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and City approval of a conditional use permit and design review. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to evaluate potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed project.

PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Riverside is located in the northwestern portion of Riverside County. The City is bounded on the north by the Cities of Jurupa Valley and Grand Terrace, to the east by the City of Moreno Valley, to the south by the unincorporated community of Woodcrest, and to the west by the Cities of Corona and Norco.

The main project site is located at 10800 Magnolia Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 138-470-010) and is currently developed as the Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center (Medical Center). Up to four off-site temporary staging areas may be utilized for worker parking: east of 10493 Magnolia Avenue (Staging Area 1, APN 143-180-028, and Staging Area 2, APN 143-180-032), at 10821 Magnolia Avenue (Staging Area 3, APN 142-293-028), and at 11510 Magnolia Avenue (Staging Area 4, APN 132-020-033) (Figure 1, Regional Map).

The approximately 37.5-acre existing Medical Center is located within the La Sierra District of the Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan. It is bounded by Magnolia Avenue, Park Sierra Dive and Polk Street while the nearest major cross street is La Sierra Avenue (Figure 2, Vicinity Map). Regional access to the project area is provided via State Route 91 (SR-91) approximately one-quarter mile to the south. Local access is provided via Magnolia Avenue, Polk Street, and Park Sierra Drive.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Kaiser Permanente is proposing the redevelopment of approximately 15.5 acres of the existing 37.5-acre Medical Center in the City of Riverside to expand acute care medical service facilities and ancillary uses (proposed project). The expansion of the existing Medical Center is proposed to address the need for additional adult single occupancy and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) beds, increase the capacity of operating rooms and interventional radiology, and resolve parking needs and critical functional deficiencies in key clinical services, including the emergency department.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

The expanded facilities and uses would consist of a new, approximately 296,000-square-foot, five-story hospital tower, a new two-story diagnostic and treatment (D&T) building, a multi-story 1,200-stall aboveground parking structure, and upgrades to the existing central utility plant. The project would also include ancillary features such as a new patient drop-off canopy, driveways, walkways, surface parking, landscaping, lighting, and signage.

Existing Conditions
The existing Medical Center is situated on approximately 37.5 acres and includes four main buildings located in the center of the site. The existing buildings are surrounded by surface parking lots and one parking structure to the north (see Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan).

The existing Medical Center is comprised of four Medical Office Buildings (MOB) located in the center of the site and surrounded by surface parking lots, and one parking structure to the north; refer to Table 1, Existing Building Dimensions. The existing facilities contain 226 hospital beds, including 51 single occupancy rooms, 78 double occupancy rooms, and 19 NICU rooms. In total, the existing Medical Center currently contains 2,556 parking stalls on-site (1,994 standard stalls, 377 compact, 169 (Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] compliant, and 16 van spaces). An existing parking structure is located in the northeast portion of the existing Medical Center campus; refer to Table 2, Existing Parking. There are a total of eight electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, two of which are ADA accessible. The existing site has one bicycle rack at the back of the existing employee parking lot.

Table 1, Existing Building Dimensions
Building Sq. Footage # of
Floors
Height Beds
Parking
Requirements
Roof Screen Multiplier Stalls
MOB 1 402,909 5 70'-10" 93'-6" 226 1 per Bed 226
1 per 180 SF 219
1 per 180 SF 174
MOB 2 220,000 5 70'-10" 93'-6" 0 1 per 180 SF 1,222
MOB 3 88,000 3 43'-0" N/A 0 1 per 180 SF 489
MOB 4 6,027 1 15'-0" N/A 0 1 per 180 SF 34
Total 716,936 2,364
Table 2, Existing Parking
Type # of Decks Height Parking Stalls
Structure 4 38'-6" Top of Parapet 700
Surface N/A N/A 1,856
Total 2,556
The existing Medical Center supports an operational staff of approximately 3,097 full-time employees and generates approximately 2,521 patient visitors per day.

The Medical Center is accessed through five existing driveways. There are two full-access driveways off of Park Sierra Drive, two full-access driveways from Polk Street, and one right-in and right-out driveway off of Magnolia Avenue.

The majority of off-site staging areas are situated on previously developed land that has since been cleared and graded (see Figure 1, Regional Map). Invasive weeds and other plants have taken root in permeable surfaces and are dispersed intermittently across the staging area parcels. Staging Area 2 [APN 143-180-032] is developed as a paved parking lot with landscaping.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

Table 3, Membership Characteristics, provides additional information on the Kaiser Permanente Riverside Hospital and local service area in relation to the surrounding hospital network.

