Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutX2018-3768 - Soilsxw lib--7ro�b Zcl 17 _ ?--o rb WWING DIVISION =DESIGN- Memorandum FEB 2 2 2019 Page 1 To: I Parke Miller WS.FLM From: AJ Atry _ Chris Zadoorian Company: Lincoln Property Company Date: ( February 20, 2019 Address: 150 Paularino, Suite D182 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 cc: Stephanie Lin and Brent Jacobsen, Rios Clementi Hale Kira Delk, KPFF Consulting Engineers G_DI Project: 1 L -Prop -6-01 RE: Proposed Landscape Improvements - 1 500 Quail Street, We performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed landscape improvements to be constructed at 1 500 Quail Street in Newport Beach, California and summarized the results in a report dated November 12, 2018. Our report was submitted to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department for their review and they issued review comments in a letter dated January 7, 2019 (Plan Check No.: 2917-2018). We issued a memorandum on February 13, 2019 in response to the City of Newport beach's review comments and they issued additional review comments in a letter dated February 14, 2019 (Plan Check No.: 2917-2018). The Community Development Department's additional review comments are presented below followed by our responses. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 3 Based on the response provided, please provide bearing capacity computations with internal friction angle of 20 degrees and show graph to support how you determined cohesion value. GEODESIGN'RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 3 Based on our verbal discussions with the plan review engineer, we performed supplemental laboratory testing to provide further justification for the shear strength parameters utilized in our allowable bearing capacity analysis. Our allowable bearing pressure calculations are presented in Attachment A along with an updated graphical summary of the direct shear test results, including our interpreted internal angle of friction (phi) and cohesion value. Please note, that as discussed with the reviewer, the values used in our analysis are conservative. 2121 S Towne Centre Place, Suite 104 1 Anaheim, CA 92806 1 714.634.3701 MDESIGNZ Memorandum Page 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 4 Please provide computation to justify ultimate coefficient of friction of "0.6". GEODESIGN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 4 Based on our review of the updated data, a revised ultimate coefficient of friction equal to 0.4 shall be used. The ultimate value may be used in conjunction with a reduced ultimate passive resistance equal to 200 psf, as indicated in our November 12, 2018 report. A coefficient of friction calculation is presented in Attachment B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 5 Please clearly identify depth of proposed remedial grading for foundation design. GEODESIGN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 5 Section 6.1 of our November 12, 2018 report recommends that new spread and continuous footings should be established on properly compacted fill. This recommendation was based on the presence of a relatively loose sand layer in boring B-1 at a depth of approximately 4.5 feet. However, since the time of our investigation, the proposed development concept has evolved so that new structures are planned only at the southerly side of the site, adjacent to our boring B-2. Based on the data from boring B-2, new spread and continuous footings may be established directly in the native stiff silt and/or clay present at the planned foundation bottom. Thus, remedial grading for foundation support is not required. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 6 Limits of Remedial Grading and any shoring shown on plan & sections. GEODESIGN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 6 As noted previously, remedial grading is not required for foundations and temporary shoring is not planned as part of the proposed development. 2121 S Towne Centre Place, Suite 104 1 Anaheim, CA 92806 1 714.634.3701 MDESIGNZ Memorandum Page 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 7 Surficial Stab. With Appropriate Cohesion GEODESIGN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 7 The site is relatively flat and significant vertical cuts and/or temporary construction slopes are not planned. Temporary excavations will be required locally for foundation construction, however, we do not anticipate these excavations will exceed 4 feet in height. Based on the shear strength parameters presented in Attachment A, temporary vertical cuts on the order of 4 feet or less will be grossly stable. Supporting calculations are presented in Attachment B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 8 Shear Test Rate of Shear > 0.005'%min., or strength > Site Specific to be justified GEODESIGN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 8 Shear strength testing performed in our laboratory was done so in accordance with ASTM 3080 and the rate of shear did not exceed 0.005 inches per minute. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 9 Static and Seismic Settlements: Analysis if Diff. Sett. >0.5'130' GEODESIGN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 9 The vertical loading on the proposed foundations is relatively light and we do not anticipate total or differential settlement to exceed % inch. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 10 Please review the Grading, Foundation and Landscape Plans for compliance with geotechnical recommendations of this report. 2121 S Towne Centre Place, Suite 104 1 Anaheim, CA 92806 1 714.634.3701 MODESIGNZ Memorandum Page 4 GEODESIGN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 10 We were furnished with the Grading, Foundation and Landscape Plans dated February 8, 2019 prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers for the proposed improvements. We reviewed the plans for general conformance with the recommendations presented in our geotechnical report and based on our review, the plans were prepared in general accordance with the recommendations presented in our geotechnical engineering services report dated November 12, 2018. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continues service to you. Please contact us if you have questions regarding this memorandum. cjz Attachment Submitted via email only Document ID: HCP-1-01-012119-geom-CPG-plan-review-cjz © 2019, GeoDesign, Inc. All rights reserved. 2121 S Towne Centre Place, Suite 104 1 Anaheim, CA 92806 1 714.634.3701 ATTACHMENT A W" i w n w a `G wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww II ^ N n" Z Z 0000. ....... ,.��... O 000000000 .....° N II S J J V V V V V V 2 p V J J J V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V } N i wwwwwNNNNw�wwwwwNNr� T Z 0 wN -owN owN-owN - owN oa z J V J V V V V V V V V V I A A G Y A A d A A A A A A L Y A A A A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A A A A G A A A A A AAAA .P C A A d d d d d A A A A A d d d d A A A A A A Z A d d d d Add AAAA d d G d AAA A'� D V P �n Aw O l00 W A N - O to N w O Po O N O w N S w 9 3 c 9 A v N N O D s E a N ^ 0 g o o O - � 3 v O II � uOi 3 0 ' n l� w 1p O 3 rTi Baa O w n J J N O N Foundation Depth (ft) W N O O O O D N 0 O O P N ca N d 1 O � O � V N N N C A � o a o u o � 0 0 rn 0 0 0 o 0 0 l 1 a I I I T A A A w l0 �n N 1p O 1p 1p W V Oo O N N N � O V W O N to KEY 6,000 MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SOAKED • B-1 2.5 12 117 5,000 m B-1 5.0 13 111 YES � B-2 2.5 . 18 7 08 YES * 6-2 5.0 23 106 YES 4,000 B-2 10.0 15 114 YES LL a 2 H u W O W 3,000 cew 2 2,000 • �'c 0 0 1,000 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) a 0 r a a U z J to 0 U u s `o x 0 0 z z 1 DESIGN? L.PROP-6-01 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS NOVEMBER 2018 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE L 2121 s Towne Centre Piaee-Suite 104 Anaheim CA 92806 714.6343701 www.9erdeugnn,xii NEWPORT BEACH, CA KEY EXPLORATION SAMPLE DEPTH NUMBER (FEET) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SOAKED • B-1 2.5 12 117 YES m B-1 5.0 13 111 YES � B-2 2.5 . 18 7 08 YES * 6-2 5.0 23 106 YES o B-2 10.0 15 114 YES ATTACHMENT B . =DESIGN= ewA-r rsF ,A 2) VP, �.'A 5', 10, ),i ,, G = svv p= f f / ��20 �l`( LPr•n — b -yt DATE CHECKED CHECKED BY JOB NUMBER ff I }bO 4.,,.1 tiTro/ (iai Lr d � h PROJECT REFERENCES/ NOTES N . ,fir Coo 2-�SnJpsr) iZf�blfr3 (O,N�� 1(% D I CAC. NO. MDESIGNZ MWINIG MSION Memorandum FEB 1 4 2019 Page 1 To: I Parke Miller i. ---- From`. AJ Atry _ _` 1f i4 iQ Chris Zadoorian _ CompanyLincoln Property Company — _Date— February 13, 2019 _ Address: ; 150 Paularino, Suite D182 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 cc: Stephanie Lin and Brent Jacobsen, Rios Clementi Hale Kira Delk, KPFF Consulting Engineers r GDI Project: ' L -Prop -6-01 RE Proposed Landscape Improvements - 1500 Quail Street We performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed landscape improvements to be constructed at 1 500 Quail Street in Newport Beach, California and summarized the results in a report dated November 12, 2018. Our report was submitted to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department for their review and they issued review comments in a letter dated January 7, 2019 (Plan Check No.: 2917-2018). The Community Development Department's review comments are presented below followed by our responses. