Agmt17 Environmental Science Associates (ESA)

Browse Search

4.4 Cultural Resources Context: No cultural resources are anticipated to apply to the Project site, including specifically information regarding any (mown sacred sites. 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Sefsmlcity Context: The Project area is located in a seismically active area that is underlain in part by fill and relatively thick compressible Bay Mud deposits. Development under these kinds of conditions typically require deep foundation systems to avoid or minimize potential seismic hazards such as groundshaking, liquefaction, and differential settlement. Key issues include existing underlying materials which are typically insufficient to support most improvements without some application of geotechnical preparations. on communities, or wildlife or migratory use areas. Consultant will: • Review and update as necessary information regarding the Projects potential effect to historic and cultural resources in the 2015 Draft EIR. Input and lists from the Native American Heritage Commission NAHC) provided for the 2015 Draft EIR is considered su table this analysis, however, ESA will conduct or update actions required for AB52 compliance, which did riot previously apply to the Project. • Reconfirm development mitigation measures to address accidental discovery of cultural resources during ground - disturbing construction efforts, ifwarranted. Consultant will: • Reconfirm the types and depths of materials that underlie the site; all site soils geologic conditions and materials; major earthquake fault systems in the region and relative to the plan area. No changes are anticipated from information presented in the 2015 Draft EIR. • Evaluate geological and seismic safety effects related to construction and operation of the Project • As appropriate, identify project -level mitigation measures to address geological and seismic conditions, specifically from project and site-specific requirements or recommendations for geotechnical preparations and foundation systems identified in the Project -specific geotechnical /soils report prepared by a qualified consultant of the project sponsor. • Identify other potential hazards such as liquefaction, erosion, and expansive soils. • Evaluation geological and seismic safety related to operations under the Project. To assess whether the Project would have project -level impacts or contribute to any cumulative impact, Consultant will: Page 16 of 26 REV: 11-08-17 PR ATTY/AGR.2017.262/ESA / Harbor View Project Data Needs: • Potential maximum depth of excavation for construction. • Earth Calculations/Grading Wan. Assumptions: • Minimal change is anticipated to the Setting from the 2015 Draft EIR. • Due to the developed and paved nature of the site, no field surveys of the site are proposed. • No historic architectural resources are assumed onsite. • No federal Section 106 (i.e., consultation with SHPO) is required. Data Needs: • Site/Project-specific Geotechnical Report Assumption: • Minimal change is anticipated to the Setting from the 2015 Draft EIR. • No soils testing is included in this scope of work.