Table 3, Membership Characteristics
City of Riverside
Average Distance to Nearest KP Facility 4.8 miles
Average Drive Time to Nearest KP Facility 9.9 minutes
County of Riverside (excluding Coachella Valley)
Average Distance to Nearest KP Facility 6.8 miles
Average Drive Time to Nearest KP Facility 12 minutes
Additional Membership Information
23% of members in Riverside County (excluding Coachella Valley) live in the City of Riverside 10% of members in Southern California live in Riverside County (excluding Coachella Valley) Coachella Valley accounts for 1% of SoCal membership and 8% of Riverside County membership
Proposed Project Characteristics
Hospital Tower and D&T Building
The proposed tower would be five stories with a subgrade basement. The proposed power would stand

74.5 feet from ground level to the top of the roof. However, mechanical equipment on the roof would be screened by a parapet and screen which would result in a total building height of 89.5 feet. The proposed tower would provide an additional 152 acute care beds, consisting of 116 single occupancy rooms and 36 NICU rooms. The proposed tower would also include new emergency and surgical departments, 8 operating rooms, 58 emergency department treatment bays, and other hospital related functions, including an inpatient pharmacy. A rotunda connecting the new tower to the existing Medical Center and various outdoor seating areas with meandering pathways and landscaping would also be constructed (see Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan).

The D&T building would be two stories, approximately 34 feet tall to the parapet top, and constructed adjacent to the northwestern side of the proposed hospital tower. The D&T building would provide direct support to the new emergency and surgical departments as well as expanded diagnostic services and interventional radiology treatment. Upgrades to the existing central utility plant and utility connections from the central utility plant to the new buildings would also be required.

Parking Facilities
As part of the proposed project, a new parking structure with five stories and rooftop parking would be constructed in the southeast corner of the project site. The maximum proposed height of the parking structure would be 70 feet above the ground surface. The parking structure would include approximately 2,500 square feet of interior office space. The parking structure would be constructed over an existing parking lot and modifications would be made to some of the on‐site surface parking lots. In total, 1,200 new parking spaces are proposed. All parking would be provided in conformance with City parking regulations and with respect for the site being in a transit priority area.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

Existing Medical Center Modifications
As part of the proposed project, the 19 NICU beds at the existing Medical Center would be delicensed and the area would remain as expanded inpatient services for the labor and delivery department.

Sustainability and Energy-Saving Features
In accordance with Kaiser Permanente’s long-term environmental stewardship goals, the proposed facilities would be constructed in accordance with the rating system and performance standards to achieve a minimum of Gold certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program. The LEED rating system and certification was developed by the US Green Building Council and serves as a guide for the design, construction, and operation of sustainable green buildings. Buildings are awarded points for environmentally significant practices and sustainable features.

Because the LEED certification program does not include parking structures, the proposed parking structure would be designed and constructed in accordance with the rating system and performance standards for certification under the Green Garage Certification Program, which is the parking industry’s equivalent of LEED certification, provided by the Green Parking Council, an affiliate of the International Parking Institute.

The project would also be designed to meet or exceed requirements of the most current version of the Title 24 and CALGreen Building Codes. Energy-saving features incorporated into the proposed development are anticipated to include drought-tolerant landscaping, low water and recycled water irrigation systems, energy-saving lighting, mechanical systems, low-flow plumbing fixtures and fittings, and transportation-related sustainability features, such as EV charging stations and bicycle facilities.

Transportation Demand Management Plan
A transportation demand management (TDM) plan would be developed for the project to identify feasible strategies that result in a more efficient use of transportation resources to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, and transportation-related air emissions. The TDM plan would guide the efficient use of the existing transportation system and confirm that the transportation-related sustainability features proposed for the project are designed to maximize sustainable transportation usage. The TDM plan would identify different services, facilities, and actions that combined would result in a reduction of singleoccupant vehicle trips and/or emissions. These measures may include employee incentives for rideshare or use of public transportation, EV charging stations, and bicycle facilities.

Operations
The proposed project would result in the addition of 152 new beds requiring the support of an operational staff of approximately 746 full-time employees. The employees would work in three shifts: day, evening, and night. The day shift supports approximately 439 employees, evening shift approximately 89 employees, and night shift approximately 218 employees. The expanded facilities would generate approximately 535 additional patient visitors per day.

Utilities
Water
Public water service would be provided by the City’s public water system via connection to existing pipelines on Magnolia Avenue. Waterline and storage upgrades are not required to supply water to the project as the existing water system has adequate capacity to serve the project.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

Sewer
Wastewater treatment for the project would be provided by the City. The proposed project would connect to an existing 21-inch sewer line located on Magnolia Avenue. Expansion or improvements to the City’s sewer system is not required as the existing sewer system has adequate capacity to serve the project.