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 1 Please utilize Porchet Method to determine Infiltration rate infeasibility for this project. GEODESIGN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 1 We performed field percolation testing in general conformance with the Deep Percolation Test Procedure outlined in Appendix VII of the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), dated December 20, 2013. As such, the Porchet method was utilized to determine our design stormwater infiltration rate of 8.38 inches per hour in the vicinity of PT -2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 2 Please identify location of PT -I and PT -2 on Site plot Plan Figure 2. 2121 S Towne Centre Place, Suite 104 1 Anaheim, CA 92806 1 714.634.3701 MDESIGNZ Memorandum Page 2 GEODESIGN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 2 Please find the updated figure 2 showing the approximate locations of PT -1 and PT -2 attached at the end of this memorandum. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 3 Please provide explanation why the direct shear test does not conform to the general ASTM D 3080 Standard? Please provide shear values for foundation design recommendations. GEODESIGN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 3 Direct shear testing was performed on select soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D3080. We performed single point tests on select samples in order to give a generalized estimate for the upper soils. Based on the testing, an angle of internal friction of 20 degrees and a cohesion of 1,200 psf were used for design. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 4 Please review the Grading, Foundation and Landscape Plans for compliance with geotechnical recommendations of this report. GEODESIGN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENT 4 We were furnished with the Grading, Foundation and Landscape Plans dated February 8, 2019 prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers for the proposed improvements. We reviewed the plans for general conformance with the recommendations presented in our geotechnical report and based on our review, the plans were prepared in general accordance with the recommendations presented in our geotechnical engineering services report dated November 12, 2018. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continues service to you. Please contact us if you have questions regarding this memorandum. cjz Attachment Submitted via email only Document ID: HCP -1-01-0121 19-geom-CPG-plan-review-cjz © 2019, GeoDesign, Inc. All rights reserved. 2121 S Towne Centre Place, Suite 104 1 Anaheim, CA 92806 1 714.634.3701 aYTa,aa F'vl �, Ra y y a+atiiJ � s W; r INt W -FT HK'H PTG 'sip TAEaUBW!fN}S U14 "000 SEWN, PNOVk}E LAY. RAStOP(YKLoIOUtit TS IWi STt E".v'KET FINCt - NT, VAPIEr, PT -1 +0B-1 EKjtoufo t Ft.YiNITlAw (N} IGtT'T, IPP melmwxa LEGEND: B-10 BORING PT -1 * PERCOLATION TEST - - 0 B-2 INIOPKWIL:AH a PLAN11N3. Tm ye PY # a, lul T -IN WOOD LOI#TPii I�E LILT SEATPI SEAfINU III OOOP_ TYP r as itl PA'At1GT6 RfASA1N Pox IE$UGHt POLE TO kEMIN %q.gNi tltCImcAL Nta[Ptht:tt }T't P. O!'�I UGKPLAZA INl kXWC. PM':MO Y� IN) }pm E, tTP • i� r «.}�' IN,1 i0 -Kt H/-iN P7D. 9Rt �l�,s:.�<. TaELk:,s. tiYl�N.AOT W ItffE IO F:ENLas}. TYf. If7Sltl{v.MIK'tO _ REMAIN. TYP. Q JNI o m (uA _ WVS 0 30 60 0 a<M (SCALE IN FEET) SITE PLAN BASED ON IMAGE OBTAINED FROM RCH STUDIOS SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 N W u M 0 B-2 *PT -2 ye PY # a, lul T -IN WOOD LOI#TPii I�E LILT SEATPI SEAfINU 1 r as r «.}�' IN,1 i0 -Kt H/-iN P7D. 9Rt �l�,s:.�<. TaELk:,s. tiYl�N.AOT W ItffE IO F:ENLas}. TYf. If7Sltl{v.MIK'tO _ REMAIN. TYP. Q JNI o m (uA _ WVS 0 30 60 0 a<M (SCALE IN FEET) SITE PLAN BASED ON IMAGE OBTAINED FROM RCH STUDIOS SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 N W u M GENERAL NOTES OF NEWPORT BEACH: 1. MNL X .1., RSWLL ATURT M 10 G. IS OF ME ..'BY BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (NBMC), THE PROJECT SOILS FORMS AND SPECIAL REWIRWENR OF THE PUMP. 2, DUST SHALL BE COMRCLLED BY WATERING ANO/OR OUST PALLNTM. J. HARY TL ES .MEL BEN .DID ON THE ME WRING .1 CDXSIRUCTION IND,. WORK HOURS ME ENDED FROM CAR AM TO IBM PN MOMMY THROUGH FRIDAY. RED Am TO GLEN PM WURWYS: AND NO WORK ON'SUNMIE AND HMIDAYS PER SECTOR 10-2B Of THE LEND. 5 XOR" IX X-SXN, OELNEN AND REMWAL SHALL BE CD DUEO PER SUCH ON TO-. OF ME AMI 6. THE STAMPED M Of APPROVED PLANS LULL BE W ME JOB SIE R ALL TIMES. 7, REflmTEE AND CDXIMCMR ME RESPONSIBLE PER LOGTING AND PSIELTNG BUTU APPRDrED SHORING, DRAINAGE PRONSIONS IND PROTECNVE MEASURES MUST BE USED 10 PREFECT MEETING PROPERTIES DURING THE GRADING OPERA}.. 9. CHARGES ANO PUBTIC TALKS .MLL BE gBONEDGED IN MB.1 AW 1.1 UNINRW PLUMBING CODE AND APPROVED BY THE BUIMING EITCML. 10 ME ME S FOR BEEF OR EXPORT OF WERINS SMLL EDF.. N THE "N WAYFC HAMEM AMID PROCEDURES SIMLL DOWN BRUSHCNATER 15 Or INC NEMC 11. POSNNE DRAINME SHALL BE MIMNNED AWAY }ROM ALL BUILDING AME SLOPE MEAS 12. FMLURE 10 REQUEST INSPEC11DN5 AND/OR WVf REM APPLE DEEPER ..RCL DEVICES DX -SR M THE APPROPRIATE TINES SHALL RESULT IN A'OF MEASURER 13, ALL PVSBC O. M' PIPE SUALL CONSIST OF PJC OR ABS PUBLIC CONCRETE 40 OR OR 35 OR AR 3000 ARM GRN JOINTS. 14. EM ANDS NS PLAYER, CEMENT, =I, MOWM OR TITER DEFEND SHALL DE PLEASED TO IUs, OUNS, CENTERS OR FORM DPAINS. ALL MATERIAL AHD RASE SHALL BE FEMORO ROM ME all. 11RDON �l TOMMY EROSION LOMRDL PIANS ME REQUIRED FROM .!OBER 15 TO MAY 15 2. FISSION COFFEE CONGO SHNE BE AVNNBLE CN -AE BETWEEN OCTOBER 15 AND MAY 11 3 BEMEEN OCTOBER 15 AND WY 15 EDITION CONTROL MOSM URES SLL UC BE IN PE AT THE p0 OF EACH WORNING DAY WHENEVER ME FNE-MY PRCRNILIT OF DAN EXCEEDS 30 PERCENT. DURING THE RE MASER or THE SUR, THEY STALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF ME WORKING DAY. ARGUES ME DALLY MERRLL PR08A9 PREEI S PERCENT. 4. TEMPERATE FOUND MAINS ASHEN REQUIRED, SHALL BE INSTALLED AXE MNMNN. OR ME FRANCE Or THE PROJECT. EMB SIR REXGR4YNG METING SINLL BE SCHEDULED 45 HOURS PRIOR TO UAT Or GRADING WITH THE fOLLMYIXG PEOPLE PRESENT: OWNER, FRANCE DESTRUCTION, DESIGN LML ENGINEER, SI15 ENGINEER REQUEST,, GUY BUILDING INSPETOR S THEIR REPRESEMATMS. REQUIRED PEW REMEMBER WILL BE .TJX. AT ME .FUINC 2 RG PAVING MEETING WAY 9E SCHEDULED 40 HOURS PRIOR TO FUEL OF ME S B RNE PREPMATON .R THE WING WON THE ALLOWING PEOPLE PRESENT: OWNER. WIND CN CMM,, RESIGN CRT ENGINEER, 50115 ENGINEER, CITY BUILDING NSPECHR OR MDR REMPRIERMATRAS PULSED HETI ISPFCO.S WILL BE OUTLINED AT ME MEEMI OMING /nnc 2 ELDERS SHALL BE COMPACT. TO NO LESS MM 90 PERCENT RE 1 COMP AEON OM TO THE FINISHED SURFACE. 3. ALL RIS .MEL BE COMPACTED THROUGHOUT TO A MINIMUM OF 90 PERCENT DUANE COMPACTS AS OPERSIGNED BY ARM TGE METHOD 1557, AND APPROVED BP THE DOUG ENGINEER. COMPACTOR RTS WALL BE PERFORMED AOPROXIWTELY EVERY MD MET IN F.S. HIS. MG OF SVmCIEM ..NY M WHET TO THE DVERALL COSACEXIX EFA. MPUED 10 ME FILL AREAS. 5. HUS FUEL BE KEYED OR BENCHED IMO SUMMERS IMA X B. ALL W.NC HUS SHALL BE APPRGV. BY ME SOILS ENGINEER OR REMOVED BEFORE OR CRUSHED IN u CM'IDNU AND DUSE HUL LE PRCR 10 THE PLACEMENT OF 1111N FEEL RESPECT. 9. ME W L.AFM OF ME SUBDRNxS SPELL BE BENCHED IN ME FOR MR UUP 11. ME SIaRPIuxG OF. MUS M RX SHALL BE AWROVVO BY THE FUND OMSIax. 12. UNTROWNG Or NL SLOPES MO PAS PIPE. BE IN ACCORDANCE MY CHARLES 15 Or THE NBMC. ]. ALL CM SLOPES SPALL BE INVESTIGATED RM DURING AND AFTER GRADING BY AN ENGINEERWG GEOMOM TO DETERMINE IF AM SLwIUR' PROBLEM EXIST. SHOULD EXCEPT ON MSCRSE MY OWL ICM M M OR POIEHINL GALCGICM MANDS. ME ENGINEEENo GE -00 FALL RECOMMEND MO SUBMB NECESSARY T MU10 ME BUILDING IWO. HE APPRWA . 14. WHERE SUPPORT LR BUIIRESSING OF CM AND NATURAL SLOPES IS DOERNWS To BE NECESSARY HE THE ENGINEERING DESCRIBE AND .MIS EWIXRR, THE SOILS ENGINEER WILL OBTAIN APPROVAL Of DESIGN, MMION AND CNCUUTONS FROM THE SHIPPING OM51. PWOR To .NSIRUCTDX. 