Stormwater Facilities
The proposed project area is predominantly paved in its existing condition. Approximately 10 percent of the total site would be landscaped. The proposed project would maintain existing on-site drainage patterns and be designed to utilize LID bioretention and biotreatment BMPs and landscaping features to redirect, capture, and treat surface runoff from new development prior to entering the existing storm drain system in Park Sierra Street and Magnolia Avenue. Roof runoff from new buildings would drain into landscaped areas prior to entering the existing storm drain system. No increase in stormwater runoff is anticipated with the implementation of the proposed project and no off-site improvements to the existing stormwater system would be required.

Electricity
Riverside Public Utilities currently provides electrical services to the project site. All electrical lines would be undergrounded and would connect to existing connections at the corner of Magnolia Avenue and Polk Street.

Construction
Construction Phases and Schedule
Project construction would occur over an approximate 58-month time frame in two major build phases comprising seven subphases. Construction of the proposed project has two major phases: one for the parking structure and the other for the new hospital tower and D&T building. Table 4, Construction Phases, describes the activities undertaken in each of the two major construction phases and seven subphases.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

Table 4, Construction Phases
Phase Description Activities
Construction
Duration
(Months)
Phases 1-3
Make Ready –
Parking
Structure
Phases 1 and 2 include reconfiguring the
existing hospital ambulance driveway and
hospital patient drop-off area.

A temporary patient drop-off canopy for the
hospital and a new patient drop-off area for
MOB 2 will be constructed as part of Phase 2.

Following the opening of the new patient
drop-off areas, parking reconfiguration and
restriping of the ADA parking spots south of
MOB 3 and MOB 2 patient drop-off area
would be performed as part of Phase 3.
6 Phase 4 Parking
Structure
Phase 4 would involve establishing parking
structure laydown areas, demolition of
existing surface parking, grading, construction
of the cast-in-place concrete building
structure, construction of the interior 2,500
square feet of office space on the first level,
and exterior screening elements.
12 Phase 5
New
Ambulance
Driveway
Phase 5 involves the reconfiguration of the
existing hospital ambulance egress and the
construction of the new emergency vehicle
driveway that will provide access from
Magnolia Avenue.
4 Phases 6-7
New Hospital
Tower, D&T
Building and
Entry Plaza
Construction
Phases 6 and 7 involve construction of the
new hospital tower and correlating interior
and exterior site work, D&T building,
upgrades to the existing central utility plant,
utility connections from the central utility
plant to the new hospital tower and
undergrounding of existing aboveground
utilities, construction of a new patient entry
and drop-off canopy, reconfigured driveways,
and landscaping.
36 The construction sequences would be as follows: demolition and grading, underground utility work, construction of building structure, interior buildout, exterior façade work, and final site work such as paving, coating, finishing, and/or landscaping. Construction equipment would be delivered to the site on low-bed trucks (e.g., on boom trucks) unless the equipment can be driven to the site. All construction equipment and materials would be stored on-site in designated staging and laydown areas.

It is anticipated that the work would be completed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays in accordance with the construction time limitations in the City’s Municipal Code Section 7.35.020(G).

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

Earthwork and Grading
The majority of earthwork would be required during the construction of the basement for the new hospital tower. The total depth of excavation for the basement construction is anticipated to be up to 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Project earthwork would require approximately 70,650 cubic yards of cut and 18,500 cubic yards of fill; thus, approximately 52,150 cubic yards of soil export would be required. The demolished material would be disposed of at an approved landfill facility approximately 5 miles from the project site and the exported soil would be dumped at an approved landfill facility approximately 17 miles from the project site.

Grading would be accomplished with scrapers, motor graders, water trucks, dozers, and compaction equipment. Building materials would be off-loaded and installed using small cranes, boom trucks, forklifts, rubber-tired loaders, rubber-tired backhoes, and other small- to medium-sized construction equipment as needed.

Demolition and New Construction
Demolition and construction would be accomplished with cranes, dozers, and other heavy equipment.

Waste materials would be uploaded onto large trucks using small cranes, forklifts, and other construction equipment as needed. Pile driving would not be required for new building construction.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the “greenhouse effect.”1 The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows: Short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave radiation; and GHG in the upper atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This “trapping” of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect.

The most abundant GHGs are water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). Many other trace gases have greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation; however, these gases are not as plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have established a Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation. GHGs normally associated with development projects include the following:2
Water Vapor (H2O). Although water vapor has not received the scrutiny of other GHGs, it is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Natural processes, such as evaporation from oceans and rivers, and transpiration from plants, contribute 90 percent and 10 percent of the water vapor in our atmosphere, respectively. The primary human related source of water vapor comes from fuel combustion in motor vehicles; however, it does not contribute a significant amount (less than one percent) to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change, has not determined a GWP for water vapor.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is primarily generated by fossil fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and mobile sources in the past 250 years, 1 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to 12 kilometers. 2 All GWPs are given as 100-year GWP. Generally, GWPs were obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), with the addition of GWPs from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report for fluorinated GHGs that did not have GWPs in the AR4.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion increased by a total of 3.7 percent between 1990 and 2018.3 CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (GWP of 1) for determining GWPs for other GHGs.

Methane (CH4). Methane is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. The United States’ top three methane sources are landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation. Methane is the primary component of natural gas, used for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The GWP of methane is 25.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human related sources. Primary human related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The GWP of nitrous oxide is 298.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning, use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100-year GWP of HFCs range from 12 for HFC-161 to 14,800 for HFC-23.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). PFCs are compounds consisting of carbon and fluorine and are primarily created as a byproduct of aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. PFCs are potent GHGs with a GWP several thousand times that of CO2, depending on the specific PFC. Another area of concern regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric lifetime (up to 50,000 years). The GWP of PFCs range from 7,390 to 12,200.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 is the most potent GHG that has been evaluated by the IPCC with a GWP of 22,800. However, its global warming contribution is not as high as the GWP would indicate due to its low mixing ratio compared to CO2 (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990 versus 365 ppm, respectively).

In addition to the six major GHGs discussed above (excluding water vapor), many other compounds have the potential to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some of these substances were previously identified as stratospheric ozone (O3) depletors; therefore, their gradual phase out is currently in effect. The following is a listing of these compounds:

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs.

The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, all developed countries that adhere to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out of HCFCs. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100-year GWPs of HCFCs range from 77 for HCFC-123 to 2,310 for HCFC-142b. 1,1,1 trichloroethane. 1,1,1 trichloroethane or methyl chloroform is a solvent and degreasing agent commonly used by manufacturers. The GWP of methyl chloroform is 146 times that of CO2.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and aerosols spray propellants. CFCs were also part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Final Rule (57 Federal Register [FR] 3374) for the phase out of O3 depleting substances. Currently, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs in cooling systems and a variety of alternatives for cleaning solvents. Nevertheless, CFCs 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2018, 2020, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2020-main-text.pdf, accessed February 24, 2021.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

remain suspended in the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse effect. CFCs are potent GHGs with 100-year GWPs ranging from 4,750 for CFC-11 to 14,400 for CFC-13.

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
To date, no national standards have been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
• Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
• Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Clean Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs], perfluorocarbons [PFCs], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing Act and the EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the EPA’s regulatory actions.

Presidential Executive Order 13783. Presidential Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth (March 28, 2017), orders all federal agencies to apply cost-benefit analyses to regulations of GHG emissions and evaluations of the social cost of carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane.

State
Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce the State’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is under way, and there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term.

Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The secretary also submits biannual reports to the governor and California Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on California’s resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the executive order, the secretary of Cal/EPA created the California Climate Action Team, made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs. Since 2016, the team’s progress has been tracked annually through the Climate Action Team Report Card, and the most recent Report Card documents reductions of 76 MMTCO2e that occurred in 2019.

Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 seeks to enhance the State’s management of climate impacts including sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation, and extreme weather events by facilitating the development of the State’s first climate adaptation strategy. This Executive Order requires development of climate adaptation strategies and results in consistent guidance from experts on how to address climate change impacts in the State of California.

Assembly Bill 1493. AB 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill) requires that CARB develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHG emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State.” To meet the requirements of AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) in 2004 by adding GHG emissions standards to California’s existing standards for motor vehicle emissions. Amendments to CCR Title 13, Sections 1900 and 1961 and adoption of 13 CCR Section 1961.1 require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet-average GHG emissions limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks within various weight criteria, and medium-duty weight classes for passenger vehicles (i.e., any medium-duty vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds that is designed primarily to transport people), beginning with the 2009 model year. Emissions limits are reduced further in each model year through 2016. The near-term standards were intended to achieve a reduction of about 22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term standards were intended to achieve a reduction of about 30 percent.

Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). The California Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

Senate Bill 32 (SB 32). Signed into law on September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15, which established an interim statewide GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

Executive Order S-1-07. Executive Order S-1-07 proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California, generating more than 40 percent of statewide emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least ten percent by 2020. This order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early-action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32. The development of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update has identified the LCFS as a regulatory measure to reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 emissions target. In calculating statewide emissions and targets, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update has assumed the LCFS be extended to an 18-percent reduction in carbon intensity beyond 2020. On September 27, 2018, CARB approved a rulemaking package that amended the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to relax the 2020 carbon intensity reduction from 10 percent to 7.5 percent and to require a carbon intensity reduction of 20 percent by 2030.