15. THE ENGINEERING GOLDBERG AND .IIS ENGINEER SHALL INSPECT ADD TEST THE DJIBOUTI OF ALL BUr MS BITS MD ATESL 10 ME SABILLY or ME SLOPE MD AWACEM STRUCTURES UPON TEMPLETON, 16. WHEN CM BANK AGE BROUGHT TO NEAR OWE THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BRLL onERMINE G ME BEDRaK Is EXENSMM MLIURED S rAUUED ME WILL READILY P/JISNR DMR. IF CONSIDERED NECESSARY BE THE ENGINGENG OWL 19 MD S0115 ENGINEER, A COMPACTED ME BUNKO WILL BE PLACED. V. THE ENGINEEMNO GMWGvQ SUALL PERFORM REFORM INSPECTIONS HONG CAWED 18. PLUTONIUM OF BoxcoNPLIMGe IF, IN ME COURSE OF MUwxG THBR RfSPONSIBXUY, THE CML ENGINEER, THE GgIS ENGINEER, THE EXGIXEEMNG GEOL.IST OR THE TESTING FERRY FINDS THAT THE EVER IS Nor BEING DONE IS CONARMMCE T THE APPROYEo COMING RAMS, WE HIERKSMANCIES GMLL BE BEPOM. INM.NRY IxDOUG IF THE PERSON IN CHARGE Or TIE GROPING MOURN AND l0 THE WISING ISUPECME, RE.MMENWIONS M DEPENDENT MEASURES, IF FOES ,, SMLL BE SUBMITTED 70 THE BELONG URMMET HCR MPRWAL GENERAL SITE NOTES: GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES: LEGEND: SIMIN (NR RERRENLE ONLY) PROJECT DIRECTORY: BEGUN (FOR MTETENLE ONLY) CLZO PPEgwR B s umU STEEL NOES: f CI.. PANNG PVN PE P WR& C5L1 1, RX HEREON SHILL BE DONE IN ACGOROMCE WITH THE STMMD HMRUCIUML STEEL SHALL BE DETAILED, GBRICATCD ANO NEEDED Dr A CITY AM RI�Osu C�LEMLENIE HALE SNppS GEO WE DESIGN, INC. ESIG`NN SPECIFIGTDNS MR PUERTO WORKS CONSTRUCTED% USES! PETER ME SUPPLfM[N5. PROVED AND ULENSED ILS Moot FABRICATOR IN ACCORDANCE UP TIE AND SPfLRIGTOX FOR THE DESIGN, FABRIG1pN AND ERECTION OF $IRUCNFAL FEEL ®®®® LML LIMITS CF WORK WE$! fxPO PMII BLVD E121 CEMCq PL SUITE LOS ANGELES. G 90018 ANWEm CA ARMS ID< 2. ALL GRACING WORK STALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WISH ME REQUIREMENTS Me RECOMMENDATIONS FUTURES IN THE GEOTECHNICAL SHOP. REPORT OF FOR BUILDINGS (LATEST EDRIDX), AND WITH CHASER 22 OF THE CODE 2. iTHHEE RTRLUCIURA.REL FABRICATED SHALL FRESH SHOP GRANULAR TO ME ----- SHEET MATCH PDT TEL 323.TB5.180D TEL 714 04.3701 COMM.: BE'. ...B CONTACT'. MRS UDOCIPS GEDTECHSOPE ENGINEERING SCRJILES, PROPOSED WIDSCME IMPI MESS TOO QUAL STREET NEWPORT BEACH. GUFORAW COMPLEED BS METHOD INC.IXC. ON LOSSMR AflOUTLETS AAD STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS RENEW AND SS IX FE FABRICATION B lNt101A1IGY WIFE CONS ENGINES xBRUSH 12, 2018 AND ALL APPLICABLE ADI 3, BOLT HOES USED IN STEEL SHV1 BE .IEE Of BELT USED. MC AS NEATER SURFACE EI ON/UTILRY ELEVATION 702 SOUTH RPKER AMIE Y10O SIP.EU 3. E%ISTING TOPOM4PXY SHOWN HEREON WAS .KEN IRO. A SLLYRY RATED OCTOBER 30, EOM BY XPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS. M-ERTY IMES ARE &SED ON THE 4. ALL STRUCTURAL SER SURFACES THAT ME ENCASED IS IMERCIE CR HASONLE, / nnm nl IXISTNG 52FACC aW1ORXAG71 RY ELEV ON LOS ANGELES TEL 2134180.1 G 9.11 ALi.A. SURJEY HIED 6/6/18 BY BLOCK k CLARK 4. THE CONTRACTOR 51NLL ASSUME S%£ AND RESPoXP FOR ME JOB SPRgY ON fIREPR.FlNG. OR ANY EXCISED BY BUIIOIXG nX6H. SI4ll BE LEFT UNPNMEO. , -am" COMPRESSION AIME r�AV2M1326BEA.5294 MIA( SINE GCNDRpNS. INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS A40 DIFF"i DURING iXE PERSON LWRSE OF CO.DR B GF 1H6 PROIELI. MIS RUVIgENEM SHALL At" .TRY S" ALL LL Wdp NG IS GBALT BESWINE BY CEW19ED IN CONFORMITY WITH THEDERS USING PROJECT XPMIFCAJQNSNIXI �WE WEUNOL �pT RPN (DIRECTION AND GRADE) CCMINUOUGLY. AND SHALL NO BE UMUED TO NORMAL WORXING HOURS. CODE FOR WELDING IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (AWS OUT UT61 Bm.) Cf THE ANERILAN WRONG SHIFT. SEE SPECTRAL INSPECTIONS .IS. FOR WELDING �1 SLOPE (DIRECTION AND RUN RISE) ABBREVtATI0N5: 5. POOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTED, M .WR DR FALL NERVY ALL JOIN INGUA KING FOR GWLINO. DRAINAGE AND UNDERGROUND FKILRES INCLUDING LOCATION INSPECTION REWREMENE. FF- 100.00 Pp0/fIXISXS DOOR ELEVAIpN We ASPWITG LONLREI[ .X MWHOLE D ELEVATOR Of "TING UNDERGROUND FACILITES AT LRSSINGS WRIT PROPOSED ERGED FEE US METAL SHAPEDI 5" ALL EMERGED BN EIA( OF WALK (N) NOFIX UNDERGROUND Mi.11S U COHERENT DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN OH THE PVNS E CRRMIOR S1NLL WHEN THE ENGI PERE AND SHNL NO! BEGIN CORMUCTIOH STRUCTURAL UNLESS WGLANEfl MOTHER F KXIpN AS NEEDEDON PUNS PROJECT PEW WELDS IMPOSED TO IN WEATHER VN PRIME j$ BLDG BUILDING MS Wo i0 SOIL UNTIL INC D.C. LgOSTIMS HAVE .1. EV..B AND BMW OR BRUSH /COLD GLLWEINC. REHR TD A9LH DRAWING FOR STEEL CURB/81CK OF CURBNCHER ON BEGIN WSK PVINER AREA 6. DRAWINGS ARE CONSIDER. i0 BE A PORI OF THE CO.RCT ME ALOMRMIOR fIXISN. RUNNING WALL/TRE WALL WS IDMH OF SIGRS P. PRAM OF .NXECASE FALL BE RESPONPRIOR FOR THE RMryO NATION OF COORDINATION OF ALL X TM - HOPES BNP BEST .GJAPEN . PRACTICES PN POST INDICTOR VALW PRIOR 10 SEE SIAM M .NENTIONOX. NAY CO DRAWINGS AND ME OCCUR TIAL OCCUR SHALL BE BEDWM iD ME DF THE LT 'MMDRRETO REPORT BY GSOESIW, BASED ON GSA COPY ITHE ppOPERh UXE/RIGH OF WAY LB CATCH Bt51N PCC PORTWRE CEMENT LREIE THE 0 THE ST0.41 OF .NSRULTDN SO THAT PUBLISHES BE ISSUED. SUED CICT INC RATED EGROP REFTOX INC. 12. 2010. COPY OF THE REPoRf SMLL BE gVNUgLE AT O _ CENTER LINE CI LAS} ISN G V PRESSURE REDUCING VALE A. WORK IN MWEPET WITH E .NIPAT AT M DOCUMENTS OR ANY LODE N TS THE JOB SITE AT N111NE5. JOB S E AT AIDE LL L9RER LINE TS WALL OM ABC A NO E ANDS BE CORRECTED BY ARE GOMRACIOR AT MULE OWN IXPENSE ALTO pi NO EKPEXSE N LITE OWNER OR LACHRECI. 3. FOOTINGS ME D[SICNEO GSEO ON THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION X PENCE CMU CONCRETE MASOXR VNR q R .,IS LXMRIDE RMIVS 7, THE GAGUM LR PREPARING WIRE FLATS MU NOT BE RESPONSIBLE MR. OR WILD ALLOWABLE NU BARING • L.0 PSF / Y / / ID BE OEN.ISHM GO .BY SERF RECIANGULLA GAT IRON PIPE SR. UMUMORMED CHANCES 10 OR USES M THESE PIANS ALL C URNEDS TO ML PAiSM URM PRESSURE 2R PCF DOUG CONCOM ED R.1 G ­ Las MUST BE IN Norp AND MUST BE APPRWED SI ME REPARER Or MESE corm fM OF CUEING MOTOR p W BES W R my • ALLOWNE" BGRRG MY BE INCREASED BY ONE MIRE FOR WIND DR SEISMICLow EMEGLS UN RMESTp wAifR (s) M- Df -WAY $9Mx NEWS AYME. B. NEWS DENTIS ON SWINGS SWSM 1L E PRECEDENCE OVER GENERAL NOTED S AND MIG/ DEQUE WHERE NO DUMB ARE WENCONSTRU , ttION Per BE AS GS E. ♦ ♦ IXISIING OPA'NACE ORFLTON OF iLGW (U USI Se Dr." NNus SHOWN .R SIMILAR WORK. FOOTINGS FALL ELAN ON FIRM NATURAL OILS OR PROPERLY COMPACTED FILE PER gCRMMENMTMS OF SETS PEEPER MINIMUM DEPTH OF F.TNG BMW Loust fL EWE OF NOTED 50 STORM MRS9. ME IX6TENCE. LOCATION AND GIWGCIRIRICS OF UNDERGROUND EITHER IN.RWTON ANACEM FINAL 0.11 SMLL BE 1B INe.., me FL OR SEEN EIEVgTION SSMN SA1. 1. MAYHOLE SHOWN ON THESE PIANS RAVE MEII SUNNI FROM A RUM OF AVNIABLE RECORD RUC ELSOM I ELE BECAL 55 SATISFY DUST EMU,. No REPRESENTATION 5 MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF S END IRTIY INFCRWIM THE CB'W A OR SHELL WE PRECNMONM! .ACCRED TI 3 TOR OE-WATERIXG Of EXCAVATIONS FROM FEES SURFACE WOMRAGEOR TO THOSE ER, GROUND WAIF CR SEEPAGE IF FIGURES. � -100- VCR SULFUR PPOSED RIDGELO RO EX. Oq IXbT. EXISTING Me ..DROECT INE MILS LINES VIEW WHO MY MITER USES NM OF RECORD OR MDR -1.- PROPOSED MINOR .HOUR FDC FIRE EEPMTMEM CONNEGIIS SDMX BORN DRAM WEDGED SHOWN ON THEE PLANS 4. DLXMWI OR SHALL ROME .R DESIGN AND INSULATION OF ALL CRIBBING. G AND SHSING REQUIRED MD SHALL BE SLFEY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL --------- RACY LINE FF FINCH. FLUORTC IOP OF CURB M. IF M ANY TurME o % GRADING OPEMTDNS. ANY UNGWMF GEOLOGICAL COLUMBUS ME ENCOUNTERED. OWING IN TMT ARG MLL STOP UNTIL APPRBY40 CXLAVAIM MOCE.RES INCLUDING FUNDING , BURNING AND REQUEST OF N EW PERFORM SMUCNR6, BREUS AND CULRIES IN A.ORAMLE AM ALL NATOML. -e- PULSE BREAK UNE FC FLUOR CHASE HANDSOME) TEL TELEPHONE CORRfLINE MEASURES ARE DBTNNED STATE ABC LOLL GLEN ORDRENlL6. M FINISHED SURFACE (ARGUMENT) TOP OF GRATE 1 PROPOS. CRWF IS THE FINAL GRADE AHO NY THE GRADE. 5. EXGVAIRN FOOTINGS SHNE BE MPTE BY ME INSPECTORS TORS e SIRE LINE M HR BMW` 105 TOP OF MRS " CUOMRPCTDF SMLL SUCTION! THE T SEE OF THE PAVEU SECTS AXD/OR / IM AN ENGINEER PRIM 10 PACING WE LOMRSPECT i0 AND REINFORIS -------- SVWCS R RGN UNE M OP OF WALL INE 955 NGSCME IOPSUt SECTION TO APRA'E 4i 1Nf ROUGH GPP➢E [IEVAIMX. INSPECTION W TS. ME ER Or OR RIEN INSPFLTON Of IMGVATION IS PUCY. INSPECTOR TO SUBMR LETTER Of LOMPI4HLL. FT OR RU IS igA{RL SIpUL IZ .LESS .WEE BE BETWEEN CONTOUR UNLS AND SPOT fLEVAIMXS �� N USS SSB TRAFFIC G. BOK ED ED THE I UNLESS OINEMISE SHOXN OX ME PUNS 6, ALL IXLAVAibXS sHLLt BE PROPERLY MCXFILUD. SCO- .TORN ORNX ry WE V WE VALVE M TmIGL 1 . p AND FOREIGN PASCAL SMALL BE REMUL� ROM ME SITE ADD DISP.ED SEPT Ru CONCRETE HORS Q STORM ONNN INI£T TW FIRE WAEp N TRENSION ATADMMD DMP SINES. THE CENTRALLY SEOUL .TNN NECESSARY PERMITS FOR THE tMSDORMON M MATERIAL TO MG FROM THE SITE. 1, ALL CONCRETE .NSIRUCDON SHALL SOUTHERN WISH CAPPER 19 Of 2X6 CBG MD GLLp NO PER NINIRE Nf YFRIF! IX FILL WS .1 PROVISIONS 01.1 CHI HSE NIGH EENST' PDLYEIXEINE Kl Ri 16 TCOR ANNE .TAW AN OSHA. PERMR MOM THE GII NA MARION OF � PEROTRAN CONCRETE PAVING LE HIGH POS VCP MRIFI. CLAY PIP[ PRODUCT RARELY PRIM TO THE CONFINEMENT OF MENCHLS OR IXCAVATONS WHICH AYE ME RET OR DEEPER. 2 STRAUSS& COII TO BE NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE WITH Xii STUDIOS of !o = 30R p9. (RERR TC SHED 0500 TOR DEIAIIS) IINEM MR WEST IS DIMENSIONS i0 PIPELINES ARE TO CCNERLINE UNLESS OTHWNISE NOTED. 3 CORRECT MIX LS SHML BE EFSpNED DY ME APPRWEO T611NG MEMORY AND HILUUUY CONCRETE PAVING To LOW POINT W WATER ATIMM VERSE MMMUML (REER 10 SHEET CONS AR DENTIS) MW. MVIMW WM WATER METER 16. ML WAER USES SMLL BE INSTALLED EST 36' MINIMUM LOVER FROM TOP OF PIPE MIN. MINIMUM WJ WAER VALVE TO PRINTER CewE, UNLESS OMERMSE NOTED. WRER ARRAWIOSG^E 1 THRUST RACKS SHALL BE INSTALLED Ai WATERLINE XORIZOMM AND VERTICAL BERGS. EES CAPPED EES AND REORERS ACCORDING TC THE DETNG PROPPED OX THESE D (PERI TO LWOSCAPING PUTS FOR DENTIS) PUNS. PRIM LSSETE PAVEMENT IJRG,I=C(.`T 5` TE 1 SRUSON RUMORS FOR INPRMEMEMS SHOWN ON RARE PUNS WALL BE PoBPA ULEINCED LAND ENGINEERS, DEEPER i0 SHfn 65.00 AOR DUMPS) Per section 6.5.2 of our report all IS, THE CONTRACTS PLL REPLACE ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS DAMAGES DURING LONTRU.OX 10 M\iLX FUJI INS".. I..'