Senate Bill 100 (SB 100). As an update of the California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), SB 100 (Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt-hours (kWh) of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, 60 percent by December 31, 2030, and 100 percent by December 31, 2045. The bill requiresthe California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), CEC, state board, and all other state agencies to incorporate that policy into all relevant planning. In addition, SB 100 requires the CPUC, CEC, and state board to utilize programs authorized under existing statutes to achieve that policy and, as part of a public process, issue a joint report to the Legislature by January 1, 2021, and every 4 years thereafter, that includes specified information relating to the implementation of the policy.

CARB Scoping Plan. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap to achieve the California GHG reductions required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations.

CARB’s Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California would implement to reduce the projected 2020 “Business-as-Usual” (BAU) emissions to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32. These strategies are intended to reduce CO2e emissions by 174 million metric tons. This reduction of 42 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), or almost ten percent from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, would be required despite the population and economic growth forecasted through 2020.

CARB’s Scoping Plan calculated 2020 BAU emissions as those expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. When CARB’s Scoping Plan process was initiated, 2004 was the most recent year for which actual data was available. The measures described in CARB’s Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32.

AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan summarizes recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG reduction necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. The Scoping Plan update also looks beyond 2020 toward the 2050 goal, established in Executive Order S-3-05, and observes that “a mid-term statewide emission limit will ensure that the State stays on course to meet our long-term goal.” The Scoping Plan update did not establish or propose any specific post-2020 goals, but identified such goals in water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

On January 20, 2017, CARB released the proposed Second Update to the Scoping Plan, which identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The Second Update was approved on December 14, 2017 and reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update establishes a new statewide emissions limit of 260 million MTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030.

The 2017 Scoping Plan Update contains the following goals:

1. SB 350
• Increases renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030. • Doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.

2. Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
• Increased stringency (reducing carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020).

3. Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) • Maintaining existing GHG standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles. • Put 4.2 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the roads. • Increase ZEV buses, delivery and other trucks.

4. Sustainable Freight Action Plan
• Improve freight system efficiency.
• Maximize use of near-zero emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy. • Deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030.

5. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy • Reduce emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. • Reduce emissions of black carbon 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030.

6. SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
• Increased stringency of 2035 targets.

7. Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program
• Declining caps, continued linkage with Québec, and linkage to Ontario, Canada. • CARB will look for opportunities to strengthen the program to support more air quality cobenefits, including specific program design elements.

8. 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector.

9. By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.

Senate Bill 375. Acknowledging the relationship between land use planning and transportation sector GHG emissions, SB 375 was passed by the State Assembly on August 25, 2008 and signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008. The legislation links regional planning for housing and transportation with the GHG reduction goals outlined in AB 32. Reductions in GHG emissions can be achieved by, for example, locating employment opportunities close to transit. Under SB 375, each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to encourage compact development that reduces passenger vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and trips so the region can meet a target, created by CARB, for reducing GHG emissions. If the SCS is unable to achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets, then the MPO is required to prepare an alternative planning strategy that Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

shows how the GHG emissions reduction target can be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, and/or transportation measures.

Regional
2020–2045 RTP/SCS
On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) formally adopted The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments – Connect SoCal (2020–2045 RTP/SCS). The SCS portion of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS highlights strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHGs from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). Specially, these strategies are:
• Focus growth near destinations and mobility options;
• Promote diverse housing choices;
• Leverage technology innovations;
• Support implementation of sustainability policies; and • Promote a green region.

Furthermore, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS discusses a variety of land use tools to help achieve the statemandated reductions in GHG emissions through reduced per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Some of these tools include center focused placemaking, focusing on priority growth areas, job centers, transit priority areas, as well as high quality transit areas and green regions.

Local
Riverside General Plan 2025
The Riverside General Plan 2025 (General Plan) is intended to implement the community’s vision for what Riverside can be by guiding decisions and actions and allowing for strategic planning. Specific to GHG emissions, the General Plan Air Quality Element identifies the role the City can play in reducing global warming. The following are relevant objectives and policies from the Air Quality Element. • Objective AQ-1: Adopt land use policies that site polluting facilities away from sensitive receptors and vice versa; improve job-housing balance; reduce vehicle miles traveled and length of work trips; and improve the flow of traffic.
o Policy AQ-1.11: Locate public facilities and services so that they further enhance job creation opportunities.
o Policy AQ-1.15: Establish land use patterns that reduce the number and length of motor vehicle trips and promote alternative modes of travel.
o Policy AQ-1.20: Create the maximum possible opportunities for bicycles as an alternative work transportation mode
• Objective AQ-2: Reduce air pollution by reducing emissions from mobile sources. o Policy AQ-2.3: Cooperate with local, regional, State and Federal jurisdictions to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and motor vehicle emissions through job creation in job-poor areas. o Policy AQ-2.6: Develop trip reduction plans that promote alternative work schedules, ridesharing, telecommuting and work-at-home programs, employee education and preferential parking.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

• Objective AQ-8: Make sustainability and global warming education a priority for the City’s effort to protect public health and achieve state and federal clean air standards. o Policy AQ-8.4: Develop a Climate Action Plan that sets a schedule to complete an inventory of municipal and private greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, sets targets for reductions and methodologies to reach targets.
o Policy AQ-8.10: Establish the 1990 GHG emission baseline for the City government on a per capita basis by the end of 2008.
o Policy AQ-8.11: Implement a climate action plan that will reduce GHG emissions by 7% of the 1990 municipal baseline by 2012.
o Policy AQ-8.12: Develop a calculation for and establish the 1990 GHG emissions baseline on a per capital basis for the City of Riverside as a geographic locale by the end of 2009. o Policy AQ-8.13: Utilizing the City boundaries as defined in 2008, implement a climate action plan to reduce GHG emissions by 7% of the 1990 City baseline by 2012. o Policy AQ-8.14: Establish programs that comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and the City’s General Plan 2025 to increase the quality of air in Riverside. o Policy AQ-8.15: Aggressively support programs at the AQMD that reduce GHG and particulate matter generation in the Los Angeles and Orange County regions to improve air quality and reduce pollution in Riverside.

Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan
The project is located within the La Sierra District of the Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan (Specific Plan; dated November 10, 2009). The vision for the Specific Plan is to designate Magnolia Avenue as a fourlane arterial and a transit corridor; create new zoning categories that promote mixed-use development; condense retail uses into specific areas; develop clear boundaries for districts along the corridor; and revise zoning provisions to be specific to each district.

Riverside Restorative Growthprint
The Riverside Restorative Growthprint (dated January 2016) consists of the City’s Economic Prosperity Action Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP), which work in conjunction to spur entrepreneurship and smart growth while advancing the City’s GHG emission reduction goals through the year 2035. The CAP prioritizes the implementation of policies that enable the City to fulfill the requirements of State initiatives, Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375. The CAP includes a baseline GHG inventory for local government operations and for the community as a whole and establishes emission reduction targets consistent with State law. Through stakeholder engagement and cost-benefit analysis, the CAP resulted in strategies, measures, and actions for reducing emissions that align with the City’s planning priorities and its vision of a future economy based on clean, green businesses and business practices.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) THRESHOLDS
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant adverse impact related to air quality if it would do any of the following:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (refer to Impact Statement GHG-1); and/or Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (refer to Impact Statement GHG-2).

METHODOLOGY
Amendments to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 were adopted to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHG emissions. Consistent with existing CEQA practice, Section 15064.4 gives lead agencies the discretion to determine whether to assess those emissions quantitatively or qualitatively. The amendments do not establish a threshold of significance; rather, lead agencies are granted discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, including looking to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), so long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c)). The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) has also clarified that the CEQA Guidelines amendments focus on the effects of GHG emissions as cumulative impacts, and therefore GHG emissions should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analyses (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)).4 A project’s
incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements to avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.5 The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Nor have the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), CARB, or any other State or regional agency adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the project. Since there is no applicable adopted or accepted numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the methodology for evaluating the project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with Statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions. This evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment.

Notwithstanding, for informational purposes, the analysis also calculates the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the project using recommended air quality models, as described below. The primary purpose of quantifying the project’s GHG emissions is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which calls for a good-faith effort to describe and calculate emissions. The estimated emissions inventory is also used to determine if there would be a reduction in the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions as a result of compliance with regulations and requirements adopted to implement plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. However, the significance of the project’s GHG emissions impacts is not directly based on the amount of GHG emissions resulting from the project.