. }RENON RESSFACIXG. fill be S IN- pEVE.PMEM INFILIWTON P-11 0 granular materialshould (REFER 70 DETAL 7. SHEET CURB AR OUNLF 20. .MMLiOR TO LOMOCI UNDERGROUND SERILE AHEM (0.-227-2E0) PRIOR TO compacted t0 at least 95% and - Cohesive fill should be compacted Yr. IF n. ALL EMENSp ARE IN FEET OR DEGIMNS FMWF to at least 90% of the maximum 22. ALL CURB DMENSpxs AND RADS ME To PAWNING FACE Or CURB. dry density. Please update the 23. CONTRACTOR TO BE MARC OF ALL OVERH VO SEES R ALL TSS, SO AN NOT To wording t0 coincide with the sMBB MEM. recommendations in our report. ra 24. WAER SHNL BE FORMER OISR AND U5. To CONTROL DUST DURING r. C.SM...HEATERS. 25. .MRM DIWNAU PETERS SHOWS . THESE PVNS MVD BEEN FOCUSED .R THE FIFA SIZE CONSISTS Al .MPIETON OF THE PROJECT . WE.MRATOR IS { NITW IT RESPONSIBLE FOR MNMAXING ADVOCATE DRAGNGE Of THE SE DURING IXEMN - GDxoMEMO aT cexsIRUCIIpx. 26. Cc sH4L DOWN NL BLOB RR PERMns IxcwoMG xpofs. To EDmE X PROMAI I"BRAE Ani 6 FOR DEEPEROf CROSOWAIER 1NOi MAYBE " ELESSM1PI TO A[CO FXCAVATOG SHDWX OX /MISE PEAKS f 27. ALL IORI_T , TO BE Be'OIAIED TO ,EDEN WORN. SIT IRRILATION 10 BE .GRAD ENDSAFTER YroBE E COMPLETE . Per section 6.6.1 of our report fill Y ' ze. ,EDTO BE COOKIE w ALL AREA➢ or NOR.. materials should be free of organic - matter and other deleterious materials. Please remove wording allowing the existing irrigation lines to be crushed and left in the SHEET INDEX: fill. 11 CML OMWINCs Per section 6.5.2 of our report all granular fill material should be compacted to at least 95% and Cohesive fill should be compacted. to at least 90% of the maximum dry density. Please update the wording to coincide with the recommendations in our repot. 1-800-227-2600 Cour PSA/sc FOR UNDERGROUND LOCATING 48 HOURS BEETLE YOU DIGI UP NYIRKINC 0001 SME SHEET JI.E. SIMIN (NR RERRENLE ONLY) LI D1 BEGUN (FOR MTETENLE ONLY) CLZO DENOUSN AND UNLESS CONTROL PVN PO MOM. GRAGNAGE, AND UD PLAN CI.. PANNG PVN DRUM cm, .TNS C5L1 CML JEWS OF SOILS E�lN�ING/G�tM REPORT IN GEODESM INC RATED RIOS CLEMENT! HALE STUDIOS 3101 W EXPOSITION PLACE L05 ANGELES, CA 90018 BE: 323.}85.18. FAX: 323.155.1501 FCMWSID.MCOm lcpff PJP F 213 266 b2N FI 1500 Quail Street 1500 quail Street NEWPORTBEACH, CAS260 11/30/18 901 9 GENERAL NOTES i 00.01 © RIOS CLEMENTE HALE STUDIOS A MUDESIGN= REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES Proposed Landscape Improvements 1 500 Quail Street Newport Beach, California For Lincoln Property Company November 12. 2018 GeoDesign Project: L -Prop -6-01 r RECEIVED JAN 16 2019 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP 4 7JAN2019 6Y:8.R:Q REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES Proposed Landscape Improvements 1 500 Quail Street Newport Beach, California For Lincoln Property Company November 12. 2018 GeoDesign Project: L -Prop -6-01 r RECEIVED JAN 16 2019 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP F, F, MODESIGN= r November 12, 2018 Lincoln Property Com 1 500 Quail Street Newport Beach, CA 9; Attention: Parke Miller Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Landscape Improvements 1500 Quail Street Newport Beach, California GeoDesign Project: L -Prop -6-01 GeoDesign, Inc. is pleased to submit this report summarizing our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed landscape improvements planned at 1500 Quail Street in Newport Beach, California. Our services were performed in general accordance with our proposal dated August 20, 2018. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. Please contact us if you have questions regarding this report. Sincerely, Oteopherj. 'n, Inc. L Zadoorian, G.E. Principal Engineer cc: Brent Jacobsen, Rios Clementi Hale Studios (three copies) Kira Delk, KPFF Consulting Engineers (via email only) AJA:CJZ:kt Attachments Two copies submitted Document ID: L-Prop-6-01-111218-geor.docx © 2018 GeoDesign, Inc. All rights reserved. 2121 S Towne Centre Place, Suite 104 1 Anaheim, CA 92806 1. 714.634.3701 www.geodesigninc.com j TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING 1 3.1 Surface Conditions 1 3.2 Subsurface Conditions 2 3.3 Field Percolation Testing 2 3.4 Laboratory Testing 3 4.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS 4 4.1 General 4 4.2 Faults 4 4.3 Seismic Hazard Zones 4 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 4 5.1 General 4 5.2 Foundations 5 5.3 Site Flatwork 5 5.4 Stormwater Infiltration 5 5.5 On -Site Material 5 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5 6.1 Foundations 5 6.2 Site Flatwork 6 6.3 Seismic Design 6 6.4 Site Infiltration 7 6.5 Grading Considerations 7 6.6 Materials for Fill 8 7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION 8 8.0 LIMITATIONS 8 FIGURES Vicinity Map Figure 1 Site Plan Figure 2 APPENDICES Appendix A i. Field Explorations A-1 Laboratory Testing A-2 Exploration Key Table A-1 Soil Classification System Table A-2 Boring Logs Figures A-1 -A-2 Direct Shear Test Results Figure A-3 ;J Moisture -Density Relationship Figure A-4 Summary of Laboratory Data Figure A-5 =DESIGN? L -Prop -6-01:111218 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. APPENDICES (continued) Appendix B Results of Percolation Testing =DESIGN= L -Prop -6-01:111215 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AC asphalt concrete ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BGS below the ground surface CBC California Building Code CGS California Geological Survey CIDH cast -in -drilled hole g gravitational acceleration (32.2 feet/second) MCE maximum considered earthquake pcf pounds per cubic foot psf pounds per square foot PVC polyvinyl chloride SPT standard penetration test i L. =DESIGN= L -Prop -6-01:1 1 1218 1.0 INTRODUCTION r� This report summarizes our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed landscape improvements planned at 1 500 Quail Street in Newport Beach, California. The site location is shown on Figure 1. You furnished us with conceptual plans dated January 2018 for the proposed improvements and we briefly discussed the planned work with Brent Jacobsen of Rios Clementi Hale Studios. Based on our review of the plans and our discussions with Mr. Jacobsen, the proposed improvements include two outdoor work lounge/seating areas to be constructed on the north and south sides of the property. New concrete and concrete paver walkways as also planned and a new a new stormwater infiltration system will be constructed. r Our services are summarized below followed by our conclusions regarding the feasibility of the proposed development and recommendations for design and pertinent construction -related items. Acronyms and abbreviations used herein are defined above, immediately following the ' Table of Contents. 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our services was to perform field explorations to collect subsurface data for use in development of geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. The primary tasks associated with our services included the following: • Drilling two borings and collecting representative soil samples • Performing field percolation testing • Performing geotechnical laboratory testing on select soil samples • Developing foundation design recommendations • Developing seismic design recommendations • Developing recommendations for design of site flatwork and pavement design • Developing recommendations for general site grading and earthwork • Developing recommendations for a stormwater infiltration system • Preparing this report that summarizes our investigation and presents our design recommendations 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is currently developed with an existing mid -rise tower located at the southwest corner of the site, with surface parking lots to the north and east of the tower and landscaped areas to the west and south. Based on our review of information available from GoogleEarth°, the ground surface level at the site ranges from approximately Elevation 40 to 42. I L. =DESIGN= 7 L -Prop -6-01:111218 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS We explored subsurface conditions by drilling two borings (B-1 and B-2) to a depth of 21 .5 feet BGS using hollow -stem auger equipment at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. We collected relatively undisturbed samples at regular intervals from the borings and also a bulk sample of the upper soil from boring B-1. We maintained a log of the subsurface conditions in each exploration. Upon completion of drilling we backfilled the borings with the drill cuttings and restored the ground surface to pre- existing conditions. The samples collected from the borings were subsequently transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and testing of the pertinent engineering and index properties of the soil. AC pavement 4.0 to 4.5 inches thick underlain by 7.0 and 9.0 inches of aggregate base materials were encountered in borings B-1 and B-2, respectively. The soil encountered beneath the AC pavement and aggregate base consists of medium stiff silt and loose, silty sand to depths