The project-level analysis calculates the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the project using recommended models, including the most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. GHG emissions from on-road transportation were calculated using trip generation data and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data within the Traffic Impact Analysis, Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion (Traffic Impact Analysis) prepared by LSA Associates (dated June 2021)
6 , and project-specific land use data. GHG emissions from other sources were calculated using CalEEMod default emission rates for Riverside County and project-specific land use 4 See Generally California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, pp. 11-13, 14, 16, December 2009; see also Letter from Cynthia Bryant, Director of the Office of Planning and Research to Mike Chrisman, Secretary for Natural Resources, April 13, 2009. Available at https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C01.pdf, accessed February 24, 2021. 5 14 CCR Section 15064(h)(3). 6 LSA Associates, Traffic Impact Analysis, Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion, dated June 2021.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

data. One CalEEMod model run was conducted to quantify the anticipated GHG emissions from the operation of the proposed hospital tower and parking structure.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACTS ANALYSIS
Impact GHG-1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact GHG-2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
The proposed project would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4, and would not result in other forms of GHGs that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. Direct project related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation.7 CalEEMod was used to calculate direct
and indirect project related GHG emissions. Table 5, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions of the existing uses and the proposed project. CalEEMod outputs are contained within Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Data.

Table 5, Annual Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source6
CO2 CH4 N2O Total
Metric
Tons of
CO2e3
Metric
Tons/yr1
Metric
Tons/yr1
Metric
Tons of
CO2e/yr2
Metric
Tons/yr1
Metric
Tons of
CO2e/yr2
Direct Emissions
Construction5 131.47 0.01 0.37 0.01 2.14 133.97
Area Source 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04
Mobile Source4 1,131.45 0.12 2.98 0.07 21.96 1,156.39
Total Direct Emissions3 1,257.50 0.13 3.34 0.08 23.84 1,290.40 Indirect Emissions
Energy 3,180.72 0.12 3.03 0.04 10.46 3,194.20
Solid Waste 349.05 20.63 515.70 0.00 0.00 864.75
Water Demand 157.79 1.05 26.23 0.03 7.60 191.62
Total Indirect Emissions3 3,687.55 21.80 544.96 0.06 18.06 4,250.56 Total Project-Related Emissions3 5,540.96 MTCO2e/yr
7 According to EPA, Scope 1 GHG emissions are direct emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the Agency, including on-site fossil fuel combustion and fleet fuel consumption. Scope 2 GHG emissions are indirect emissions from sources that are not owned or controlled by the Agency, including emissions that result from the generation of electricity, heat or steam purchased by the Agency from a utility provider.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

Notes:

MTCO2e/yr = Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent per year

1. Emissions calculated using the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.

2. Consistent with CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, carbon dioxide equivalent values were calculated using global warming potentials from the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, https://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-Potential-Values%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_1.pdf, accessed February 24, 2021.

3. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.

4. The mobile source emissions were calculated using the trip generation and VMT data provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis, Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion prepared by LSA Associates (dated June 2021).

5. Total project construction GHG emissions equate to 4,019.21 MTCO2e. Value shown is amortized over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years).

Refer to Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Data, for detailed model input/output data.

Direct Project-Related Source of Greenhouse Gases
Construction Emissions. Because impacts from construction activities occur over a relatively short-term period of time, they contribute a relatively minimal portion of the overall lifetime project GHG emissions.

To adequately include GHG emission from construction in the lifetime/operational GHG estimates, construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime.8 Construction GHG emissions are amortized (i.e., total construction emissions divided by the lifetime of the project, assumed to be 30 years),9 then added to the operational emissions. As seen in Table 5, construction of the proposed project would result in an annual total of 133.97 MTCO2e (amortized over 30 years) which represents a total of approximately 4,019.21 MTCO2e from the overall construction activities.

Area Source. The project would result in nominal area source emissions; refer to Table 5. Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for natural gas and fuel associated with the development of the proposed project. The primary use of natural gas and fuel producing area source emissions by the project would be for consumer products, architectural coating, natural gas hearth, and landscaping.

Mobile Source Emissions. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, the proposed project would result in a maximum of 4,464 daily trips and a net increase of 9,316 daily VMT, which equates to approximately 1,156.39 MTCO2e/year of mobile source-generated GHG emissions as modeled in CalEEMod; refer to Table 5.

Indirect Project-Related Source of Greenhouse Gases
Energy Consumption. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod model and project-specific land use data. Electricity would be provided to the project site via Riverside Public Utilities (RPU). The project would indirectly result in 3,194.20 MTCO2e/year of GHG emissions due to energy consumption; refer to Table 5.

Water Demand. The proposed project’s operations would result in a demand of approximately 47.57 million gallons of water per year. Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would result in 191.62 MTCO2e/year; refer to Table 5.

Solid Waste. Solid waste associated with operations of the proposed project would result in 864.75 MTCO2e/year; refer to Table 5.
8 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf, accessed February 24, 2021. 9 Projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over 30 years, which is the number of years considered to represent the life of the project. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

Project Sustainable Design
The proposed project includes design features that would reduce project related GHG emissions. The project would install water-efficient fixtures in compliance with 2019 CALGreen Code. The proposed project would include recycling services per Assembly Bill 341, which would divert at least 50 percent of the solid waste generation. The project would comply with the 2019 Title 24 standards, which would reduce energy usage by approximately 30 percent compared to nonresidential buildings constructed under the 2016 Title 24 standards.10 These sustainable design features have been incorporated in CalEEMod and shown in Table 5. In addition, although not quantified, the project would achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certificate or better, which would further increase the project’s energy efficiency.

Total Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
As shown in Table 5, the total amount of project related GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources would total 5,540.96 MTCO2e/year.

Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations The GHG plan consistency for the project is based on the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the City’s CAP, and applicable General Plan goals and policies. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update describes the approach the State will take to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHG from the transportation sector. The City’s CAP and General Plan contain strategies, goals, and policies that would help implement energy efficient, transportation, water efficient, and waste reduction measures and would subsequently reduce GHG emissions within the City.

Consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan Update
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, marketbased mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target. These measures build upon those identified in the First Update to the Scoping Plan (2013). Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG emissions targets. Table 6, Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, evaluates the project’s consistency with applicable reduction actions and strategies by emissions source category to determine how the project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions and strategies outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

Table 6, Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
SB 350
Achieve a 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030, with a doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.

Consistent. The proposed project would not be an electrical provider or would delay the goals of SB 350. Furthermore, the project would utilize electricity from Riverside Public Utilities which would be required to comply with SB 350. As such, the project would be in compliance with SB 350.
10 California Energy Commission, 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Fact Sheet, March 2018.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
Increase stringency of carbon fuel standards; reduce the carbon intensity of fuels by 18 percent by 2030, which is up from 10 percent in 2020.

Consistent. Motor vehicles driven within the project area would be required to use LCFS compliant fuels, thus the project would be in compliance with this goal.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) Maintain existing GHG standards of light and heavy-duty vehicles while adding an addition 4.2 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road. Increase the number of ZEV buses, delivery trucks, or other trucks.

Consistent. The proposed project is a medical center
expansion which may include occasional light-, medium-, and heavy-duty truck trips. Truck uses associated with the project would be required to comply with all CARB regulations,
including the LCFS and newer engine standards. The
proposed project would not conflict with the CARB’s goal of adding 4.2 million zero-emission (ZEVs) on the road.

Furthermore, development within the project area would be required to comply with the most current version of the Title 24 and CALGreen Code at the time of construction.

Therefore, the project would install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and EV parking spaces on-site. As such, the project would not conflict with the goals of the Mobile Source Strategy.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum

Table 6 (Continued)
Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve the freight system efficiency and maximize the use of near zero emission vehicles and equipment powered by
renewable energy. Deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030.

Consistent. As described above, truck uses within the
project area would be required to comply with all CARB
regulations, including the LCFS and newer engine standards.

Additionally, the project would not conflict with CARB’s goal to deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030, as the project would comply with all future applicable regulatory standard adopted by CARB. The project would
also install EV charging stations and parking spaces on-site, which would encourage the use of zero-emission vehicles.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy Reduce the GHG emissions of methane and
hydrofluorocarbons by 40 percent below the 2013 levels by 2030. Furthermore, reduce the emissions of black carbon by 50 percent below the 2013 levels by the year 2030.

Consistent. The project does not involve sources that would emit large amounts of methane (refer to Table 5).

Furthermore, the project would comply with all CARB and SCAQMD hydrofluorocarbon regulations. As such, the
proposed project would not conflict with the SLCP reduction strategy.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
Increase the stringency of the 2035 GHG emission per capita reduction target for metropolitan planning organizations (MPO).

Consistent. As shown in Table 7, the project would be
consistent with the SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and would
not conflict with the goals of SB 375.

Post-2020 Cap and Trade Programs
The Cap-and-Trade Program will reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from major sources (covered entities) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions while
employing market mechanisms to cost-effectively achieve the emission-reduction goals.

Not Applicable. As seen in Table 5, the project would not generate GHG emissions over 25,000 metric tons per year cap and trade emission threshold. Therefore, the project would not conflict with this goal.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2017 Scoping Plan, November 2017.

Consistency with the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS includes performance goals that were adopted to help focus future investments on the best-performing projects, as well as different strategies to preserve, maintain, and optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is forecast to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by eight percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets adopted in March 2018. Five key SCS strategies are included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to help the region meet its regional VMT and GHG reduction goals, as required by the State. Table 7¸ Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS shows the project’s consistency with these five strategies found within the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As shown therein, the proposed project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project GHG Emissions Technical Memorandum