between 4.5 and 8 feet BGS underlain predominately by stiff to very stiff clay and sandy clay and medium stiff to stiff, sandy silt. The upper medium stiff, silty soil has moderate plasticity. Groundwater was not encountered to the depths explored during our investigation. Based on our review of the groundwater map presented in the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Tustin 7.5 -Minutes Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 012 (Plate 1.2), published by CGS, the historical high groundwater level at the site is approximately 10 feet BGS. Our exploration logs are presented in Appendix A. 3.3 FIELD PERCOLATION TESTING We performed field percolation testing in general conformance with the Deep Percolation Test Procedure outlined in Appendix VII of the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), dated December 20, 2013, in the percolation test wells (PT -1 and PT -2) at a depth of 5 feet BGS. The test procedure consisted of drilling 8 -inch -diameter boreholes adjacent to borings B-1 and B-2. The test wells were drilled to the corresponding test depth below the existing ground surface; placing a 2 -inch -diameter, perforated pipe in the holes; and backfilling the annulus with clean gravel to avoid caving in the test zone. To perform the necessary testing, a 2 -inch -diameter PVC pipe was installed within the hollow - stem auger simultaneously as the auger was being withdrawn from the hole. The lower 5 feet of the PVC pipe was screened, and an end cap was installed at the bottom of the pipe. To prevent caving of the boring side wall, stem auger was withdrawn. l� i MDESIGN= L. filter pack gravel was placed around the PVC pipe as the hollow - L -Prop -6-01:1 1 1218 r - The testing consisted of introducing water to the subsurface soil through the PVC pipe and measuring the rate or infiltration. Prior to testing, we pre-soaked the soil in each test well by introducing water into the wells. During this period, we measured the water level to determine if the pre-soaking period could be discontinued as permitted by the referenced Orange County guidelines. The field percolation testing was initiated following the completion of the pre-soak process. Water was added to the well and the water level in the well was measured at 10- and 30 -minute intervals for test wells PT -2 and PT -1, respectively. Testing was considered complete after the rate of percolation stabilized, or a minimum time was reached as outlined in the referenced Orange County guidelines. The results from our testing indicate that higher design infiltration rates are achievable in the loose, coarse-grained soil at the site and data from adjacent borings indicate that the loose, coarse-grained soil is present at variable depths within the general project area. The results of our percolation testing are summarized in Table 1 and presented in Appendix B. Table 1. Summary of Percolation Testing per County of Orange TGD Handbook The substantial difference in the design infiltration rates is a result of different soil types present at the test depth. The sand layer encountered within PT -2 does not appear to be continuous across the site as it was not encountered in PT -1 . 3.4 LABORATORY TESTING t_. Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on the samples collected during our investigation and included the following: • In-place dry density and moisture content • Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content • Direct shear Results of the testing are presented in Appendix A. i =DESIGN= 3 L -Prop -6-01 :1 11218 Test Tested Design Factor of Test No. Depth p Soil T e Type Infiltration Rate Infiltration Rate (feet BGS) (inches per hour) Safety' (inches per hour) PT -1 5 Clay 0.04 2 0.02 PT -2 5 Sand 16.76 2 8.38 per County of Orange TGD Handbook The substantial difference in the design infiltration rates is a result of different soil types present at the test depth. The sand layer encountered within PT -2 does not appear to be continuous across the site as it was not encountered in PT -1 . 3.4 LABORATORY TESTING t_. Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on the samples collected during our investigation and included the following: • In-place dry density and moisture content • Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content • Direct shear Results of the testing are presented in Appendix A. i =DESIGN= 3 L -Prop -6-01 :1 11218 4.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS 4.1 GENERAL Faults in California are considered active, potentially active, and inactive for planning and development purposes based on criteria developed by CGS for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program (CGS, 2018). A fault is considered active that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is a fault that has demonstrated displacement of Quaternary Age deposits (last 1.6 million years). Inactive faults have no documented movement in the last 1.6 million years. The primary purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program is to identify sites that have a potential for surface rupture due to faults that are in close proximity to a site. In such cases, a building setback zone is established to mitigate the potential for surface fault rupture. The tectonics of the Southern California region are dominated by the interaction of the North American plate and the Pacific plate, which meet along a right -lateral, transform (strike -slip) tectonic margin. Slip across the tectonic margin is accommodated across a wide zone of regional faults and by rotation of crustal blocks such as the western Transverse Ranges (Dickinson, 1996). 4.2 FAULTS The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS Regulatory Map), and no known active faults are shown on current geologic maps as crossing the site. However, the site is located within proximity of several faults within the Newport Beach -designated zone that are presently zoned as active or potentially active by CGS. The nearest known active faults are the San Joaquin Hills and Newport -Inglewood, which are located approximately 2 and 4.96 miles from of the site, respectively. 4.3 SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES The site is not located within an area mapped as having the potential for seismically induced liquefaction, as shown on the Seismic Hazard Zone Map for Tustin 7.5 -minute Quadrangle (CGS, 2001). The site is also not located within an area mapped as having potential for earthquake - induced landslides. Given the location and recommendations within this report, site-specific liquefaction and seismic hazard analyses are not required. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 GENERAL The site is free from geologic or seismic hazards that would preclude the proposed development, s_1 and the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The proposed development will not adversely impact adjacent sites provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. L, I LJ. MDESIGN`' 4 L -Prop -6-01:111218 r• The site is subject to strong ground shaking that would result from an earthquake occurring on a nearby or distant fault source; however, this hazard is common in southern California and can be mitigated by following the CBC seismic design requirements. 5.2 FOUNDATIONS Based on the data collected from our investigation, the soil present at the planned foundation levels for the proposed shade structures and seats generally consists of medium stiff silt that is suitable for foundation support. The stiff silt typically has low to moderate plasticity. 5.3 SITE FLATWORK The upper soil generally consists of medium stiff silt with moderate plasticity. This soil is generally suitable for support of site flatwork; however, it may be prudent to remove a nominal thickness of the upper soil to minimize the potential for swelling and shrinking of this soil that could adversely affect site flatwork. 5.4 STORMWATER INFILTRATION The results of the field percolation testing indicated design infiltration rates of 0.02 inch per hour in the on-site clayey soil and 8.38 inches per hour in the on-site sandy soil. Stormwater infiltration is feasible provided it is performed within on-site sandy soil layers. Our investigation identified one such location in the area adjacent to PT -2. Additional explorations could be performed to identify additional suitable locations for stormwater infiltration. 5.5 ON-SITE MATERIAL The upper on-site silty soil is generally suitable for re -use on required backfills; however, it should be understood that control of the moisture content of this soil will be important to obtain the required degree of compaction. The use of relatively lightweight compaction equipment would facilitate compaction efforts in this soil. On-site granular soil is also suitable for re -use in any required fills. AC generated from on-site demolition is suitable for re -use in compacted fills provided it is processed and placed as recommended herein. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 FOUNDATIONS 6.1.1 Spread and Continuous Footings The proposed shade structures can be established on spread and continuous footings i established in properly compacted fill soil. New spread and continuous footings established in the properly compacted fill material a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade or finish floor level may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The recommended allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering short-term wind or seismic loading. L=DESIGN= 5 L -Prop -6-01:111218 r' We estimate total static settlement due to the planned foundation loading will be negligible (less than %4 inch). Lateral loading may be resisted by foundations using an ultimate passive soil resistance of 400 psf per foot of embedment and an ultimate coefficient of friction of 0.6 for footings where the concrete is placed directly against the undisturbed properly compacted fill. The passive soil resistance and frictional resistance can be used in combination with a reduced ultimate passive pressure equal to 200 psf per foot of embedment to account for the lateral deformation required to mobilize the full passive resistance. 6.1.2 Drilled Shaft Caissons Drilled shafts a minimum of 24 inches in diameter and 6 feet in depth spaced at least 3 diameters on -center may be designed using an allowable side friction of 400 psf and an allowable end bearing capacity of 2,000 psf for resisting downward loading. Upward loading may be resisted using a side friction of 300 psf. The allowable side friction and end bearing values may be increased by one-third for short-term loading. Lateral loading on the shafts may be resisted using a passive pressure equal to 400 psf per foot of embedment up to a maximum of 4,000 psf beginning at a depth of 1 foot below the finish grade. For drilled shafts spaced at least 8 diameters on -center, the recommended allowable passive pressure may be doubled in accordance with the CBC allowance for the case of isolated pole foundations. Prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete, foundation bottoms should be free of debris or loose soil. Concrete shall be placed in accordance with American Concrete Institute standards. Standing water shall be removed from the CIDH shafts or concrete shall be placed with a tremie that extends to within 1 foot of the bottom of the CIDH shaft and a nominal concrete head shall be maintained during placement. 6.2 SITE FLATWORK To provide uniform support for site flatwork, we recommend the upper 6 inches be removed and replaced with non -expansive granular material. Prior to the placement of the non -expansive material, the exposed native silt should be moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent over the optimum moisture content and rolled with lightweight equipment. 6.3 SEISMIC DESIGN Seismic design parameters for the structure were determined in accordance with the 2016 CBC and ASCE 7-16. The seismic design parameters are presented in Table 2. I f_, DESIGN= 6 L -Prop -6-01:111218 Table 2. Seismic Design Parameters 6.4 SITE INFILTRATION Stormwater infiltration is feasible provided it is performed within on-site sandy soil layers. Our investigation identified one such location in the area adjacent to PT -2. A design stormwater infiltration rate of 8.38 inches per hour may be used for the on-site granular soil. Additional explorations could be performed to identify additional suitable locations for stormwater infiltration. 6.5 GRADING CONSIDERATIONS 6.5.1 General If not carefully executed, site preparation can result in the presence of disturbed and/or excessively soft soil conditions. This may require additional effort to mitigate or in more extreme cases, if not detected, could result in significant costs to repair damage to flatwork or structures. Earthwork should be planned and executed to minimize subgrade disturbance. Soil that has been disturbed during site preparation activities and/or soft or loose zones identified during probing should be removed beneath foundation bottoms and flatwork. 6.5.2 Compaction All granular fill material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density at or near the optimum moisture content, as determined by ASTM Dl 557. Cohesive fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by t , ASTM D1557, and moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent over the optimum moisture content. Fill material should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, properly moisture conditioned, and mechanically compacted to the minimum required density. For granular fill, compaction may be achieved using heavy equipment and vibration. i 6.5.3 Site Drainage Adequate site drainage should always be maintained. Site drainage should be collected and routed to suitable discharge locations. i L MDESIGM 7 L -Prop -6-01:111218 Short Period 1 Second Period Parameter (T, = 0.2 second) (T, = 1.0 second) MCE Spectral Acceleration S, = 1.591 g S, = 0.583 g Site Class D Site Coefficient F, = 1.0 F� = 1.5 Adjusted Spectral Acceleration S,Hs = 1.591 g SM, = 0.874 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters S, = 1.060 g So, = 0.583 g 6.4 SITE INFILTRATION Stormwater infiltration is feasible provided it is performed within on-site sandy soil layers. Our investigation identified one such location in the area adjacent to PT -2. A design stormwater infiltration rate of 8.38 inches per hour may be used for the on-site granular soil. Additional explorations could be performed to identify additional suitable locations for stormwater infiltration. 6.5 GRADING CONSIDERATIONS 6.5.1 General If not carefully executed, site preparation can result in the presence of disturbed and/or excessively soft soil conditions. This may require additional effort to mitigate or in more extreme cases, if not detected, could result in significant costs to repair damage to flatwork or structures. Earthwork should be planned and executed to minimize subgrade disturbance. Soil that has been disturbed during site preparation activities and/or soft or loose zones identified during probing should be removed beneath foundation bottoms and flatwork. 6.5.2 Compaction All granular fill material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density at or near the optimum moisture content, as determined by ASTM Dl 557. Cohesive fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by t , ASTM D1557, and moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent over the optimum moisture content. Fill material should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, properly moisture conditioned, and mechanically compacted to the minimum required density. For granular fill, compaction may be achieved using heavy equipment and vibration. i 6.5.3 Site Drainage Adequate site drainage should always be maintained. Site drainage should be collected and routed to suitable discharge locations. i L MDESIGM 7 L -Prop -6-01:111218 r - r 6.5.4 Removal of Expansive Soil Some of the on-site soil may have moderate expansion potential and, where present, this soil should be removed for a depth of 12 inches below the bottom of proposed site flatwork sections and replaced with %-inch-minus crushed rock. Existing fill soil is generally considered suitable for site flatwork support and does not require removal unless it is identified as having the potential for shrinking or swelling. 6.6 MATERIALS FOR FILL 6.6.1 General If necessary, the fill materials should be free of organic matter and other deleterious material and, in general, should consist of particles no larger than 6 inches in largest dimension. The following sections provide recommendations for the re -use of on-site materials in compacted fill and for the use of imported materials in required fill. 6.6.2 On -Site Native Soil The on-site native granular soil is suitable for use in the required fill provided particles larger than 3 inches in largest dimension are removed. Where larger -sized materials are used, the percentage of this material in a representative section of the fill should be limited to 5 percent. The on-site fill consisting of clay or expansive soil is not considered suitable for use in structural fill or within 2 feet of floor slabs or other flatwork but may be used as secondary fill in landscaping areas. 6.6.3 Imported Granular Material Imported fill material should have a sand equivalent of at least 35 and should be approved by our firm prior to import to the site. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION Geotechnical testing and observation during construction is considered to be a continuing part of the geotechnical consultation. To confirm that the recommendations presented herein remain applicable, our representative should be present at the site to provide appropriate observation and testing for geotechnical -related construction activities. 8.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Lincoln Property Company and members of the design and construction teams for the proposed development. The data and report can be used for estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions and are not applicable to other sites. Soil explorations indicate soil conditions only at specific locations and only to the depths e_ penetrated. They do not necessarily reflect soil strata or water level variations that may exist between exploration locations. If subsurface conditions differing from those described are noted during excavation and construction, re-evaluation will be necessary. L �, MDESIGN= 8 _ L -Prop -6-01:111218 r� t The recommendations presented in this report are based on the current site development plan and structural information provided to us by the project team. If design changes are made, we f should be retained to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide a written evaluation or modification. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with that degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other r conditions, express or implied, should be understood. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Please call if you have questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services. Sincerely, GeoDesign, Inc. C 84728 Andrew J. Atry, P.E. Project Engineer sp Cl"- 9T`cOF CAl1F�� Signed 11/12/2018 Chr erJ. Zadoorian, G.E. Principal Engineer L- I I L =DESIGN= 9 RJOHNiq No. 2493 U = Signed 11/12/2018 L -Prop -6-01:11 1218 z/ ✓�. I m a >/e Paulann'o-Ave- i S ah%n �? i / Z71 G?�' �0 y AF ,gid' CSI �3 C) m u � ,. _. aV,_ 0 F i� l ;1 41, , VICINITY MAP CREATED WITH ••O02107 NATIONAL 'GEOGRAPHIC 1 2000 4111 SITE LOCATION-6=m (SCALEl/1, 33.661883' 8102 'OZ N38W31d3S SOIOfllS HJa INMIJ C13NIVIRO 30VWI NO 03SV8 NVId 3115 o ® (133d NI 31VDS) V > F • SAQ 09 0£ 0 �N INC �z °s o INC m 0 O O Z O O Z F O i n D m 2 3 y1 DOAm rn m m y m r m D N Z !)NR1O8 o L 9 n :(3N3!)31 M N 'dAl YIIV163tl UI�iU-4.)GIaf71 '4k 'NOYHTd OI 3,741 t'i7 jow". I'm Etl7Ag1 Mwl Bid WxH It.&. HI OKUM t`imo I OOLW NPYtY1B Inl Z-ao dl -L 301(N1 lgpsghx31a 411 tAK M�YSti¢it 41 37pd IsiM1il13/ N(YH i'J ql ^MtRYA a 7! II . '+.Al'Ifb'J3 sat r l.51'A112NgW �- Clft{7tlt38 dD WI i I 1 i 1 i �33'�ls 7�b�0 LJ 5 t. 3SINo1 lk 1:H.)!LINDW U,B'N1 stat)raq?41b.i41kY8 LR) IMA0114 M.00439 004M 1L ^.-id HtXH.0 C•, t111 .7 ! 1/} x F �l m r xr» a .7 ! 1/} APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS GENERAL We explored the subsurface conditions at the site by drilling two borings (B-1 and B-2) to a depth of 21.5 feet BGS at the locations shown on Figure 2. The boring and test wells were r drilled on August 29, 2018 by Martini Drilling of Huntington Beach, California, using a truck- mounted drill rig equipped with hollow -stem augers. The exploration logs are presented in this appendix. The locations of the explorations were determined in the field by measuring with a wheel or 100 -foot tape from existing site features. This information should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used. A member of our geotechnical staff observed and logged the explorations. We collected representative samples of the various soils encountered in the explorations for geotechnical laboratory testing. SOIL SAMPLING Samples were collected from the borings using a modified California split -spoon sampler in general accordance with ASTM D3550. The split -spoon samplers were driven into the soil with a 140 -pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The samplers were driven a total distance of 18 inches or to refusal as indicated on the exploration logs. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is recorded on the exploration logs, unless otherwise noted. In addition, SPTs were performed in the borings in general accordance with ASTM D1586. The 2 -inch -diameter, split -spoon sampler was driven into the soil with a 140 -pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The samplers were driven a total distance of 18 inches or to refusal. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is recorded on the exploration logs, unless otherwise noted. Sampling methods and intervals are shown on the exploration logs. SOIL CLASSIFICATION The soil samples were classified in accordance with the "Exploration Key' (Table A-1) and "Soil Classification System" (Table A-2), which are presented in this appendix. The exploration logs indicate the depths at which the soils or their characteristics change, although the change could be gradual. If the change occurred between sample locations, the depth was interpreted. j Classifications are shown on the exploration logs. L_. L =DESIGN= L -Prop -6-01:091718 LABORATORY TESTING CLASSIFICATION The soil samples were classified in the laboratory to confirm field classifications. If those classifications differed from the field classifications, the laboratory classifications are presented on the exploration logs. F MOISTURE CONTENT We tested the natural moisture content of select soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D2216. The natural moisture content is a ratio of the weight of the water to soil in a test f sample and is expressed as a percentage. The test results are presented in this appendix. DRY DENSITY We tested select soil samples to determine the in situ dry density. The test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D2937. The dry density is defined as the ratio of the dry weight of the soil sample to the volume of that sample. The dry density typically is expressed in units of pcf. The test result is presented in this appendix. STRENGTH TESTING Direct shear testing was completed on select soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D3080. The test results are presented in this appendix. MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TESTING Maximum density testing was completed on a select soil sample in general accordance with ASTM D1557. The test results are presented in this appendix. MDESIGN= L -Prop -6-01:091718 SYMBOL SAMPLING DESCRIPTION Location of sample obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 1 586 Standard Penetration Test with recovery Location of sample obtained using thin-wall Shelby tube or Geoprobe® sampler in general accordance with ASTM D 1587 with recovery Location of sample obtained using Dames & Moore sampler and 300 -pound hammer or pushed with recovery Location of sample obtained using Dames & Moore and 140 -pound hammer or pushed with recovery Location of sample obtained using 3-inch-O.D. California split -spoon sampler and 140 -pound hammer Location of grab sample Graphic Log of Soil and Rock Types Rock coring interval ;.' Observed contact between soil or : ;:; rock units (at depth indicated) Water level during drilling Inferred contact between soil or rock units (at approximate depths indicated) Water level taken on date shown GEOTECHNICAL TESTING EXPLANATIONS ATT Atterberg Limits P Pushed Sample CBR California Bearing Ratio PP Pocket Penetrometer CON Consolidation P200 Percent Passing U.S. Standard No. 200 DD Dry Density Sieve DS Direct Shear RES Resilient Modulus HYD Hydrometer Gradation SIEV Sieve Gradation MC Moisture Content TOR Torvane MD Moisture -Density Relationship UC Unconfined Compressive Strength NP Nonplastic VS Vane Shear OC Organic Content kPa Kilopascal ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING EXPLANATIONS CA Sample Submitted for Chemical Analysis ND Not Detected P Pushed Sample NS No Visible Sheen PID Photoionization Detector Headspace SS Slight Sheen Analysis MS Moderate Sheen ppm Parts per Million HS Heavy Sheen MUDESIGNz 21215Towne Centre -Since 104 EXPLORATION KEY TABLE A-1 Anaheim C CA 928 92806 714.634 3701 www.geodesignlncmm r' RELATIVE DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOIL Relative Density Standard Penetration Resistance Dames & Moore Sampler (140 -pound hammer) Dames & Moore Sampler (300 -pound hammer) Very Loose 0-4 0-11 0-4 Loose 4- 10 11 -26 4-10 Medium Dense 10-30 26-74 10-30 Dense 30-50 74-120 30-47 Very Dense More than 50 More than 120 More than 47 CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL Standard Dames &Moore Consistency Penetration Sampler Resistance (140 -pound hammer) Dames & Moore Sampler (300 -pound hammer) Unconfined Compressive Strength (tsf) Very Soft Less than 2 Less than 3 Less than 2 Less than 0.25 Soft 2-4 3-6 2-5 0.25-0.50 Medium Stiff 4 - 8 6-12 5 -9 0.50- 1.0 Stiff 8-15 12-25 9-19 1.0-2.0 Very Stiff 15-30 25-65 19-31 2.0-4.0 Hard More than 30 More than 65 More than 31 More than 4.0 PRIMARY SOIL DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE- GRAINED SOIL GRAVEL (more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) CLEAN GRAVEL I<5%fines) GW or GP GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES (Z 5% and s 12% fines) GW -GM or GP -GM GRAVEL with silt GW -GC or GP -GC GRAVEL with clay GRAVEL WITH FINES (> 12% fines) GM silty GRAVEL GC clayey GRAVEL GC -GM silty, clayey GRAVEL (more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve) SAND (50% or more of coarse fraction passing No. 4 sieve) CLEAN SAND (<5% fines) SW or SP SAND SAND WITH FINES ('- 5% and < 12% fines) SW -SM or SP -SM SAND with silt SW -SC or SP -SC SAND with clay SAND WITH FINES I> 12% fines) SM silty SAND SC clayey SAND SC -SM silty, clayey SAND FINE-GRAINED SOIL (50% or more passing No. 200 sieve) SILT AND CLAY Liquid limit less than 50 ML SILT CL CLAY CL -ML silty CLAY OL ORGANIC SILT or ORGANIC CLAY Liquid limit 50 or greater MH SILT CH CLAY OH ORGANIC SILT or ORGANIC CLAY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL PT PEAT MOISTURE CLASSIFICATION ADDITIONAL CONSTITUENTS Term Field Test Secondary granular components or other materials such as organics, man-made debris, etc. Percent Silt and Clay In: Fine -Grained Coarse- Percent Soil Grained Soil Sand and Gravel In: dry very low moisture, dry to touch Fine -Grained Soil Coarse - Grained Soil moist damp, without visible moisture < 5 trace trace < 5 trace trace 5 - 12 minor with 5 - 15 minor minor wet visible free water, usually saturated > 12 some silty/clayey 15 - 30 with with > 30 sandy/gravelly Indicate % MDESIG N= 2121 S Towne Centre Place - SW Ie 104 Anaheim CA92806 ]14.fi34.3]01 wxw.,.geadesignincmm SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM TABLE A-2 ox Z ♦ BLOW COUNT INSTALLATION AND DEPTH u MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 Q F- d Z N J a MOISTURE CONTENT% COMMENTS FEET d 20.0 w o w Q < ® RQD% ® CORE REC% 4 c w H has medium plasticity, sand is fine, r3 43.0 trace manganese oxide and iron oxide o so too b > ASPHALT CONCRETE (4.0 inches). a-3 at 20.0 feet 21.5 AGGREGATE BASE (7.0 inches). s b 22.s Exploration completed at a depth of Bohr sample collected from 0.9 - 21.5 feet. o.oms.ofeet. Medium stiff, olive -brown, sandy SILT (ML); moist, sand is fine, micaceous. = Groundwater not encountered during 2.5- drilling. • �5 - = zs.o DD DD -111 pcf Ds cold patch asphalt. _____________________ 38.5 5.0— Loose, brown, silty SAND (SM); moist, 4.5 27.5- s30.0 sand is fine, micaceous. DD - DD = 703 pcf O5 7.5 30.0-- .. --------------------- 35.0 > DRILLED BY: Martini Drilling LOGGED BY: C. McGuire COMPLETED08129118 BORING METHOD: hollow -stem auger (see document text) BORING BIT DIAMETER: flinches DESIGN? Very stiff, pale olive -brown, sandy CLAY 80 BORING B-1 zm sTo na Centre 9280lace suite 104 Anaheim NOVEMBER 2018 (CL); moist, clay has medium plasticity, PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE A-1 714.634.370 ,,mdr,6 wmv.geodesigninomm NEWPORT BEACH, CA sand is fine, trace caliche and 10.0 manganese oxide, micaceous. 33: Do DD = 107 pcf 12.5 __________________ 29.5 Medium stiff, olive -brown with red- 13.5 brown mottled, sandy SILT (ML); moist, 15.0 silt is non -plastic, sand is fine to medium, trace caliche, micaceous. 17.S 20.0 stiff, red -brown, decreased sand; silt has medium plasticity, sand is fine, r3 trace manganese oxide and iron oxide s at 20.0 feet 21.5 s b 22.s Exploration completed at a depth of - 21.5 feet. = Groundwater not encountered during drilling. = zs.o Backfilled with cuttings. Patched with = cold patch asphalt. 27.5- s30.0 30.0-- o so 100 > DRILLED BY: Martini Drilling LOGGED BY: C. McGuire COMPLETED08129118 BORING METHOD: hollow -stem auger (see document text) BORING BIT DIAMETER: flinches DESIGN? L -PROP -s-01 BORING B-1 zm sTo na Centre 9280lace suite 104 Anaheim NOVEMBER 2018 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE A-1 714.634.370 ,,mdr,6 wmv.geodesigninomm NEWPORT BEACH, CA IN U 0 DEPTH u FEET a z 2.5 Ice 7.5 12.5 15.0 1T5 20.0 �Izz.s 27.5 cW#1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 Medium stat, brown, sandy SILT moist, sand is fine to medium. Stiff, brown with gray moledttCLAY 1 with sand (CL); moist, clay has low plasticity, sand is fine, trace caliche. very stiff, olive -brown, increased sand trace iron oxide at 10.0 feet Stiff, olive -brown with brown mottled, 1 sandy SILT (ML), some clay; moist, silt has low plasticity, trace manganese, micaceous. txpioration completed at a depth of 21.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled with cuttings. Patched with cold patch asphalt. INSTALLATION AND COMMENTS DO = 108 pd DO — 116 pcf o I DRILLED BY: Martini Dulling LOGGED BY: C. McGuire COMPLETED: 08/29/18 BORING METHOD: hollow -stem auger (see document text) BORING BIT DIAMETER: 8 inches L -PROP -6-01 BORING B-2 MDESIGNz 2121 sTOem0smte lea Anahcn 9286PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS )14.634.3]01 w .gsodesigntoc.wm NOVEMBER 2018 NEWPORT BEACH, CA FIGURE A-2 KEY EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SOAKED • B-1 2.5 5,000 111 YES m B-1 5.0 19 103 YES ♦ B-2 2.5 7 8 108 YES 4,000 u. a 3,000 U z W in C Q W of 2,000 40 1,000 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 a NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) z 0 z 0 0 u 0 O x O O z Z �DESIG N= L -PROP -6-01 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Gx121 S Towne Ce0lre Place Suite 134 Anaheim CA 92906 NOVEMBER 2018 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS FIGO RE A-3 0 714.634.3)01 www.geode➢0ninc.com NEWPORT BEACH, CA KEY EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SOAKED • B-1 2.5 15 111 YES m B-1 5.0 19 103 YES ♦ B-2 2.5 7 8 108 YES { LJ r L 135 130 125 ` `. Source of Material B-1 0.0 feet ...:...:......:...:...:...:..... ......:. ri Y N/A Description p of Material 120 Test Method ASTM Dl 557 Method A : 1 7 5 _.....:...;..;... ...........:...... . TEST RESULTS Maximum Dry Density 125.0 PCF ........:...:..p :..., ... O t' 10.1 % Optimum Water Content 110 LL u..... .....:......:...:. IL } H ...�.......i...:....... i ...:....:...:.......... i........ ..........i...:...... i...:.. Curves of 100% Saturation z 105 for Specific Gravity Equal to: O .........:..... 2.80 > ........................................... Ce 2.70 100 ....... :...:....... ... ;........... ;..........;.......... ........... 2.60 95 Y ......................................... 90 L....................................... Z...:... :... r ...:....... :...:...: 85 ...: ......:...: .. ...:...: ........... ............: .. ... ...... ... .........:... :...: ... ..: L ...:...:...:...:......:.......:...:. a ... :.... ....... .:.. 3 80 ...'....:...:....... ...:...:...:... :... ..... .. . j ...:...:...:...:.......:...:...:...:...... ;...:...:.. 0 0 75 0 5 e 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 WATER CONTENT (PERCENT) 5 MDESIGNZ L -PROP -6-01 MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP 2121 s Towne Centre Place Suite 104 - Anaheim CA _ NOVEMBER 2018 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE A-4 714.634.3701 e.eom NEWPORT BEACH, CA L SAMPLE INFORMATION MOISTURE CONTENT (PERCENT) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SIEVE ATFERBERG LIMITS EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) ELEVATION (FEET) GRAVEL (PERCENT) SAND (PERCENT) (PERCENT) LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX B-1 2.5 40.5 15 111 B-1 5.0 38.0 19 103 B-1 10.0 33.0 20 107 B-2 2.5 38.5 18 108 B-2 10.0 31.0 15 116 MDESIGN= 212nsmw��e Cenuevisa w!1e104 AnxM1elm CA 9'.806 714,6343701na itv CA 92806 nmc.com L -PROP -6-01 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DATA NOVEMBER 2018 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS NEWPORT BEACH, CA FIGURE A -S d VI � l0 t c N O V. T 00 O O O Ol O O O C � fO N O O N O N V C _ d d T OriI J a U m b o m � C 3 � � � U d d N O U p I I p Io d d E ao w d d o� o d E E E E o d. oa N LL ZZ�mfq U D7 Ol 0 O J O d d F 0 v d CC L C 0 E d x d C O O d 10 O m m d t a m m a U F Z O 2 u d VI � l0 t c N O V. d T OriI U d d N p I I p Io N LL O d jp H t O OJ r r m LLJ y O O M d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F{dj O O O O O O O O O O O O d a a 0 d p o L9 LqM o o m 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d J a 0 d O h M M N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d J q m OJ M O N N V V V N N m W O OJ Cl T 0n W W OJ m . N O O O O O O O O O O O O o O � OO O O O O O O O O O O O O N m m h l(l l[J I(1 N N m N N 1(J N a� d N M M O OJ N N N O V j N 0 0 Cp 0 0 q C0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 � JJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C � LL i L y d O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C3 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :8 a M N M N 0 U! 0 Lq 0 In 0 Lq 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 N 0 M. 0 m 0 m 0 N 0 d O O O O O O O O o o O O o O S o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d' E Lom o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N N M M M M M M M M M M M M jp I� r m o N M V m m r W O C M O O M O V 7 V 7V 7V V' y Qj O O N N M M K V m m r0 y m n V C M r W 66�6 6 O O iV &—j M M v a N N a d F m E J � c0 �o m r O O O O O O C f0 N 1(Y CO .y a c m N O N � � 2 T O w J d U a4 D d A cm � N C 3 m o U m a — U m d LL C > wal�E�ow a E o r Y L E m VI i E o u, m m 0o 0 w Z Z O U) r o a r U OI O 01J OIL O N p �- O a d``r C r- w ,_ m d E O L U p C O a N. O y m O r 0 a m m d L dmmOUl-Z O,Gc U �o m r O T O w � N d LL C O a L F u I� M O O IO N d a a 0 a❑ O O O d C V VO m m m m > h a J a 0 d 0 O o 12 Lq U( N N O a J q A O O N O N Yl O N C jL 'L G G G O O O O O N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C = In N I(l In Ifl N N N Q d d O h h 7i 3 v v o v v v v v c $ IL r L a O O o 0 0 0 0 0 25 o 0 0 0 0 0 o c 'c a N N a O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl d'E a s 0 0 0 0 0 0 I C V yX 0 0 0 0 0 N d N O iR M N N M V O to � N N m E J � Cn www.geodesigninc.com